I used to be a big believer in the idea that by being honest about what you want and why it is that you want it you could manipulate your behavior in such a way so as to create a desired outcome. It undoubtedly took effort and likely discomfort, but the idea that I played a significant role in the path that my life was taking was one that I had full confidence in. Logically, it made sense. By examining a situation from the appropriate angles, it should be clear which path to take to ensure things went the way you hoped. And when you settled on this "right path"... It would make you happy. Because it was the RIGHT WAY after all... Right?? 

I completely ignored or maybe misunderstood the paradoxical nature of real life.

But 30 has dealt me a bit of an odd hand. And perspective seems to be something that I have no shortage of these days.

Day to day brings new desire. What I thought I wanted is far from what i want today... And yet it's the same... all at the same time. I think it has something to do with the humbling fact that I'm at least a third of the way or perhaps even half of the way to where I'm headed. And what do I have to show for it? A lot, for sure. But is it what I wanted to accomplish? What I wanted to experience? None of us are guaranteed tomorrow, after all. If it all ends tomorrow... Would I have regrets?? Would I long for the tomorrow's that I'd never have?

Right now I'm thinking the answer is no; and that's a good thing. But no one has known what I've done. Not really. And is that ok? Is that how it is for everyone? Is that how it's supposed to be? 

When you're 20 it seems like there is still plenty of time for all that. And perhaps i was a mature 20. I'll admit to that. I wanted to be that. But at 30 I have let go of the need for approval and the need for a plan and have instead exchanged it for the need for fulfillment or happiness, for purpose, for meaning, for fun. But not because its not achievable. But because I have looked instead to arbitrary measures by which I could calculate my happiness. I am now well aware of the time I wasted. I have been instead distracted by the ubiquity of judgement instead of the focus of fulfillment. And that is no ones fault but my own. 

This does not mean that I am unhappy... In fact I am far from that. Confused is a better descriptor although I'm not sure that quite hits the nail on the head either. I am trapped in the paradox of life. That is what I feel. I want what I can't have. Have what is not good for me. Love what is wrong and yet feels SO right, all at the same time. And hold close that which keeps me safe, though it's not fair to all involved, even me. Its a perfect mess of a life that i love and nonetheless wonder if I'm screwing up all the same.

But then I'm left thinking... Who's to say this beautiful mess is NOT the way it was all supposed to play out?! The way it goes for EVERYONE?? Not that I'm one to necessarily believe in all that predestined crap. Just because I didn't anticipate the path doesn't mean its wrong, it just means it's organic, it's real... Without fake and therefore, forced motivation. It's real. It's ugly, unfair and unethical as it may be... It's not necessarily calculated or manipulative. It's happening as it should, not as a plan but as it was supposed to. And aren't those stories always the most interesting?

Aren't those stories the ones that makes the most sense? 

All I want is a story that's real. 

And I am well on my way... 

Ya know, i always thought that poetry was nonsense. Like poets were just bad writers who were clever enough to change the game so that they could still play (and even be good at it...). But now I'm beginning to think that perhaps they were the ones actually trying to figure things like this out (while philosophers wait in the wings debating the basics of WHAT is love??) Im not saying theyve been doing a good job or anything so much as admitting that i may not have the tools necessary to dissect this thing. 

So what is it, exactly? This feeling that i cant live without you, that i need you for some reason or another. it must be biologically rooted because i know that i have no control over it. it rises in me in the same way that anger, excitement and laughter does. I can suppress it, somewhat, but i cant turn it off. It controls me, not the other way around. It is organic and real and sneaks in at the weirdest times and the most inconsequential of moments. 

Love. Infatuation. Chemical attraction. Call it what you will...   

It is the perfect fairy tale. A meeting of the heart and mind in a way that you do with no other. You are finally seen... your beauty, your worth, your being, and it is appreciated. It is idealistic in the most uncompromising way. The passion, the belief, is not logical, but is real nonetheless. It is hopeful and optimistic in a way that can only be compared to the birth of a child. But it is different from that even. 

The unattainable, for a moment, feels so very real. And it almost always comes as a shock. In a very- Wait?! Is this really happening? kind of way. No matter how bad you want it to be real, or not to be real for that matter, you cant believe it. And yet you believe it, because the way you are feeling convinces you of nothing else. The surprise of it all is likely significant. Because you weren't looking for it, IT MUST BE indicative of something. Could it... dare i say it... be meant to be?

It is intoxicating in a way no drug is. Its as if you are being seduced into giving up your freedom and lucidity. And it's worth it. Even when you know its not... you justify it... because it feels that good. Its no wonder the first definition of infatuate is "to cause to be foolish: deprive of sound judgement". And to think this stage always precedes that of true love- whatever that is- is a scary thought.

So in the face of this apparent illogical chemical intoxication, how are we supposed to remain in control of our emotions?

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect aside from the fact that you cant really control it is the fact that it is based on so little. A good joke. A smile. An intellectual conversation. All things which otherwise would be inconsequential to your day. But with the right place and the right time it is propelled  to the forefront of your consciousness where you are forced to analyze its effects- and power over you- constantly and exhaustively.

But WHY?????

Why arent common interests and physical attraction enough? Why, in the course of evolution, - or whatever you believe- did this unexplainable phenomenon become necessary?

I ask, because, I got nothing.

Its not as if i don't believe in the concept of truth; i do.

But i just don't believe that my truth and your truth are the same.

My truth could be antithetical to your truth and vice versa, and yet it could still technically be the "truth". I think that this is the natural order of things. We are different people. Every one of us. And this is obvious in our looks, our demeanor, our thoughts, so why not our purview?

But we are all judged by the same standards and given "the way" to succeed as if it were the only valid one available.

This is more than "its all relative". Though, admittedly my point draws from this line of reasoning, if only implicitly so. Its more a respect of difference,an expectation of nonconformity versus conformity. An understanding of the way that it is, in order to tap into the idea of creating what it could be.

I once read that it is actually difference that we all have in common, not our ability to conform. and this is an interesting point that has stuck with me. When i get frustrated by things that are particular to me- my picky eating, my germaphobia, second guessing my decision to still have the same job I've had forever because its a good one and i could do a lot worse, i step back and remember- we all have these parallel battles. And this really does help. Though it may not seem like the person standing next to you is as stressed out as you are, it is likely they are, but they just appear to be handling the stress better than you are.

Many of us place ourselves atop a pedestal which is likely reinforced by those around us. Yet we all have problems, we all make mistakes, and we all fail from time to time. AND THESE ARE THE THINGS WE HAVE IN COMMON. The negatives in our lives make us relatable; they make us REAL. We have all been hurt, lied to, screwed over and taken advantage of.

Our beauty lies in our differences. The unique attributes that make us so individually us. Learning to embrace these differences when you see so many contrasting people and personalities is difficult. Conformity is easy. Embracing your difference is hard; but worth it. Difference is what makes you appealing, beautiful, unique... you. Nothing will change that. And being able to appreciate yourself is the first stepping stone to earning respect from others.

This is where my version of truth becomes relevant. What is it that you want and need in your life? Im not talking extravagances, but necessities. What would make you a better person tomorrow if you had it in your life today?

This truth is different for all of us. But it is no less real. Which is why i think the ability to accept truth as a fluid rather than a concrete concept is so important. For you and i to both get what we need from a relationship, to get what we need to be our true selves there has to be some wiggle room here. Otherwise we are just drawing lines in the sand everywhere; expecting that if only you are convincing enough, you will make me see the REAL truth.

But truth is subjective. It is developed through the lens of our own biases and experiences. It always will be. Accepting this is the first step to finding common ground; and accepting the only real truth that there is.

I don't think anyone prefers group work for the simple fact that the one thing that is sure to result from it is certain to not be YOUR vision. It is an exercise in compromise, and can we be honest here- none of us like to compromise. We enjoy the relationship benefits of the process, but no one appreciates the criticism. It implies your ideas are not good enough and to the truly sensitive, that YOU are not good enough.

Collaborative work can, however, challenge your mental capacity in a way that you never could on your own. And as a result, you become capable of creating work which you never could do alone.

But in accepting the role of co-worker, personal identity is most certainly compromised. Yet this is no different from group behavior in any other sense. To become a functioning group member, one must leave some personal attributes at the door and be willing to accept group norms.

This is a particularly touchy subject in the art world. I have been told more than once that artists are a sensitive species. As a result, many believe the the vulnerability implicit in group work is not worth the creative challenge.

The interesting point here is that while the blame is placed on the outside influences- the group, the criticism, etc.- it appears to actually originate from anxiety within the artist herself.

A collaborative work by definition is not completed until all contributing members have signed off on the final product. If group members give their approval out of obligation, not only is this inauthentic, but this individual is likely to view the process as such as well.

This is not to say there is no value in working alone. There is an inherent freedom in this method which allows for experimentation different from that of group work. Without the anxiety, the mind is allowed to wander and create free from arbitrary perimeters.

But this does not mean that one type of work is inferior to the other. It is just different. And therefore, not truly capable of undermining your personal creative process. That is, unless, you allow it to.

But this point does not ignore the idea that these two types of work influence each other. Of course they do. In fact, every time you are challenged to create something you unconsciously draw from your mental resources. The more of which you have, the more with which you have to create.

Change is an interesting concept. Is it really possible to wake up one day and decide to live your life differently? Theoretically, this sounds great, to think we have this power and the will to implement it. Reality, on the other hand, seems to tell a different story.

My problem with this change concept is that we, as individuals, think we have some conscious choice in the matter. It seems from my personal experience that change is rather something that is forced upon us, not something we choose.

And sure, it can be argued that in response to these outside factors we do actually participate in this thing we all call change. Yet, it seems to me we are handed our new set of circumstances and we either adapt, or we don't. And we label this thing 'change' and bask in the logistical byproducts of our new personal circumstances- a new child, a new job, the opportunity to find true love... for instance.

I'm not sure there is anything to prove here. Any concept as arbitrary as truth in the nature of personal change is bound to be debated endlessly.

What fascinates me though is our society's insistence that this is possible, and advisable in almost every circumstance as if it were the 'Holy Grail' of human behavior. So you are poor?- You need to change your work ethic. Doing poorly in school?- change your study habits. Unhappy in your relationship? Change your behavior toward your partner. The list goes on and on.

This thing we so casually refer to as 'change' is instead our attempts to conform to our society's value judgements; the way others think we should live our lives. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Humans have long since evolved to understand the importance of group formation and loyalty. But this is not indicative of intrinsic change. And thats my point.

Can we truly change something about ourselves without it being influenced by outside forces? My gut is telling me no. And it rarely lies.

I subscribe to the theory that the human consciousness is the the result of evolution. And yet I can't quite grasp the concept that physics, by way of energy and inertial guidance, plays a direct role in the creation of it. While it seems these two statements are at odds with one another, I do not believe that this theory is one which was inevitable but rather one which developed organically as a result of humans innate desire to be more than the sum of their parts. 

Particularly because this consciousness provides no immediate survivalistic properties, it is curious as to why we as a species ponder meaning as opposed to simple continued and improved being. I wonder why it is that we seek out knowledge to understand and not simply in an effort to naturally USE said information. While it is clear that the components that make up each of us are essentially the same, scientifically speaking;  we each remain our own unique individuals. This is significant and also puzzling. Though we each contain the same basic properties, we nevertheless each develop a unique consciousness which is our own psychological blue print. 

I believe that it's not that these connections are biologically energy driven though that is responsible for this evolution, but rather the brains innate desire to seek out this information to want to be something more, to matter in the grand scheme of life itself. We have thus created this understanding, this world in which we can interpret reality, based on our inherent need to be larger than the statistically insignificant creatures that some would argue that we are. We crave knowledge in some form or another in an indescribable need to make sence of and manipulate our reality to make it conform to and supportive of our desired reality. Desire is therefore the root of human consciousness, a fundamental building block by which the unique human consciousness is possible. Its inception is as much a mystery as that of the universe and yet it is just as real.

We all have a desired reality. And that is precisely my point. But where does this come from? In most cases this desired reality is quite specific and as different as each of us is. And most of the time it is a theoretical reality which has no direct explanation or plan of attack. It is the development of critical thinking and this conscious mind which as a species distinguishes us from all others. It is precisely this consciousness which allows us to entertain the concept of learning and determine which material is worthy of our being and which is not. It is this consciousness which has allowed us to evolve into a modern society which is structured to a large extent around our wants, not necessarily our biological needs. Consider for a minute the iPad I am typing this on right now, the roads I drove on today and the stores I frequent to buy my food. None of these things are essential to my survival yet they were all conceived of and developed by this consciousness which purpose has no fundamental sense of survival at its core. It instead reflects the capacity that the human brain has acquired in its evolutionary process.  

If energy is the brains benefactor of knowledge, than where does the universal desire to understand and wonder and question come from? Why are we prejudice against different types of information or knowledge versus what appeals to us directly? 

Using the explanation that there must be energy continually traveling different types of pathways which are making different types of connections does not disprove the theory that the human consciousness is innate. Because the fact remains that without this property we would not be the evolutionarily superior beings that we are. We obtain the knowledge we need in order to create and understand our desired reality. To a larger extent, we reject all else as it serves no purpose to our conscious mind. If energy were blindly driving our "need" for the consumption of knowledge,  then the more we have of it, according to this energy theory, then the more useful we would have the potential and desire to be(think energy drives learning= more knowledge consumption= more possibility= more value) and for this energy theory to hold we must be constantly seeking out and digesting knowledge in an attempt to create a more perfect human consciousness. And while the case can be made that this is happening on a societal level, it is not one which is happening on a personal one. 

Our conscious mind is driven by our personal wants and desires which are unique to each of us. It is controlled by its own innate boundaries and shaped by the knowledge and experiences we allow it to digest. A lot of it is by chance and yet it is nevertheless a controlled process. Human desire in the form of wants, curiosity and understanding is just that, uniquely human. Its origins reside in the complexity of the human mind and the idea that we are cognitively capable of more than our biological needs. The organic processes which take place there are certainly shaped by our biology and physical properties. But they don't begin or end there. If they did we would be able to ascribe certain theories which could predict an individuals desires or motivations with some high degree of certainty. 

And I think we can all agree that this is not the case. 

"Deliberate, studied ignorance is a concept that many find profane in this age of information addiction, but it's merits appear once one does away with the fallacy that an individual more informed is an individual more effective. A pilot must constantly be mindful of data about wind and clouds, but statistics about the wholesale price of Alaskan salmon have no bearing on her day. Information has no inherent value; it's chief utility is in its capacity to prompt reflection or guide action, uses that are themselves governed by contingent needs."

-Why no one should watch the presidential debates 
Zeeshan Aleem
The Huffington Post
10/2/12

In fact, I do find this concept profane. While it is true that information in and of itself does not have inherent value, the CONCEPT of information absorption, KNOWLEDGE, if you will,  is not so irrelevant. For instance, the pilot that Mr. Aleem  speaks to in his analogy did not end up flying planes by merely studying relevant wind and cloud data. Rather, she likely completed years of formal primary education, followed later by specialized training, all the while continuing to read and learn about topics of personal interest on the side, be it news, politics, philosophy, religion, etc. 

The part of this concept which offends me the most is the oversimplification of the human mind in relation to task management. Knowledge is not like pounds. It does not weigh you down. It enables you to identify logical relationships which allow for  greater possibilities. Our capacity to absorb information is limitless. Our brains are hard wired for this, to find patterns and connections in an effort to solve problems. 

Rarely does an individual only rely on specialized information to get through his or her day. Particularly in the case of critical thinking and problem solving, information not so obviously relevant can lead to the most creative solutions which may not otherwise have been possible without the retention of this so called irrelevant knowledge. 

And furthermore, to take this theory a step further and proclaim that American citizens should not listen to the individuals vying to run our country and represent us to the world is the height of irreverence. The ONLY way our democratic system can function properly is with a well informed electorate. (And believe me, I am not arguing here that we actually have one.) But to dissuade fellow voters from educating themselves on a candidates platform is just crazy. Where else should a voter get their information?! How about we listen to our politicians platforms delivered from their own mouths and give them the opportunity to explain themselves. 

If individuals take the next step of reading and watching commentators discuss the information delivered by the candidates, ("information addiction", as it is here so casually termed) it is a positive exercise insofar as it allows for that information to be dissected and reflected upon so as to test the platforms the candidates are offering in a safer arena than the actual real world where consequences are more serious than falling poll numbers. 

Finally, we all have our own reasons for voting. Mine is that I believe the system can produce meaningful change. You may disagree and that is your prerogative. But if you don't take part in it, than you do nothing but prove your point. You don't even come close to challenging mine.

And when I listen to both candidates platforms, think critically about the paths each are offering our country, I make a choice based on the KNOWLEDGE that I have gained throughout my formal education and life experience. The more knowledge I have, the greater capacity I believe I have to understand the worldview I am being asked to subscribe to. 

And it is this understanding which is key. Maybe you are comfortable with the idea of deliberate ignorance. Me on the other hand? I'd rather actually understand  what I'm being asked to believe in. And for that matter, what I'm being asked to represent. 

Failure is a loaded concept. 

It implies wrongdoing, but on the part of whom? It also has a sense of finality to it, which carries with it an idea that it cannot be undone. But in what capacity is this description accurate? If you examine a situation thoroughly enough, surely you can find a silver lining, perhaps even a lesson to take with you in the future which then transforms the experience into one worthy of your time. Is effort really ever wasted if it is honest and true? Is it not worth it if you learned something in the process, or even walked away a more humble, and perhaps, even stronger person?

I tend, rather, to believe in the idea of systemic failure as opposed to personal failure. After all, what in this life do you ever really accomplish on your own? Without parents, or friends, or teachers, or mentors, or children to help us along the way, from where do we obtain our values, goals and fears? This is not to say everyone has or even needs all of these resources. But the more you have, the stronger you have the capacity to be. 

Now when these support systems malfunction, or never materialize, failure is real. But it is not by your own personal doing. Sure you have the responsibility to overcome, to put one foot in front of the other and carry on. But you do this by rebuilding that support system which failed you in the first place. You don't wallow in what YOU personally could have done better. I can tout the virtues of introspection all day long but without role models or a support system willing to truthfully offer you a critique of your actions where does that leave you? A mind can convince itself of anything. When it convinces itself that IT IS THE PROBLEM, the chances of meaningful change diminish. It instead gets caught up in the idea that it is somehow fundamentally flawed. And where do you go from here?

Getting hung up on this idea of personal failure is a sure way to achieve it. This theory is not simply a way to spread the blame, it is rather the way to step outside of your perceived "failure" and think critically about it. After establishing what your real problem is, the next step is to figure out what you can actually do about it. (quite different from what you would "like" to do about it...) It is a whole lot easier to change your influences than yourself. Once you have done this, a good look in the mirror is the next step. 

Just be sure when your looking at yourself, you realize you didn't get to where you are alone. And if you did, perhaps THAT is the problem. 

Several people in my life have tried explaining to me that if they could just "get away from here" their life would be different, perhaps even better. The "here" in this quote is not nearly as significant as the "away" is. But sometimes I wonder if these individuals even realize this. Because after all, when you travel far away from all that is familiar, you are at the end of the day, still you.

Surely, a new place can cause you to be open to and embrace parts of you that you keep hidden. And likewise, new experiences can cause you to learn more about the world and maybe even yourself. But unless you plan to be a globetrotter (what exactly are you running from anyway?!) the new normal you have established will essentially become the old normal that you once knew. Because you are you. And if you weren't happy when you started, then you won't be happy where you've ended up. Leaving a person or place is simply a distraction from reality, not a solution to it.

Sometimes a change of scenery can help an  individual to gain a new perspective. But this effort, without an embrace of introspection is hardly worth it. After all, your perspective is your vision and your vision is you. How exactly do you plan to get away from that? 

Your only hope to change your experience is to change the lens through which you examine it. Introspection is a powerful and yet, sometimes elusive aspiration. It is not easy. It does not come naturally. But neither does picking up and leaving the life that you know. It is uncomfortable and the end result uncertain. But again, so is leaving. Just keep that in mind.

I have always been confused by the argument that some people, on principle, simply choose to not have children. (and by the way, i have one of these people in my own family...). These are not the same as the individuals who just never happen to have them for one reason or another. I'm talking about the people whose life plan it is to remain childless. They are not willing to make the SACRIFICE required to raise children. It is this definition of SACRIFICE which confuses me. 

Now i will make my bias explicitly clear. I have two beautiful children whom i love deeply, but please, hear me out. 

I am actually trying to understand why. Some say kids are expensive and would require a great SACRIFICE that they either dont want to or can't see themselves willing to accept.
This seems a little extreme as it is possible, with a few new learned tricks of the trade, to mitigate child care costs such as clothing and food. Day care and schooling is another important issue entirely and costs for these services are very real and not one i will characterize as so easily manipulated. But i will say that they are so situational from family to family that it seems that to base the "finacial security" argument on this alone is a bit of a strech. 
There is also this idea that your children are perpetual baggage, whom prohibit "good" parents from doing things they'd like to do such as travel, finish school, take demanding job opportunities, et cetera. 
No matter what you do with your life you are constantly weighing the cost benefit analysis of SACRIFICE. No matter if you travel, persue higher education, take a high or low paying job, you are SACRIFICING your free time, your money (or money earning potential), and your personal relationships in an effort to not only do what you want, but also to better yourself. Am i right? 

I am certainly only one case but let me tell you the things i gave up to have my children- like blowing my money, eating like crap, staying up at all hours doing who knows what and sleeping in late- are not things that i miss in the slightest.

When these arguments of- should you or should you not have children- are made, i think that some important points are left out of the equation. And i dont mean simply the happiness and love that children bring to your life (this by no means discounts this true statement; it is merely an acknowledgment that i know you have heard that argument before).

The most rewarding things about my children is not their physical being or the happiness i would not experience without them. It is rather the changes i have made and the lessons i have learned which have transformed me into this new and better version of myself that i am so proud of. 
I am learning to be responsible with my money. I am learning how important it is to live in the moment. (childhood is fleeting after all- i think we forget too often that we are actually raising PEOPLE...) My kids have forced me to learn to stop and simply have fun. And they have taught me to value education, open mindedness and common ground more so than ever before. 
I embrace this SACRIFICE in an effort to truely get to know and appreciate these individuals who also happen to be my children. 
This may be selfish insight. But its real. I have no starry eyed illusions that my children will grow up to worship me oneday or even need me for that matter. They will be amazingly capable individuals. They will move on and persue their own lives. Hopefully i will be around to watch them enjoy it.

And yet while they owe me nothing- i owe them so much. To be a good parent I have to be as honest and real and caring as i can be to show them what this life is really about. 

Interestingly, without them in my life, i'm not sure i would have ever really known...