... we feed off of others pain ...

Its not wierd. Its not mean. Its not vindictive. Its human nature. Human relationships are the constant struggle between multiple people. We are always competing with each other - jostling for position. In romantic relationships this is even more apparent. Someone always "needs" the other more, or "loves" the other more, or something like that. We like to be on top. We like to know that we cause someone else a strong emotion... be it love or sadness. When that relationship ends - someone always comes out "on top". There is no "balance of power"... one person will almost always be the "loser". Be it profesionally, in future relationships or just in general. The "loser" will feel pain and sadness - this will feed the "winner's" ego and make them unconsciously feel better. Why? Because they have the power in their hand. They can squeeze, or flick - do whatever they want. And the other person will feel it - and they know it. Both parties know it. But power is a fickle thing.

It can see saw back and forth depending on the people, their nature and their feelings. When the "winner" starts to lose their power because the "loser" is becomming stronger and more independant the see saw tips. The power can be easily shifted back and forth - as each struggles with their feelings, and their schemes in manipulating the other.

What my real feelings are, versus the ones I show can (at times) be two very different things. I have learned to be very manipulative through my ex, and catch myself always trying to manipulate her feelings in a way which would bring me satisfaction. I am sure she does the same thing to me. Feeling one thing, but saying another - just a test of power. Trying to exercise that power - showing pain - pain that may or may not exist, feeds an ego - and that ego can choose to believe it or not. Everything is smoke and mirrors. Her pain can cause me to feel better - but it can also cause me to be suspicious - and can cause me to become more vulnerable to her. The more she opens up emotionally to me, the more she tells me she is hurting, remorseful and regretting, the more vulnerable I get. Are there motives behind her words - or genuine feeling? Who can say? What is one to believe? It is all just manouvering and manipulation. If I am to be strong, and gain the power that I want, I must stay aloof - uncaring. Stay hard and cold. But thats not in my nature. How can one go against their nature? It can be done. All in the name of manipulation and power mongering? *sigh* So much to think about.

I really shouldn't have replied to any of her emails. Now here I sit - waiting for her to email me back - and I can feel - as each hour passes - the recent power I've gained draining from me and returning to her. She is queen of manipulation - I shouldn't even try.


Or am I just over analyzing everything? heh. Could-be.

Ok so theres Meghan who is really pretty and seems like fun, and then theres Sooz who is kinda cute and shares a lot in common with me.

Meghan seems like the type who has a million friends she can never keep track of, and goes out drinking to bars/pubs every second night. She seems cool and all - but really might not be my type. We're pretty flirty with each other. I can't tell if its because she likes me or because she's just flirty in general.

Sooz is really akward around me. She seems to be socially inept at making "new" friends. She has even told me that I'm one of the only people she's ever met on her own - and not through a mutual friend. Our conversations are usually good, but I can't see her as making a good, or fun girlfriend.

Why the hell am I talking about girlfriends anyways?! Goddamn - they're so expensive! and I have no money!!! I wouldn't be able to afford it. Really - I wouldn't. So maybe I'll just concentrate on Final Fantasy XI and my homework instead. Girls. Pssscha!!

heh.

Hmm - nothing new here...

I've sold over 1100USD worth of stuff on ebay. I still can't afford the laptop I want. I will try to save up more. I didn't fill in 2 days of work on my paystub and therefore I didn't get paid for them. What the fuck is that!? Goddamn. Gotta fight the MAN. I want a Sager 8890 from this store. I will achieve my goal!! Go me!

... bahahahahahhahhaha ...

This post on CV made me laugh out loud. Its really very good. The tread was discussing the movie "Miracle" about the US winning a gold medal in the Olympics over Russia; or something like that. The thread obviously started talking about Canada and how we're the real hockey lovers etc. A couple people who acted as extras on the movie posted that (it was filmed completely in BC) they had to chant U.S.A over and over - and eventually ended up chanting YOU ARE GAY .. heh. Kinda funny. Another side note is that half-way through the filming, someone whipped out a Canadian flag and the crowd went wild. So near the end of the filming, when the director needed some extra loud cheers, he used the Canadian flag; so through a lof of this movie the loudest cheers are for Canada- not USA!!! hah. Here's that post.

bassfreak wrote:

We should make movies of getting Gold medals in anything.

They are all miracles IMHO.

Our country has less people than New york.

When we win ANYTHING over the Yanks we should celebrate.




Or better yet, not celebrate at all. Next time we beat U.S. for a Gold we should just have "MEH" on the cover of the Globe and Mail and National Post.

... I'm completely flabberghasted ...

What the hell am I supposed to do with her?! She's acting like she's in grade 11 all over again! Calling me a fucking bastard, going to someone else's site and calling her an internet dork.... She's out of control! Does she have no maturity whatsoever? Where does she get off? Who does she think she is?! Does she think she's in the right after all she's done!? BAH! I don't believe this bullshit. I Have no idea how to respond! I don't know whether to smother her with nice-ness or to just give her a cold, abrupt message. She really needs to grow up. She has to realize that she let me go, and as much as I fought it, there is only so much one can do. Yes, I've given up trying to get her back. No, I am not ready to be friends. Yes I am still in love with her. No, I will not be over her for a long time.

You know? My life has taken many curves and wierd directions - Going to Japan is by far the wierdest yet. But it was inspired completely by her. I need to get away from this city. Where every goddamned park bench reminds me of her. Where I can picture us walking through every goddamn store I pass. Everything in this city reminds me of her. The city reeks of her. I need to get away from this city, and her. I need to get away to get over her. Hopefully by the end of my first year in Japan, I should be over her. I should have completely forgotten about her, (as a girlfriend). Maybe then we can start building a friendship again.

But I'm afraid that's highly unlikely. (Unless she grows up a lot). I don't know whats going through her mind right now. How she can think that she's in the right. Does she even remember what she did? Does it mean anything to her?!

Someone mentioned I should post my essay here. It's not much. Quite a simple essay... really informal/conversational. I kinda enjoyed writing it. We'll see what comes of it; probably nothing special. Without further ado:


Eliciting Emotion Eloquently:
William Wordsworth

David Koppe
English 206
M. Harris
Tutorial: Tuesday, 12:30
February 12, 2004

They ways in which our lives change directions are mysterious. One moment you lower your eyes to a poem, and two minutes later, you are a committed student of English literature. If that poem had not existed in that moment of time, how would things be different? The poem of that moment was William Wordsworth’s I wandered lonely as a cloud. This poem has always been special to me, because it was the first poem I ever read and fully enjoyed. Until now, I have never written a full essay, or any kind of exposition on the poem, and I am excited with the prospect. Therefore here I sit, contemplating what made this poem so memorable and wonderful to me that day I first read it. In understanding why I like it so much, I will understand more about poetry and more importantly how the English language can be used to finely craft something which elicits emotion from the reader.

When I first read through this poem, the sensation of movement filled my head. The poem is constantly moving, just like the dancing field of daffodils. It is full of similes and metaphors; simple poetic devices. The first line is a simile, and starts the poem with the sensation of movement. “I wandered lonely as a cloud” (line 1). We have all watched clouds move across the sky; sometimes they move slowly, sometimes quickly. They each seem to have their own “pace”. We can picture this movement in our mind’s eye, and the imagery of a moving cloud is best elicited by the word “wandered”, for that is exactly what clouds seem to be doing. They have no direction, no purpose – they just move across the sky at a languid promenade, or sprint across at a breakneck pace. The movement Wordsworth is eliciting here is a slow pace. We can almost see the day before us; the sun is shining, the sky is a bright vivid blue, spread like a dyed tapestry across the sky. There is a slight breeze, and the cloud slowly makes its way across the crystal clear expanse of blue. The next lines,
That floats on high o’er vales and hills,

When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.
(Lines 2 – 6)

transform the simile into a metaphor. After line 2, the simile ceases to be a simple comparison of how a person walking on his own can be seen as one of the lonely clouds in the sky, and Wordsworth becomes the cloud. The cloud becomes a visual image to carry us through the poem. We see how the cloud wanders through the sky, we see how it stares down at us from above – but suddenly, we are the cloud, staring down at the world below. We are reversed, and the sensation of movement quickens; we are suddenly soaring thousands of miles above the ground, admiring the beauty of the world below us. The daffodils come into the picture; we see a “host” of them. The feeling of movement is reinforced, when Wordsworth uses the verb “fluttering”; to modify the metaphor “dancing”. “Fluttering” is the type of movement we would use to describe leaves, petals, butterflies and birds. It is a soft movement, and like the clouds, sometimes fast, and sometimes slow. I picture this word being used to describe a leisurely pace, not quite fast, but then, not exactly slow either. Since dancing can indicate so many different forms of movement, Wordsworth took the word fluttering and applied it to flowers, which he described as “dancing”. Therefore we are given a beautiful image of a field of flowers moving under the breeze. Moving like the great wheat fields in central Canada. That kind of movement in nature has a unique appearance, and you are always able to distinguish it as a distinct form of moving. It was like that in 1802, and it is still like that today; Wordsworth described it perfectly by using the words he chose.

Rhyme and meter plays an important role in this poem as well. It is written in iambic tetrameter, because each line has eight syllables, and the poem is made up of four verses. The iambic pattern of stressed and non-stressed syllables is used. (ta TUM ta TUM ta TUM ta TUM). Wordsworth often changes the rhythm to break up the monotony of the poem. Taking a closer look at the first two verses, we can determine where the stresses fall.

I WANdered LONEly AS a CLOUD
That FLOATS on HIGH o’er VALES and HILLS,
When ALL at ONCE i SAW a CROWD,
a HOST, of GOLDen DAFFodils;
BEside THE lake, BEneath THE trees,
FLUTtering AND danCING in THE breeze.

conTINuous AS the STARS that SHINE
and TWINkle ON the MILky WAY,
they STRETched IN neVER-enDING line
ALong THE marGIN of A bay:
ten THOUsand SAW i AT a GLANCE,
tosSING their HEADS in SPRIGHtly DANCE
(lines 1 – 12)

As we can see here stresses play an important role in the creation of this poem. While it is all unconscious when we read the poem, it takes a lot of work to decipher what we are reading. (Imagine the work it takes to compose). The iambic rhythm sets a tempo for the poem that is not very different than the tempo set in contemporary music. This may be a key as to why this poem appealed to me so quickly; it read in my head just as a song would read. The poem is almost perfectly symmetrical, the only place where stresses are reversed are in lines ten and eleven. The unstressed syllable is followed by another unstressed syllable; but this sets up the pattern for the final couplet beautifully. The final couplet of each verse ends in the same stresses. The final couplet of the first verse ends in unstressed syllables, while the final couplet in the second verse ends in stressed syllables. (The pattern is repeated in the final two stanzas). Reading something so finely crafted and carefully written, is a joy to the senses. At first reading, we may pass over details like rhyme, rhythm and word-choice, but when we look deeper, we see that they are the very components which make the poem potent. It is the mark of a skilled poet; to be able to write with all this in mind, and make the poem you are reading sound natural.

It was one of Wordsworth’s goals to write poetry for the everyday reader – to make poetry sound like ordinary conversation. He has accomplished this better than any other poet I have experienced. The ease of reading this poem, coupled with the perfect rhyme scheme and the unconscious rhythm makes this a poem perfect to introduce anybody to the wide world of literature. When people think poetry, most people immediately assume that it is something difficult. Reading Wordsworth will demonstrate poetry in a way that people do not expect, because of its conversational style. Are these all the reasons I love this poem? So far, only the mechanics of the poem have been discussed. Rhyme, meter, pace and word-choice. These, to me, are the dry parts of poetry; the parts which, if you notice them while you are reading, take away from the poem’s overall intended effect. To fully enjoy the poem and the sensations it arouses in you, you must read it for what it is – block out the mechanical workings of it, in order to experience it as it without any distractions. After, we are able to go back to the poem, and dissect it, peering into the inner “workings” of a poem, and finding out how, exactly, that overall effect is achieved. This operation however, cannot be done simultaneously with a true reading of the poem.

Dissection of the poem has been completed; everything is clear and explained before us; now – for the fun part. What does this poem mean? What emotions, sensations and mood does it arouse in the reader? It is always wise to start with the opening line; in most cases, this is the most carefully chosen line in the entire poem. Wordsworth writes “I wandered lonely as a cloud”, this line elicits two emotions and one image. The main emotion it elicits is the notion of loneliness; he is alone, but alone like a cloud. This implies that he is fine with his loneliness, content with it – he is not lonely in negative terms. The second emotion is a feeling of complete peacefulness – everything is still, while only he is moving. He has no direction, no place to be, no deadlines to meet. He is just wandering, like a cloud, with no where to go. The term “wandered” tells us that his loneliness does not bother him, that he likes this time alone, and is using it to wander through fields in utter peace. (Which is the image mentioned along with the two feelings). The feelings and imagery elicited in the opening line permeate the rest of this poem. When we read it we are content, and comfortable. For myself, it makes me feel like a child again; in the safety of my neighborhood. As a child, I felt no stresses upon my life – I was free to roam and it was safe to do so (where I grew up). This may be the reason I love this poem so much, because I love nostalgia, and this is one of the feelings that I get from this poem. The dancing of the flowers, described at the end of the first stanza and in the second, gives us a feeling of movement. A feeling of complete freedom and beauty. He uses similes and imagery to show us the flowers dancing in the field, and the emotions elicited from the first line onwards are compounded with a feeling of freedom and movement. This poem could be describing any romanticized past; yours or mine or the poet’s. It is the nostalgia of the past, bundled into words and imagery.

The final stanza rounds the entire poem together. Especially the final line. The poem as a whole sets up the nostalgic feeling that he gets when he thinks on these daffodils. Wordsworth wants his audience to see what he sees when he closes his eyes, and goes back to that time in his youth, when he freely danced through the fields, and saw the beautiful untouched daffodils. Therefore in the first three stanzas he describes them beautifully, and in the last, tells us why he went through the trouble of describing them. It is this image that fills him with joy and pleasure when he closes his eyes. For him, these daffodils represent more than just beauty, they represent bliss. Whatever bliss is for us, be it when we were growing up, or in high school, or right now, this is the feeling that this poem elicits. For myself; it is the nostalgia of the past that fills me with bliss – therefore this poem makes me feel like a careless child, free to go where I please, in the complete safety of childhood. All one must do is close one’s eyes (when they are alone) and they can find themselves dancing “with the daffodils”.

P.S. There is a riddle in the book “The Hobbit”. It has something to do with the eye in the green field, looking into the eye in the blue field. When reading this poem, I immediately thought back to that riddle, and thought to myself, ‘Tolkien must have read this poem’. If you have not read The Lord of the Rings, and do not know what I am talking about – GO READ THEM! ; )

I'm reading Thomas Kyd, The Spanish Tragedy. It's a great play. I just read this stanza, which I think is great, and all should enjoy.

Lorenzo
Swear on this cross that what thou say'st is true,
And that thou wilt conceal what thou hast told.

Pedringano
I swear to both by him that made us all.

Lorenzo
In hope thine oath is true, here's thy reward,
But if I prove thee perjured and unjust,
This very sword whereon thou took'st thine oath,
Shall be the worker of thy tragedy.


Hehe. This is great stuff. A few things to note; Pedringano swore on the hilt of Lorenzo's sword; because it is the shape of a cross. Also, Pedringano swears by "him that made us all". Swearing in the Early Modern Period was not allowed - though formal swearing, by God and such, was common practice. The play houses were the worst places (before the law was laid down) for swearing. Therefore it was always dangerous to utter the name of God on stage, thus Kyd writes "him that made us all" instead of "God".

.... The more you know .... (<---- Family Guy reference).

Goddamn. Sensory overload. I haven't seen this many pretty girls ...... in ages. Makes me kinda want/miss my ex. *sigh* I think the point of this link is to show hot girls UNDER 18, (or young ones anyways). My love for women has grown three sizes tonight. heh.

... This is my favourite poem ...

and I will discuss why I think it is in my paper. Anyways, straight to the poem!!

I wandered lonely as a cloud

I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o'er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

Continuous as the stars that shine
And twinkle on the milky way,
They stretched in never-ending line
Along the margin of a bay:
Ten thousand saw I at a glance,
Tossing their heads in sprightly dance.

The waves beside them danced; but they
Out-did the sparkling waves in glee:
A poet could not but be gay,
In such a jocund company:
I gazed - and gazed - but little thought
What wealth the show to me had brought:

For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills,
And dances with the daffodils.

- William Wordsworth (May 3 - July 4, 1802. Published 1807)

Why is this my favourite poem? I ask myself this question whenever I think of it. I love all of William Woodsworth's work; but as I'm reading it, my mind keeps coming back to this one piece. It has always stayed in my mind as one of the greatest pieces of writing I have ever read. Like anything in my life that I fall in love with; it is because I have a history with this bit of writing. I first read it in grade 10 or 11. I think it was grade 10 - back then I had absolutely no idea about poetry at all. I was completely ignorant to poetry, except for the odd Shakespearean sonnet/play. (Which obviously, all of us have knowledge of). This was put before me one English class, and we were all given five minutes to silently read it over. When I had finished the poem, I looked up, and realized that I was still in class. I looked over all the heads bent down towards the paper, some kids doodling, some with their eyes closed, and others carefully moving their lips as their eyes move diligently across the page.

I felt as if I had woken from a dream. A dream where I wandered as a cloud; over a field of daffodills which seemingly danced in the sun beside the choppy waves of a restless ocean. I bent my head down again and submerged myself into the poem a second time. What a wonderful experience! Letting a poem into my head like that for the first time, is an experience like no other. (It can be compared to your first kiss, or the first time you make love.) I fell into this poem and its similies, descriptions, metaphors and imagery. I fell into it headlong, and I've never looked back. I loved it at first sight, and I still love it today. It holds a sentimental place in my heart because it was the first poem that opened my eyes to poetry. After reading this poem, I began to feel a love for literature. Sure I loved reading books already; but classic literature was beyond me. After reading this, I realized that classic literature could be fun too. In these few short lines, the poet made me feel as much as any author can accomplish in a 600 page book!

I chose the path of literature and English, and since then - I've never looked back. For 6 years now I've driven towards English with all my strength and mind. I dabbled a little in communications, but that soon lost its lustre to me when I realized how cynical and loathing it made me of the world around me. English brought joy to me, and made me feel good. So I stuck to it; and if things go as planned, I will graduate with an English major this spring.

So what caught my attention the first time I read this poem? What made this poem so great to me? (It plays a role in putting me on the path that I'm on, therefore this is an important poem.) I have an essay to write for thursday, and a short mini-presentation to do on this poem tommorow. I will break here, and start my essay, which I will draw from to do the mini-presentation tommorow. After I'm done my essay, I'll post it somewhere and let all of you take a look at it. (If you're interested.) Wish me luck!

Is it that much to ask....?

I ask myself, what is more important, that a prospective girlfriend is hot? Or that she has a personality compatible with mine? What do I want in a girlfriend? Superficially I just want a hot body to cuddle with and love. But what the hell do looks matter if you can't talk about anything? Or can't find common ground to stand on?

A good way to have the best of both worlds is to get a hot girlfriend, and slowly convert her to your ways. Usually its like that with girls; they take up their boyfriends' hobbies and interests. But is that what I really want? Someone to convert to my way of thinking?

Wouldn't it be better to start out with someone who gets along with me well; shares my interests and is compatible with me from the beginning? Wouldn't that create a much deeper and stronger relationship? I just got out of a long-term relationship in which my girlfriend was a bubbly highschool girl before we met. She was your average girl who went with the crowd, and liked whatever was popular. After she met me, she took on my likes and dislikes and allowed me to mould her into the person she became during our time together. Was this for the best?

I don't think so. Most of the changes I made in her were surface changes. She may have changed superficially, but deep down inside, she stayed that bubbly crowd-following highschool girl. I don't believe that you can ever truly change a person. That being said; I think I've been changed a little bit by her. All this time we were both under the impression that she was changing towards me; when in fact the opposite was true. She, in the end, may not have changed at all, but me? I changed a slight bit. My experiences with her have altered my world-view and the way in which I percieve relationships. I will probably be a slightly different boyfriend to the next girl I come across. And this is because of her.

Because I've experienced it myself, I think the only way to bring about true change, is through an extremely strong love for someone. True change can happen, but only if you really love a person. I know I love her because of the amount I've changed, but at the same time, know that she wasn't right for me, because of how little she changed after it was all said and done.

Maybe she would have felt a stronger, truer love for me if we had been more compatible to begin with; way back at the beginning of our relationship. (Way back in 2001). Maybe I should stop looking just for girls based on appearance and start looking at people deeper. I know this is a cliche; said by people all the time.

But honestly people - your friends are your friends because of their personalities. If you want good conversations, and good times, you turn to your friends. If you want companionship and affection, you turn to your mate. You don't need the other stuff; that is taken care of by your friends. Your mate is who satisfies the sexual side of your life, therefore picking a mate based (mostly) on looks is not that far fetched. Your intellectual stimulation can come from other people; but when it comes down to attraction, and being aroused - no matter how smart your partner is, if the looks aren't there, there will be no sparks between you.

Or will there? Can two people who aren't normally attracted to each other enjoy a healthy sex life? (One of the most important things in a good relationship, something my ex and I had for most of our relationship. Though she did leave me after the sex started to get stale [and named it as one of the reasons she left me.... initially anyways]...... *sigh*) Therefore since we chose each other based mostly on attraction, did our relationship fall apart after the sex got boring?

That makes reasonable sense. So if you want a long-lasting relationship, full of love and reciprocity, you should look deeper than physical attraction. But its so hard to spark off a relationship based on intellectual stimulation.

There is one girl I know currently who seems to have a lot in common with me. We (sort of) live on the same wavelength. I usually measure these "wavelengths" by music taste. Everything else sort of falls in order after your opinion on music. She doesn't hold the physical attraction that I felt in my last relationship, but that one failed.

I've recently met another girl who has the same taste in music as me. (It is quite rare to find someone with similar tastes in music as I have) Maybe I will finally find the best of both worlds? Someone who turns me on like no one other, and can be my best friend without my influence changing her....?

It would be nice.

Well well well.....

I guess its time I finally started posting here.

If you've read through my arguments on the Penny-Arcade board, you've seen a single side of me. I like to debate about philosophical and societal issues. Ever since I took these communications courses at SFU (Simon Fraser University) in like, second year - I have become very bitter with the world around me. Feelings of hopelessness fill me whenever I walk into the mall. I look at all the stores, the manicans displaying wares to be sold to the endless flood of consumers, at prices inflated to the point where it makes you sick. You think of all the villages and towns ruined in third world countries because of giant factories moving in and employing a quarter of the population of this tiny country. You think of the people back at home who have lost their jobs to the constant corporate greed for higher profits. You see all of this; and it makes you bitter with the world. Right and wrong become meaningless.

This kind of anti-capitalist discharge fills the Communications faculty at SFU. I love blaring it out at the world. I love shouting this theory at people and using it in arguments to explain why this world sucks so much. Its a very "gothy" thing to do, and it really satisfies any angsty feelings I may have. It is my way with dealing with teenage angst... I guess. I've been watching this season's South Park (which is really great by the way) and theres an episode where Stan's girlfriend leaves him. He gets all depressed, and realizes what he had, only after he lost her. He goes into a "goth" stage and joins a new group of friends. He gets all depressed over the world and life in general.

At the end of the episode he realizes the error in his ways and decides to enjoy life for all its ups and downs. (Simplistic ending, but hey - its South Park.)

I guess what I'm getting at is, - I've understood Stan's end-of-episode-revelation for a while. I spew this anti-capitalist stuff in an effort to get them down. I want to convert people into activists and society haters - but knowing that becoming something like that brings you nothing but hardship and misery - I don't completely subscribe to it myself. I take the easy way out - by telling myself, "if you can't beat em - join em".

I don't completely believe in all I say and do. But I love saying and doing these things. Its great fun to flex your brain muscle in different directions.

My only fear (of arguing on completely arbitrary points constantly) is that I will lose bearing of what my true opinion is. (If there is such a thing). I will never have an opinion of my own - I will always be aruging for something else.... I know which opinions I want to hold... but its so hard to hold those opinions sometimes when you come up with such great arguments against them in your own head.

I'm also afraid of going schitzo. Ah well.

90X Double Side wrote:

Quote:
achieving happiness requires ethical discipline, and acting in a way that you know will cause suffering to others will prevent you from achieving happiness

Ifrit wrote:
what happens when those with different morals than you/society achieve what they believe to be happiness through immorality and unethical ways? What happens when making others suffer brings a sense of accomplishment/pride? What happens when those people run our country?

toast wrote:

Irrelevant. a) you don't know they are happy, and b) their happiness is not necessarily your happiness. Look, on a basic level you can see that these people are fuckholes. Do you want to be a fuckhole? If not, why the fuck are you modelling your life on them? Whether they're running the country or not is irrelevant. They can neither make nor break your own sense of self-fulfilment. They are irrelevant

ifrit wrote:

of course its relevent because for 90% of the population, THEY DEFINE WHAT HAPPINESS IS. do i wanna be a fuckhole? heh... kinda....

i'd rather be a fuckhole than a fucked hole.

90X Double Side wrote:

Quote:
Our cultural and environmental learning is actually one of the greatest barriers to achieving happiness, not the definer of it. Viewing happiness as an intangible or unattainable state will lead to views of nihilism.


you're saying that happiness must be found within ourselves. that happiness cannot be taught. But people measure their lives according to the lives of others in our society. Many people have learned ot measure their happiness by the level of "success" they've achieved - which is also relative to the society they live in.

If only we could all just ignore society and be happy with what we have... and not measure ourselves against each other.... we'd live in a much nicer society.

But the nature of capitalism is that of competition. The nature of our society is that of capitalism. Therefore we are all in it to compete against one another. not to cooperate. That is why people measure happiness by success. Because of the capitalistic nature of our society. (that is what i am raging out against.)

toast wrote:

Don't be so fucking defeatist, you pussy. If you think the commonly held definition of achievement is shit, don't accept it. It really is that simple.

ifrit wrote:

if you don't accept it you will be ostracized from this society. you will, in other words, become a bum. how will you succeed if you don't accept that money/power = success? hah! how will you survive?

90X Double Side wrote:

Quote:
Here materialism is a culturally taught concept of happiness, and you freely acknowledge that you know that it is false and will not bring you true happiness, yet you want to embark on a path of negativity towards others to achieve material wealth, because you fear negativity towards you. This is an action motivated by fear, which is almost always the case for actions that will cause suffering to ourselves and others

ifrit wrote:
fear. fear of what? I think i am acting more out of anger... anger and bitterness towards a world that is competitive in nature. If only we could be more like the japanese and cooperate as a whole (i know this does not hold true for all of japan, but generally their society is built more on cooperation than competitiveness).

I am angry that our society has pitted us against each other. But what can you do to fight it? You can't fight it. All you can do is play the game. ... which means to come out on top, you must be cut throat. because that is all a capitalist society understands.

toast wrote:

Is that all you see? Fight or submit? Well then you're probably buggered. Breaking out doesn't require you to fight, it merely requires you to stand still. Stop trying to define yourself in terms of the system, because you'll lose - that's the whole point of it. Dismiss the system. There is no fucking spoon. All you need to drum into your head is that you can define personal success yourself without reference to "society" and you're out of the loop. It's that fucking simple

ifrit wrote:

ok, what is "personal success"....? hmm? how do you come up with "personal success"? how do you know you've succeeded *personally* when you do not compare/compete with others. compete with *yourself*? you're still giving into capitalist ideology. you're still competing.

and btw, i'm moving to Japan.

today I got in an internet forum battle. I'd like to post the whole thing, but it'll be hard. i'll post some choice snippets.

here's what started it all:
Ashcroft wrote:
Quote:
Wait, PC gaming is cheaper because it's easy to pirate the games?!

Woo, my Ferrari is cheaper then your Punto because I shot the driver at a red light and drove off in it before the police caught me, wooo!!

Ifrit wrote:
yeah, it IS cheaper because its easier to pirate games.

its logic. follow the facts.

Ashcroft wrote:
As far as I can see, your "facts" are a heap of shit. Just because an ILLEGAL way of getting games is easier on one format then another, that doesn't make them cheaper. Some of us were actually taught a sense of right and wrong you know. But hey, keep talking about how awesome pirating games is, it's your funeral.


Ifrit wrote:
which way is a less expensive way to game?


By finding your games on the internet?

or buying them at EB?


get off your high fucking horse. as if you're a fucking saint. maybe you can afford to buy all your fucking software because your fucking dad is bill fucking gates who has a monopoly over computer software and oppresses options to his product so he can make more money.

or maybe your daddy owns a company who makes shoes in south america and south east asia and then sells them to americans for quadruple the price it costs to make them...

wrong/right is relative. its all about your perception of the world. if you think you're going to get by in this fucking shit society by being a nice consumer whore, all you're doing is playing into the hands of the corporate dictators who fuck your ass every time you swipe your motherfucking credit card.


consumer whore.

by the way, I'm ifrit....

Ifrit wrote:

i grew up in a capitalist society.

i was taught that it is a dog eat dog world. take what you can get, when you can get it, however you can get it.

that is the only way you can come out on top/have what you want.

you think the richest people in america got there by being nice? dont be stupid.

"right" and "wrong" are made up by society we live in. Things that are "right" and "wrong" here may be completely opposite somewhere else. In our case, we are taught that pirating games, music, movies etc is "wrong" because it hurts corporate america.

well fuck corporate america.

i dont subscribe to your definitions of "right" and "wrong".

angry wrote:
then you can leave our society. like i said above, your reasoning is beyond pathetic.

some girl entered the fray

Cardboard Tube wrote:

Grow up. That is all.

Ifrit wrote:

do you wanna succeed?

how will you do it in america?

do you believe the "American Dream" will lead you there? Travelling salesman? hah.

keep dreaming.


all propagandist bullshit. the only ones who make it are the ones who have no respect for humanity or morals. The ones who are cut throat and cruel.

IndieGirl wrote:

Seriously, are you fourteen? I can't believe anyone who's earned something -- ANYTHING, EVER -- on their own can possibly be this stupid.

Ifrit wrote:
i've worked since i was 15. its gotten me no where.

how will you succeed? what is your recepie for success?


are you going to be working in the same damn office job for the next 15 years? are you going to look forward to getting walls and a door? How about being moved down the hall so you can sit/work next to a window?

This will make you happy? Living on the same street as everyone else in the world? with the same quaint house? the same picket fence?


the american dream (your "morality") is all a bunch of bullshit to keep the poor down and get the rich richer.

japan wrote:
Someone's feeling bitter today. What the hell got dumped in your coffee?

Morality doesn't come into it. Money is used as a convenient metaphor for work done. It serves as an intermediary stage in the bartering process on which all commerce operates. If you don't like your life you can work to change it. If you decide to steal instead, don't be surprised if people get pissed off.

Stop trying to claim the moral high ground with your pathetic, teenage, "the world is against me" logic.

ifrit wrote:
hehe. actually what set me off was one of those fucking "WE'VE SEEN THIS THREAD BEFORE" comments. shit it pissed me off. like damn.... does someone HAVE to say that everytime somebody asks a question or makes a thread? I see it in about 85% of threads here. ... probably more. its retarded. its as if its obligatory. why not instead of saying "WE'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE" some just post "FIRST!" or something. god.

yes .. you can "work" to change it. In the process you are going to step on people's toes. you are going to have to let certain people go in order to achieve that "profit margin". you are going to have to screw a few people over. thats all I'm saying.

People screw people over to get ahead. Thats what our lives are about.

and im not taking any moral high ground. in fact, i'm saying im highly immoral.

japan wrote:
Yes, people screw other people over. This happens.

This does not mean that you, therefore, must screw other people over in order to succeed. You are trying to claim the moral high ground. You profess that acting in the manner you suggest is justified by what you perceive to be the manner in which the world works.

Something else that's bothering me, Just what is your definition of success? You seem to have ruled out pretty much everything so far. In your terms; material success means you're a corporate assfucker, working your way up the ladder in a job means you've failed, going about your business in a fashion that most of us would describe as moral means you're being oppressed by corporate propaganda.

So what the hell does that leave?

ifrit wrote:
my image of success?

i dunno. communism? hahahaha. i haven't thought it through completely yet. anarchy?


more's utopia? i dunno man... what is success? i guess angry said it best when he said "happiness". i mean fuck - if you're happy, you've succeeded. therefore anyone can be successful. the bum on the street, the rich ass on the west end. whatever.

i'm just sayin that we're all living in a society of illusions... thats all. : )

angry wrote:
stop saying american dream.

if you work and get nowhere, then you're a failure and it isn't society's fault.

fucking moron.

ifrit wrote:
oh no. you'll get somewhere. you'll get that desk at the end of the hall by the window.

you'll be able to afford that car thats only FIVE years old, and not the fifteen year old junker you're driving now. you'll be able to go out for dinner once a week instead of scrounging by all the time.


what the fuck? you call that success? seriously, what is successful to you? and how do you plan to achieve it?

angry wrote:
i call happiness success.

if in 10 years i have a corner office and drive a car that i like and can go out once a week with my wife and be happy then, yeah that is success in my book.

but then again i'm not a fucking idiot like you and money doesn't equal happiness.

ifrit wrote:
you are being kept down by propaganda. rich people want you to think that way. it makes them richer.


if you're happy with that though; thats fine. no one ever said you had to be ambitious. no one ever said that "getting by" isn't good enough. cheers to your success.

angry wrote:
hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

that's it. that's the clincher.

striving for happiness means i'm being kept down by propaganda.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

ifrit wrote:
someone else has taught you what the persuit of happiness is. you didnt come to that conclusion yourself. that someone else is corporate america.

TURN OFF YOUR TELEVISION SETS PEOPLE!!

i argue about who is good and bad

Cardboard Tube wrote:
Grow up. That is all.

Ifrit wrote:
do you wanna succeed?

how will you do it in america?

do you believe the "American Dream" will lead you there? Travelling salesman? hah.

keep dreaming.


all propagandist bullshit. the only ones who make it are the ones who have no respect for humanity or morals. The ones who are cut throat and cruel.

Fleck0 wrote:
Like who? Hitler? Go fuck yourself, and when you're done thank mom and dad for what they gave you trying to be good parents

Ifrit wrote:
read fortune 500. tell me how many of those people got their by being "good people"

angry wrote:
how bout you read it and tell us exactly the horrible heinous things every single one of them has done.

or maybe you can stop talking out of your ass and just stop posting all together?

ifrit wrote:
ruined families and lifestyles because of a greed for higher profits. i can see that happening in EVERY SINGLE DAMN COMPANY on that list. if u can prove me wrong - do so.

me and a guy spar
Cardboard Tube wrote:

I mean it. Grow up. Let me explain something to you here.

You are currently posting on a privately owned internet forum, and presumably enjoying it. This is a free service that is provided for you. Nice huh? Happily for you, my sense of morals or ethics or whatever you would like to call it prevent me from banning people just for being stupid. In this manner, you profit from my ethics. This is how society works. You appear (and remember, I have no idea about your life situation) to be at that point in your life where you attempt to rationalise your id (did I get my psyche term right? No matter). I.E, you want something, you have the ability to take something, thus you find an excuse that makes it ok for you to take it. Everyone does it sooner or later. Try and grow out of it as quickly as possible, it will cause you problems.

Corporate America is indeed a bitch. But guess who makes the games you like? Corporate America. Guess who made your computer? See previous. Guess they aren't all that bad eh? I really do hope that you manage to become the head of a corporate assfucking company one day. Perhaps you will then understand how the system works.

Oh, one last thing. Bill Gates may not be the nicest man in the world. That is not why he is rich. He is rich because he is very, very intelligent. Can you say the same thing? I guess we'll see.

Ifrit wrote:
nice response.

yes. they made my computer, they make my games, they do all that for me. I like what they make. But they are part of a system. an institution of capitalism. And i hate that institution and how it works. Maybe its not bill gates, maybe its not Ubi soft... but its someone else in that system that ruins it for everyone. Someone else that closes a factory down in texas and causes 3000 americans to lose their jobs so that women and children can be taken from their traditional economic places in society and put into sweatshops to work for a fraction of the cost that americans work for.

it is this "corporate assfucking" that i am rebelling against. I have no respect for people who make millions of dollars unjustifiably. There is nothing in the world worth as much money as many of the richest people in the world make.

Yes - bill gates is a smart man. Yes john travolta is a talented actor. but it is all relative. There are many more who are smart/talented too. The ones who made it just know how to use the system to their advantage.

"I.E, you want something, you have the ability to take something, thus you find an excuse that makes it ok for you to take it. Everyone does it sooner or later"

those who own multi-national corporations have not grown out of it, and i dont plan to either if it means success. (which it damn well does.)

someone says something short to me
anyprophet wrote:
wtf. you can't compare petty theft with corporate greed.

ifrit wrote:
why not. they're on the same moral/ethical level.

whats worse, petty theft or corporate greed? who are you stealing from?

talkin it up:

Cardboard Tube wrote:

So you hate the system so much that you want to become part of it? Hypocricy, no?

ifrit wrote:
YES!!! u hit the nail on the head!!!!!!!!

i hate the system; but i can't beat it. therefore i will join it!!!


i am a hypcrite!! and i will profit from my hypocracy just like all the other people who are "successful" in this society!!!!

anger wrote:
he has no fucking clue what he wants or what he's talking about tube.

his ignorance is astounding.

ifrit wrote:
no? you're just too blind to come out of your bubble of denial. the world you live in sucks. the life you lead is shit. we are all chained in by institutions.

i guess i can't blame you. you're just trying to make the best of a shitty situation.


ignorance is bliss.

i dunno who said this:
This does not mean that you, therefore, must screw other people over in order to succeed. You are trying to claim the moral high ground. You profess that acting in the manner you suggest is justified by what you perceive to be the manner in which the world works.

ifrit said:
well said!

i dont think im justified. I'm just running with the herd. I dont wanna be screwed over by corporate assholes, so i wanna be a corporate asshole and screw other people myself.

doesnt mean i think screwing is right. means i just dont wanna be screwed.

someone questions my age and calls me child:

Angry wrote:

what the fuck are you on?

seriously child, every post you makes you look even more stupid.

Ifrit wrote:
and you saying "you're stupid" just proves that i'm stupid.



well done.

Angry wrote:
incase you didn't notice, i didn't write you're stupid in the post you quoted. that topic has also been covered.

but please, do continue on your attack of our horrible capitalist world that you hate so much yet are so eager to participate in.

also i'd like for you to explain how you think happiness doesn't exist.

and answer me how old you are.

Ifrit wrote:
im 21.

happiness exists. just in our heads. .... our perception of happiness is a product of our environment though. So whatever was ingrained into our parents as "happiness" will most likely be ingrained into us as "happiness".


and most people's image of happiness is "the american dream". Which was made up by corporate america to keep the blahblahblah down adn blah blah i've said all this already... etc etc etc.

silence descends on the forum. I make a post....
ifrit wrote:
hmmm nothing more?


have the flames against my worldview subsided?

does anyone else want to "prove me wrong"?

someone speaks up
japan wrote:
If I have this right, the American dream was to do with enterprise, which is about as anti-corporate as you can get. It's the idea that an intelligent person willing to apply themselves can build a trade or a business from nothing.

I don't recall it having anything to do with working for someone else. Then, of course, I'm British. Maybe my perspective is skewed

ifrit wrote:
maybe the american dream is the wrong term. but i think it stands for a lot more than just to enterprise

ever see the play "death of a salesman"... or the movie they made on it called ..... shit i dont remember the name, but it has alec baldwin in there. "glenn garry glenn ross". thats the name.

in that movie/play the american dream was touted to the characters as working your way up the corporate ladder. working and giving your life to a company would eventually work its way out for you. thats what i'm thinking is the "american dream". To be loyal to your boss.

See American Beauty? You must have. Lestor Burnam. Why wasn't he happy? He had a steady job. he had a beautiful wife. a nice house. a nice car. what made him rebel the way he did?


why wasn't he "happy"?

japan wrote:
In both cases the subject at hand is that of putting outward appearance before you own happiness. In death of a salesman, Willy Loman (your principle character) made it his life's work to fulfil a certain definition of success. He didn't. What he did was to create the impression of that success, for those around him to witness. In the end, it ate away at him inside that he'd spent his life pretending to be someone he wasn't, and all those he'd strived to impress found out the truth anyway.

American Beauty? Same principle. Lester Burnam didn't rebel, he simply realised that he didn't want to do what he was doing anymore. He had the means to stop and he did. He achieved his happiness by going against what would be regarded as convention.
The romance with the cheerleader presents another allegory ofappearance before substance.

The "American dream" is a term bandied about in analysis of both, when it is really fairly inappropriate.

ifrit wrote:
that appearance that they are both projecting to the world is an appearance of happiness is it not? an appearance of success.... what were the factors in their illusion?

stable job. not breaking the law. paying the man. loving your wife. nice house. white picket fence. etc etc.


why is that an illusion? why is that not *real* happiness?

who created that definition of success? (corporate america). why don't we fit into it? (because intrinsically, somewhere deep down inside us, we know it is wrong. we know we are just being moved around like pawns on a chessboard.)

some idiot speaks up

anyprophet wrote:
your argument has taken a turn for the stupid and only vaguely relates to the true matter at hand. plus, there's really no point in arguing with someone so entrenched in his own ignorance.

japan wrote:
It has, hasn't it. Nevertheless, it's fun to apply intelligent analysis to his arguments and watch them crumble.

ifrit wrote:
really. i think your "intelligent analysis" has only helped my argument.

In death of a salesman, Willy Loman (your principle character) made it his life's work to fulfil a certain definition of success. He didn't. What he did was to create the impression of that success, for those around him to witness (same for lestor burnam)

whos definition? (corporate america's)
an illusion of happiness. created for those around him. how is that arguing against what i've said.

japan wrote:
No, no. You've missed the point entirely. Read the play. The reason it is a classic work of literature is that it expresses the ideas more eloquently than I can.
Suggested reading (because I need to sleep):
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller (READ the play, the film is shit)
Glamourama by Brett Easton Ellis
Dead Famous by Ben Elton
Filth by Irvine Welsh

They all express the ideas that you seem to be fumbling with in one way or another. Maybe next time you could form some coherent arguments.

ifrit wrote:
I have read the play.

the others i haven't heard of.

i dont believe you are still accusing me of incoherancy. its as if as soon as somebody comes up with some good reasoning against what you've said, they're speaking incoherently.


why dont you read my posts a bit more clearly and say something against (and not in support of) what i've said.

japan wrote:
I'm going to summarise, then I'm done.

Happiness:
What I was getting at (and what the play and books listed illustrate) is that judging your happiness against other people's, or on their view of your life doesn't work. You'll drive yourself insane that way. Happiness is not relative. Only you can judge your own happiness by your own goals.

Society and morality:
You can't justify acting in an immoral manner (eg. pirating games) by pointing at the rest of society and claiming that your actions are a necessary consequence of how people as a whole behave. Such an argument can logically be countered by a single instance of a person acting in a moral fashion.

You are fortunate enough to live in a free-market democracy. If you don't like the way a company behaves, don't buy their products. When election day rolls around, cast your vote for someone who will regulate them better.

Society can't prevent you from being happy.

Additionally, I will concede that your last few posts have been more coherent.

Ifrit wrote:
well when you're responding to 10 people at once, coherence goes out the window for straight facts.

happiness: read what i said about capitalism. we live in a capitalist society, therefore it is in our nature to rate our selves against each other, ergo our happiness is dependant on our "success rating" in society.

morality: you will never "beat" them by acting out democratically against them. why are revolutions predominantly violent? because democracy doesnt work. btw, we don't live in a democratic society. check the greek definition of democracy and compare it to what we're living in now and you'll realize that we're living in an oligarchy. but thats a whole other topic.

someone acting in a moral fashion in a society where those who get ahead (capitalistically speaking) do not act in a moral fashion - does not make sense. i'm not justifying acting immorally. (btw, we all have our own definitions of morals). i'm saying that (in a nutshell) "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".

its the simplest, and most "layman's" way of saying what i'm getting at.

thank you for your concession.

this is towards a jackass who had nothing intelligent to say:

ifrit wrote:
show me whats stupid about it (the arugment).

enlighten me. raise me out of my ignorance.


it applies to the topic at hand, because if you take pirating into the equation, PC gaming is cheaper than console gaming. if you take my arguments to heart, you will realize that pc gaming is cheaper.

anyprophet wrote:
there's nothing i can say that hasn't already been said. ad nauseum. you are just incapable of listening.

ifrit wrote:
really... i think your arguments all broke down around this post here:
someone wrote:
also i'd like for you to explain how you think happiness doesn't exist.

and answer me how old you are.

ifrit wrote:
im 21.

happiness exists. just in our heads. .... our perception of happiness is a product of our environment though. So whatever was ingrained into our parents as "happiness" will most likely be ingrained into us as "happiness".


and most people's image of happiness is "the american dream". Which was made up by corporate america to keep the blahblahblah down adn blah blah i've said all this already... etc etc etc.


the illusion of happiness. how can you argue against what i've said?

here comes the finale.. this was a GREAT post by someone arguing with me:

90X Double Side wrote:

The obvious answer is that happiness is a state of being that everyone can achieve, achieving happiness requires ethical discipline, and acting in a way that you know will cause suffering to others will prevent you from achieving happiness.

Our cultural and environmental learning is actually one of the greatest barriers to achieving happiness, not the definer of it. Viewing happiness as an intangible or unattainable state will lead to views of nihilism.

Here materialism is a culturally taught concept of happiness, and you freely acknowledge that you know that it is false and will not bring you true happiness, yet you want to embark on a path of negativity towards others to achieve material wealth, because you fear negativity towards you. This is an action motivated by fear, which is almost always the case for actions that will cause suffering to ourselves and others.

ifrit wrote:
wow!!! best argument all thread!!! : ) : )

Quote:
achieving happiness requires ethical discipline, and acting in a way that you know will cause suffering to others will prevent you from achieving happiness


what happens when those with different morals than you/society achieve what they believe to be happiness through immorality and unethical ways? What happens when making others suffer brings a sense of accomplishment/pride? What happens when those people run our country?

Quote:
Our cultural and environmental learning is actually one of the greatest barriers to achieving happiness, not the definer of it. Viewing happiness as an intangible or unattainable state will lead to views of nihilism.


you're saying that happiness must be found within ourselves. that happiness cannot be taught. But people measure their lives according to the lives of others in our society. Many people have learned ot measure their happiness by the level of "success" they've achieved - which is also relative to the society they live in.

If only we could all just ignore society and be happy with what we have... and not measure ourselves against each other.... we'd live in a much nicer society.

But the nature of capitalism is that of competition. The nature of our society is that of capitalism. Therefore we are all in it to compete against one another. not to cooperate. That is why people measure happiness by success. Because of the capitalistic nature of our society. (that is what i am raging out against.)

Quote:
Here materialism is a culturally taught concept of happiness, and you freely acknowledge that you know that it is false and will not bring you true happiness, yet you want to embark on a path of negativity towards others to achieve material wealth, because you fear negativity towards you. This is an action motivated by fear, which is almost always the case for actions that will cause suffering to ourselves and others


fear. fear of what? I think i am acting more out of anger... anger and bitterness towards a world that is competitive in nature. If only we could be more like the japanese and cooperate as a whole (i know this does not hold true for all of japan, but generally their society is built more on cooperation than competitiveness).

I am angry that our society has pitted us against each other. But what can you do to fight it? You can't fight it. All you can do is play the game. ... which means to come out on top, you must be cut throat. because that is all a capitalist society understands.

90X Double Side wrote:

Here again your argument is paradoxical: you realize that a totally materialist worldview will prevent you from achieving happiness, but you conclude that the course of action that will make you happy is to play the game, come out on top, and be cutthroat. You say that you are acting out of anger rather than fear, but fear is the motivator for anger, and most negative emotions. Here it is clear how actions motivated by fear will be negative and counterproductive: your fear of the materialist and competitive world is driving you to want to reinforce it.

The solution is the simple and elegant one: to seek to achieve happiness, as you say, by looking within yourself, and more specifically, to enter an ethical mindset where you constantly monitor your actions and the positive or negative effect they have on you and others. If you resent being pitted against other people, then do not pit yourself against them. If you wish society didn't make you compare yourself to others, then don't compare yourself to others. Happiness is the goal and nature of human existence, and while society can teach other views of it, it cannot redefine or destroy the innate state of happiness, which all people will still feel or not feel underneath the front they put up. As Japan said, the most fundamental delusion in your view is that society can prevent you from being happy.

Then we get into the issue of having a more internal nexus of control, finding meaning in suffering, and so on; it would be quicker to just go buy a book. That's a good one that combines a lot of Eastern philosophy with psychological findings, but these themes are common to much of Christian, Buddhist, and secular philosophy.

ifrit wrote:
mmm the solution i was thinking is simpler than yours: leave.


i'm moving to japan in april/may.

i hope i find a more cooperative society. one in which you can selflessly help others and be helped back. (not kicked in the teeth).

my argument is paradoxical: not really. i don't actually believe i will be happy if/when i come out on top. I believe that i will suffer less though because i will have been the one doing the stepping, and not the one being stepped on.

but then .... how can one feel *truly* good about stepping on someone? (how do corporate dictators sleep at night?)

i dont believe you can remove yourself from society (capitalist nature) while still living in it. therefore i do not believe that you can just stop comparing/competing with others. while we're in this country, we must compete with eachother or be trampled upon. its kill or be killed.

i think society tries to define happiness in an effort to play people into "their" hands. (whomever "they" are). ... thats all i'm saying. I'm not saying you *can't* achieve happiness in this society. as Angry stated earlier, he'll be perfectly happy with a 9 to 5 job and a nice family. its achievable.

but. its. not. your. own. conception. you can make it your own, but you got the idea of that happiness from the corporate media. who do EVERYTHING in their own interest.


its funny you recommend that book. i've been recommened it like.... well this will be the fifth time. I guess i should go out and see what its all about.

maybe i can find it on the net somewhere and just d/l it in .pdf format. you think the dalai lama would mind? *evil grin*