Pity party

I am having a really hard time right now. I feel like everything is about to unravel. There is so much bad shit that has me depressed right now that it would take me hours to write it all out. I don't even know what keeps me going right now. I honestly don't know what hope I have. In fact I think its more honest to say that I don't have hope. I can't even see a way that I can succeed at anything right now. Its all a matter of how big my failures are going to be. How quickly I am going to lose my job? How much time and money will I waste before I realize I am not smart enough to do what I want to do? How long until I realize I am a fat unattractive loser that no one who is worth anything will ever be attracted to? I am the person who vanishes into death as if he never lived. I can't change, I can't improve, I can just wake up and delude myself into acting as if this life is actually worth living. I will never know what it is to be in a mutually loving relationship. I will never know how it feels to be respected. I will never be somebody worth knowing. I won't ever know what its like to have someone truly be part of my life. I have spent almost 26 years in this life and there are very few choices and actions I wouldn't take back, and even fewer I am proud of and value. No one will ever love me because frankly there isn't anything worth loving.

So... life. Well it keeps going. I am fluctuating between feeling really terrible about how things are going and being happy about life. I am still trying to find a place to live with some roommates. Every time we find some place that looks worthwhile it completely falls apart. It doesn't help that the person who has arguably the most complicated issues is out of town right now. He was also the person who was pretty much taking the lead on this entire process. I just hope we can manage to find a place before school starts.

Other then that being promoted at work is nice and all, but it's pretty stressful. I really am not completely sure that I can fully handle some of the requirements to do this job. I guess we will find out though.

Then of course there are issues or the romantic nature. I am in a position where I just wish I could be with someone or even just have more of a social life. This of course reflects onto the relationships I do have. I can't help but focus some of the frustration onto Ashley because she is beautiful and I have always been attracted to her. However she is not the only person in my life this is causing issues with. Ray is getting some of my anger directed at him because of the fact that he is with someone at the moment and he has been a bit of a dick about it. I need to chill out, but that is pretty much impossible.

I have been working on meditation lately and it helps a lot but i can't do it consistently. Tonight I should be working out so I hope I can get to bed early and wake up so I can eat and do stuff like meditate. I intentionally did not get hookah coals so I wouldn't be able to smoke tonight. I need to get better at making decisions like this.

As for music today... Let's go with this,



If you didn't know Jonsi is one of the vocalists for Sigur Ros and he is doing his own solo project. Broken Social Scene, Sigur Ros, The Denalis, and Blonde Redhead were some of the first indie bands I listened to that really made me say wow. So when I heard about Jonsi I had to check out the music and I was not disappointed at all.

Update

So....

Moving day is getting closer. I am kind of excited, kind of scared. That feeling accompanies all major changes in life though and to be honest I have gotten to the point where I have accepted it and kind of enjoy it. I just hope we can find a place that is worthwhile, and isn't a shit hole.

I have gotten to hang out with one of my bestest friends evar more and more lately. That friend being Sue. It's been pretty awesome and much fun. I had Sushi again and I am coming to conclude that while I like Unagi and things like shrimp and such in Sushi I prefer rolls that use just fish. My favorite roll so far as been a Cherry Blossom Roll, which is a roll with Salmon, Avacadoe, Crushed Macadamia Nuts, and Tuna with a spicyish sauce on it. It's really quite delicious. In other food news I made Balsamic Caramelized Onions for some burgers I had with my mom. I like them, but there needs to be a really strong counterpoint to go with them. A really salty cheese I think. Or maybe something like horseradish. I am going to have to think on it and come up with something.

It's been a while since I have posted any of the music I have been listening to so I am going to post a few.

Crystallized by The XX


It's Thunder and It's Lightning by We Were Promised Jetpacks


How Much More by Stars


Sea Lion Woman by Feist


A couple things about these songs and artists. Number one if you are expecting cutting edge or underground music you have never heard of before, you are looking in the wrong place. I am usually way behind the curve when it comes to stuff like this. The first song by The XX is pretty good. It has a nice relaxed vibe to it and I love the way they use the bass in the song. As a whole they are a pretty good band, but only a few of there songs seem like they are going to be stuff I listen to for any serious amount of time.

The three other bands I linked videos from are already part of my favorites. We Were Promised Jetpacks is one of those bands that you started listening to because of one song and every now and then you realize just how good another one of there songs is. It's not that you haven't listened to it, because you sat down and listened to the entire album, it's just that it didn't grip you before and suddenly you are hearing it again and can't understand how you didn't love it before.

Stars and Feist both fall under the umbrella of magnificent artists that I learned about through my love of Broken Social Scene. Stars plays some of the best pop I have heard and there new album, 5 Ghosts, is good but honestly seems kind of reserved and I don't know if I would say they are a band that does reserved well.

Feist on the other hand can probably do just about anything she wants and do it well. The video I posted is from her performance in Paris. I managed to find the entire performance online and that was the point that I went from liking Feists music to being amazed by how awesome she is. Generally most bands I listen to are excellent on their albums and good live, but a lot of times the productions and grand scale that is provided on the album doesn't work so well live so the songs change. Well Feist changed her songs when she performed them at this show, but instead of being different and not as good, they were better. It is the first time I have listened to an artist and absolutely, without a doubt, loved their live versions of the song more then the album versions. Well, let me clarify that a little bit, there are live songs I liked better then the album versions, but usually it's one or two songs max. In this case every song she played was better and more interesting then the album version. And this isn't a situation similar to Matisyahu whose Live at Stubbs album was awesome, but the actual produced album of the same music was terrible. The original Albums are still great, but the live performance added to them in ways I did not expect and made me love them even more.

Alright, so now that I have talked about my musical interests at the moment lets talk philosophy. Specifically the philosophy of sex. One of the classes I took last semester was the philosophy of sex. It discussed the philosophical importance and value of the action and term. We reviewed ancient philosophy starting with Plato and going through Christian philosophers such as Augustine and Aquinas. Then we hit upon philosophers such as Kant, Russell and finally Foucalt. Then we read some individual articles concerning specific topics. Now my primary interest in this class were the ethical implications that sex represents. Sex has always been the subject of moral and ethical quandaries and probably always will be. I do not think this is because it has any particular moral significance but rather because it is such a personal and important topic. In fact my personal opinion is that sex has no more of an ethical value then any other interpersonal interaction, and like any interpersonal interaction the ethical value is determined by the perspective of the individuals involved and how the interaction takes place. This is a pretty basic concept and if you are interested in learning more about it I suggest reading the works of Alan Goldman. What interests me is that if determiner of the value of a sexual act is based on the perspective of the people involved in the interaction as well as the context, what would certain philosophies say about the general perspective of sex in the setting of modern America? So what I want to do is go through some of the classic philosophers, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Mill, and maybe a few others, and take a look at what is considered the sexual norm in modern America and see what they would have to say. I am going to try to do that as the next semester goes by.

Speaking of school, I haven't had a chance to read Aristotles Metaphysics as I intended to over the summer. I still have a month or so, but I should be done by now. I just can't afford to drop the money needed to get a good copy. I have a pdf of it but I hate reading on my computer. Solution! Get an Ipad, but I need to wait until I am done with move in costs. Booo for financial responsibility.

Alright, well that's all for now.

Got a new keyboard...

I want to type something long and put these nice new keys to good use.

So I have been thinking about things. I have decided, as I stated in previous posts, that reality is defined individually, however society influences individuals so those that share beliefs, upbringing, and general experiences have the same general view of reality and interpret the things they experience based on this reality. So the defining feature of a person is their ability to do just that. Another thing I have decided is that Kant's categorical imperative is partially correct. I have not really decided on the willing an action into a universal law part. I think that has issues with the fact the idea that experience is unique. It can be shared based on culture and society, but it is still defined by the unique experiences of an individual. So it is almost impossible to will something into a universal law do to the unique nature of individual experience. However the part that I do agree with is that you need to treat other people as ends and never as means. Kant said this was true because people shared the trait of a good will. I however do not think that it is the defining characteristic. Mainly because he also stated that the only unqualified good is a good will, which does not make sense to me since good is a qualification of the term will. I think we can adjust this idea to state that people need to be treated as ends, and not as means because this ability to experience and interpret reality differentiates them from objects. If something is not an object it should not be used to simply to achieve a goal. A person who can be considered to be good is one who understands that other individuals have their own reality defining experiences and respects that which makes another person a conscious individual.

Their is however an issue with my theory. It is an issue of individual relativism. Individual relativism is a philosophical concept that covers a broad range of theories. It primarily consists of the idea that we all individually define what is good. It is a flawed theory because if an individual defines what is good, then two people can view the same action and one can say that it is good and the other can say that it is bad, and both can technically be right because they define the goodness and badness of any given action. However I do think that there is a solution to that issue. In any given situation if two people view actions differently there needs to be an arbiter that defines whether the action is indeed good or bad. In ethical theories that do not suffer from individual relativism there is a defined system or method of value that determines who is correct or incorrect. In my theory the arbiter is the shared, or opposing culture or society that holds sway over the subject. The determiner of the rightness or wrongness of an action is based on the scope of that action. If an action is within a given society, then the arbiter would be that society. However there are times when the issue is between two societies or two individuals. In a situation like that, the thing that will determine the rightness or the wrongness of an action is conflict. The two societies or individuals will conflict either through discussion or even violence depending on the situation and the one that end up on top is the one whose perception of the value of an action is the one who is correct.

In my mind violence is the worst possible determiner of a given action. It does not allow any given idea to be better then another it only allows for one party to be dominant over the other. Reason and intellectual debate are the only true determiners of the actual value of an action in these situations because it is the only way one party can logical and correctly prove the actual value of an action. However the nature of humanity does not necessarily allow for this. Hume states that reason is the slave of sentiment and that sentiment is what determines the value of an action. To me this concept is what damages our ability to use reason to determine the value of any given action. Hume also states that sentiments judgement should be suspended so that the reason can properly inform sentiment of the connections between actions so it can make an informed decision. This is, to me, the primary contradiction within Hume's work, but the closest to the truth. I agree that we determine whether or not an action is good or bad based on the sentiment provided when considering that action. Our experiences shape this sentiment, and it is what allows us to define our realities. If you agree with the second statement I provided from Hume then it stands to reason that as I stated intellectual debate and reason are the only true and correct arbiters between conflicting parties. This is because violent conflict and dominance do not allow you to perceive the proper connections between actions and come to an informed sentiment. They simply allow you to force your own ideas upon those you dominate. Where as reason and debate allow you to better understand these connections because it provides an experience of reality that can enhance your own, and yours can enhance those you are disagreeing with.

So I guess what I am saying is that the arbiter that allows for my theory to not suffer from individual relativism is conflict. It is a flawed arbiter if accomplished through force or dominance, and is a informative empowering arbiter when it takes the form of reasoned discussion and debate. There are additional ideas that need to be discussed, but this is the basis of what I want to establish, well for now it is.

In shambles

I just ruined the most important friendship in my life. It's fucking done, over, gone. All because I cannot seem to realize that people are more then just part of my life apparently. What the fuck is the point if you cannot help but damage the things in your life you give a fuck about? Why do I have to feel like I have to fix everything? Why can't I let go and just leave people alone when they need space? I don't get to be happy because I can't maintain a relationship of any kind with someone I fucking care about because I can't respect the fact that they have their own life.

Life

We as a individuals exist in our own personal realities defined and interpreted by our experiences. Those experiences can be shaped by individual experiences that happen independant of influence by other conscious's or they are shaped through experiences that are influenced by others we accept as sources of experience. We come together as communities and groups and create a pool of shared experiences and interpretations we use to form rules and guidelines for our lives. Each individual places a different value on the interpretations of others based on our own individual experiences concerning those individuals. We trust individuals whom our individual experiences provide some form of value. That value can come from our appreciation of their credentials concerning the subject our through shared experiences that provide value. Each individual can ascribe different values on any given individual. There are those who do not value any outside interpretations and there are those who do not value their own experiences or interpretations and are thus subject to reality as defined by others rather then their own reality. So why does this matter? Because if you comprehend the world in this way but through your own experiences you are disappointed in your place in this world you seek validation from others to create a reality in which you do not disappoint yourself. This matters because I am one of those people. I do not know how to fix myself so I can be comfortable with what my experience, and thus my reality, says about who and what I am. In other word for people like me these relationships are vital. So when I find one that allows me to find some value in my existence I cling to it and act inappropriately anytime I feel like I am going to lose that which allows me to not hate myself....

So...

The Vegetarian thing is not going to work out right now. I am going to give it a go when I am in better shape and can better afford it. I still feel passionate about it, but I just can't do it right now.

Ethics! What a pain!

So I am coming to the conclusion that in my study of ethics one thing is becoming clear. For an ethical theory to be sound it has to be based on an absolute good. Almost always a metaphysical good. Any ethical theory based purely on human characteristics such as Hume's individual concepts of reason and sentiment or anything based on Utilitarianism becomes bogged down by relativity. This is because there is no absolute. The largest problem with this is that it means you have to be accepting of an absolute that is sometimes unprovable. I do want to say that I think it is possible for utilitarianism to work, but it has to be limited in scope, which is almost impossible in a world like ours where it is so easy for social groups to become interconnected and effect each other. So that leaves the opposite, expanding it to include in scope everything, so it would have to apply on a global scale, which leads to two issues in my mind. First the social implications are massive in scope simply because human beings congregate into groups and the only way for this to work is to view the human race as a whole with no separation, and that is impossible given human nature. The second is the difficulty in determining with the certainty the sum of a utilitarian equation for an action when considering a global scale. Both of these issues make such a concept completely unrealistic.

The closest anyone comes to avoiding this issue, that I have read, is Immanuel Kant. However I have run into two primary issues with his ethical theory I cannot answer. First is a logical issue, Kant states the following:

The only thing that is good without qualification is a good will.

That statement does not logically work. This is because it contradicts itself. The thing that is good with out qualification has a qualification. Good is a qualification of will in that statement, so it does not make sense. The second issue I am having with his theory has to do with what ethics is supposed to be. The study of ethics is at it's core the study of how to live a good life. So accepting this we examine Kant's theory and in it he puts forth the goal of a good life is to follow duties. There are certain duties that are the most important. However the duty to pursue happiness is not one of them. So this allows for a scenario in which if one follows their duties correctly one is not happy. I cannot define a good life if it lacks in happiness, or denies the importance of pursuing happiness. It seems that Kant's ethical theory relies on a sense that this life is not the end, but rather a means. It reminds me too much of Christian ideals regarding life being an imposition one has to get through to reach Heaven. So yeah... good times.

Music time!

Whats happening.

So I am making some pretty big changes in my life starting right now. First of all I am a vegetarian from now on. At least I am going to try to be one. I have always loved meat and loved cooking with it, but realistically it's unethical to eat meat and I wanna stop. Beyond that it's a tool for change and proving that I can change. I need to prove to myself that I can consistently maintain a major change in my life.

Second thing that I intend on doing is going to meditation services on a regular basis. First of all I need to find a good Buddhist temple or center to go to. I figured I would be able to google it and have no problem. I am afraid that was incorrect. The only one that looked like it would work for my purposes is in downtown Phoenix, and that just is not realistic. So I'll figure it out.

Last thing, work out starts tonight. Going to keep it simple, sit ups/crunches, push ups, curls, squats, standing press, and maybe a couple other exercises I can think of during the process. I will also be heading to the track across the street to walk/jog for a while.

All in all it is time to make the changes in my life I want to make. Also on a philosophical note, I hate you Hume, you ruin everything!

Finally my music video for the day:

First Entry!

So I have decided to start a blog. Why? I think I need a place where I can just say what I want and talk about my life and the things I am interested in without worrying about who reads it and what is said about it. It should be fun!

On to more serious topics. I am trying to come up with an answer to some of the issues that are posed by the concept of ethical relativism. I had an idea the other night concerning the nature of any individual action or perspective. I think that because any perspective or opinion is absolutely unique in space and time then it has it's own set of unique settings. If this is the case then there is no such thing as the same issue. It is not possible for any one ethical situation to ever be the same when applied or explained to separate individuals or cultures. If that is the case then the issue of one culture saying an issue is right and another saying it is wrong and relativism saying both cultures are correct does not cause as big of an issue. This is because each culture or individual is judging a completely different situation because there perspective makes it unique to them. Hmmmm I need to work through this some more I am thinking.

So other then my philosophical ramblings I intend on talking about music and the things I am doing. So first of all, here is my favorite song of the moment:



Fang Island is awesome and I am very happy my friend Andrea exposed me to them. Other then listening to great music I am going to start going back to the gym this week. No more excuses! That I am going to buy a guitar and start learning how to play. I need something to do in my free time that is actually constructive and makes me feel like I am accomplishing something.

Well, that's it for now.