No. Fucks. Given.
Written by some random dude on the internets:
Have you ever played any RPGS, like Final Fantasy?
You, real life you, are the protagonist of this story. Everyone, and I mean everyone else is a [Non Player Character].
Your mom is an NPC, your boss is an NPC, every stranger on the street is an NPC. Hell, even your shitty little cat is an NPC.
Now, how much do the NPCs really affect you? NPCs are never the story, my friend, they only exist to help you move the story along. Your story.
So if you screw up, or feel awkward, or want to start a conversation with a stranger, then don’t feel stressed out. Laugh it off, you’re the protagonist, they’re just an NPC. They deserve no fucks.
I’m telling you this because your story needs to move along. I’ve been put here by the gods of this narrative for just one purpose, to help you see the truth. I’m your muse and I’m revealing a major fucking plot point here, something the other NPCs will never tell your: this is your story.
Live it the way you want to. No. Fucks. Given.
Such awesome stuff.
Quick legend for non-geeky friends:
- Replace PRG with drama, film, etc.
- Replace NPC with supporting actor.
- Replace muse with lead supporting actor.
Breaking Down Some Language; Because Mysterious Doesn’t Mean Wise
If everything that is discussable can be defined as an instance of a concept, where we define concept as the encapsulation of many complimentary ideas into a consistently recognizable pattern, than the Zen idea of duality becomes definable. I came across this idea while reading Shunryu Suzuki’s “Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind”. He talks about how the mind and body are both eternal and finite, simultaneously; he describes this phenomenon through a metaphor calling mind and body “two sides of the same coin”.
I find this kind of language both confusing, frustrating, and potentially misleading. I also find it ubiquitous, as this wisdom-in-fallacy has become somewhat of a generic style for presenting philosophical information (especially in the Buddhist writings I’ve read). I find it confusing, because the metaphor is seemingly contradictory. I find it frustrating, because, while I agree with the sentiment that meditation trumps reading ten-fold, I still feel like readings can unveil the source of suffering; so to have someone who understands the nature of suffering use language I don’t understand makes me feel like I have an answer stuck on the tip of my tongue. And I find it potentially misleading, because when an established school of thought – an authority – starts using incomprehensible language, you run the risk of blind acceptance, where students try to force their experience into a definition, rather than formulate an articulation from their honest observation.
That being said, when you do stumble upon an understanding that happens to coincide with an existing concept, that concept then thereafter seem obvious, even if prior inspection had you feeling as I describe above.
Anyway, back to the point: mind & body both end and go on forever. I think the understanding to take away here is that the concepts or abstractions that we refer to as mind and body are the sum of many different things. I mean this literally. Think about the body: it is the thing that we best relate our physical presence with; it is the thing composed of organs, cells, and atoms; it is the ever changing thing moving through time, aging and deforming as it passes the days. The same thing applies for the concept of mind: it is the thing composed of a personality; it is the thing that has a daily mood; it is the thing that influences the environment in which it is alive within; it is the thing that is thinking; and it is one of the things that people remember regardless of whether it is present or not.
So when we say mind & body both end and don’t end, it’s really a matter of realizing that certain components of each end and don’t end. When we die, the atoms in our body don’t end, but the abstract concept of our physical manifestation is no longer maintainable, by definition. After death, our minds may not do what we traditionally refer to as ‘think’ but the influence we had during our life still lingers. We may not be able to think about a mind that has died the same way as when it was alive, but we still think about it!
I think the take away is that the abstractions we hold, collectively, as humans, are empty. They have no substance, but are merely an interpretation of the raw data we consume through observation. So while the abstraction may die, the reality persists, even if we think of the two as synonymous; however, while they are different, neither is more or less important than the other. That’s what “two sides of the same coin” means; the raw reality cannot be expressed or experienced without an abstraction through which it can live, and the abstractions are void unless they describe some sort of reality.
Where we get in trouble is when we start describing abstraction in terms of other abstraction. Then you run the risk of becoming too worked up in trying to understand and keep track of all the variables at play in your model. Meditation is a cure for that ailment, because it trains you to let go of those abstractions before you have the chance to build upon them.
Anyway, not something I think you should take too seriously, just a thought that was passing through my mind and I’d thought I’d jot down. If you find yourself thinking about this for more than 5 minutes, than I didn’t do what I was intending to do.
Flushing the toilet while you’re sitting on it is like betting it all on red; it can go either way…
Workplace bathroom behavior would make for an awesome case study. We spend 7+ hours at a place where we carefully maintain our social interactions, trying to optimize for very idiosyncratic professional goals, but one thing we all have in common: we all poop. And given the amount of coffee that gets consumed in highly competitive New York firms, I imagine this reality manifests itself quite frequently.
That being said, we don’t talk about it! I’m not trying to say that the topic should be the lunchtime conversation of choice, but merely noting that there’s this common behavior that functions independently of the communication feedback loop that influences so much of the rest of what we do!
So take this one: I go use the toilet; I’m the only one in the bathroom. As I finish and open the, what is now one of three, empty stalls; another man walks in. I proceed to wash my hands and he takes some paper towel and blows his nose; we are both looking into the mirror, silently. He hesitates at the mirror for about 20 seconds after he throws out his tissue, and the proceeds to walk into the stall I just walked out of. He knew I had just used the stall, so what was going through his mind? I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but I don’t like warm toilet seats, do you? I imagine not. Perhaps this is a personal quirk of mine (I would use a different stall); Perhaps the fact that every stall has a bottle of Lysol disinfectant spray and toilet seat covers negates the, what I would expect to be normal, inhibition to use a just-used stall; Or perhaps this man is weird. I guess we’ll never know…
What Else Does/Can Google Know?
I wonder if Google gets enough private data, from corporate users accidentally pasting snippets of proprietary information into their search bars, to come up with some sort of snapshot of a company’s private inner workings.
Undoubtedly they do for individuals, but I imagine that information is much more comprehensive; for example, if I constantly search for glutton-free recipes, Google can likely infer that I or someone I know has a restricted diet for what can assumed to be one or a small set of reasons.
But at work, at least for me, the things I search are often much more idiosyncratic and detailed, and sometimes seemingly arbitrary. For instance, I often Google function definitions, sometimes without realizing they’re from one of my company’s internal libraries and other times mistakenly all together, thinking I’m using one of my company’s internal search tools (which inadvertently happens to interface with Chrome’s search bar). This kind of information, from a consumer’s (e.g. Google’s) perspective, has to look much more like noise than correlated data, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it is noise; perhaps, when augmented with the information corporate users provide through purposeful searches of publicly available information, filtering and refining this “noise” into something more useful becomes possible.
It’s not about exercising the courage to smile at the pretty girl; it’s about smiling at everyone.
Letter to Me
There is so much potential in the world. If you constantly demonstrate this fact to yourself, you will be forever happy. By realizing that anything we can “know” is founded on belief, which is itself subjective — in the sense that it varies from person to person — then you realize that there is no monopoly on righteousness, ever. All you can ever hope to do is be as happy as possible in the moment. Combine this idea with the realization that everything is in motion, and you come to understand that any interpretation of righteousness has to be fluid or it won’t work, in the practical sense. So knowing you need to have some sense of whats right and wrong in order to be happy (e.g. killing a police officer will likely make you unhappy for many reasons), and also knowing that everything is in motion, it’s possible to understand that a lot of the corner cases for what we hold to be true, need to be constantly revaluated. That’s where boundaries come in. Your boundaries are no more defined than anyone else, so explore yours and respect others! That’s the key. Then you see that the cynics perspective is bogus. Everyone has the potential to be as “bad” or “good” as they choose. It’s not zero sum! With that information, life is fantastic, because people are, in the long run, inclined to pursue happiness. So smile at everyone and feet connected, because it’s freaking awesome. I don’t even care that this is probably the most obscure thing I’ve written in a while, I need to get his off my chest. I’ve been incredibly happy, and it’s because of this. I feel connected and part of something, along with everyone else that wants to be happy. It’s like a super exclusive club that let’s everyone in. We’re pursuing the most valuable thing in the world, without any focus on money, and making exponential progress. I can’t stop beaming.
Is it egotistical to think that I could potentially break free from the ego? This idea has been on my mind since my mom — who if any of you know, you’ll understand why this bugs me so much — told me I had to “get over my ego”, as I calmly and quietly allowed her to berate me over some nonsense.
Personal vs. Impersonal Relationships: Another Example of Ego’s Failure
There seems to be this implicit direct relation of a relationship’s quality and the closeness of the people involved, where the latter is measured through properties like the total amount of one-to-one interaction between people, the degree to which people are genetically related, or the actual amount of physical closeness (i.e. proximity) the people involved share. But I’m starting to think this assumption isn’t as true as I had once thought.
For example, one of my favorite groups of performs is Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros. Besides the fact that I think their music is pure bottled joy, their live performances have never left me less than hypnotized. What’s so awesome about their shows is the genuineness they embody. There’s no scripted dialog, stupid routine, or cheesy “We love you, New York”; there’s just the moving image of happy people, doing their thing with a crowd you’d think they (Ed Sharpe, et al.) knew personally.
And that’s the key; that’s where the idea of “the personal” breaks down completely. Because as a member of that crowd, I actually feel like I know these people personally, even if it is just for that night. Alex Ebert (the lead of Ed Sharpe) couldn’t remember my name if he wanted to, just due to the sheer mass number of people he meets at every show. In such situations I’ve discovered that you have to make a choice: either (1) know that the relationship between you and the band isn’t personal, and therefor can only mean so much; or (2) throw out the need for personal-ness as a required criteria, and allow yourself to feel the full force of the moment’s potential happiness.
Obviously this idea goes beyond Edward Sharpe and even music, but for me it’s so tightly couple to them, and especially Alex Ebert, because I’ve personally met him twice, and although I know he couldn’t possibly remember those experiences with me specifically, the times I’ve spent with him and his band are some of the most happy memories I have. My point: knowing someone’s name or spending a lot of time with a person are strict formalities that need not exist for an encounter to be emotionally fruitful. I’ve spent more time singing and dancing with Ed Sharpe than I have with nearly 3/4 of people I’d consider to be in my personal circle! AND WHO CARES! I don’t need my personal relationships to be anything they’re not, nor do I need Ed Sharpe to act any differently. The paradigm should fit reality, not the other way around!
All of that being said, I think this also sheds some light onto the entire celebrity complex that people, including myself, are so fascinated with. Knowing what I now know, I don’t think it’s really that much of a privilege to be on either side of the celebrity relationship. If you can get past the boundaries that “the personal” imposes, then either side can enjoy the moment at equal intensity.
Also, while it’s practical for me to talk about how I (as a member of the crowd) feel about the performers, the idea of how performers see the crowd can be equally as interesting. I imagine this concept of a quality, impersonal relationship is old news to people like Alex Ebert, his band mates, or any other genuine performer. They experience the impersonal bond to people they’ve just met much more frequently than we do, and perhaps even more frequently than they experience personal relationships, quality or otherwise. However, given that, such a perspective might shed some light on why some other performs can be such douchebags on stage.
While the potential for quality relationship is there, a lot of the time the crowd abuses their partner, the performer, demanding played out music, throwing things on stage, and doing generally anything to feed the confused hedonistic urge they feel to have a good time in a situation they’ve already predefined as impersonal. In cases like these, the crowd becomes its own beast, acting as if the performer is like some sort of credited vending machine taking a little too long to dispense their made selection; shaking the thing is near instinctual.
I think its because of this that one of my other favorite performers acts like such a dick on stage, yet remains to be so awe inspiring. Neil Young once told a fellow performer who was nervous before a gig to, “Show them no respect.” After experiencing Neil’s own lack of respect for the 4th or 5th time in person, I began to loose faith in my idol. Could such a prolific song writer, who’s work always carried the themes of compassion and togetherness, really hate people that much? Was he just another phony? I don’t think so. I think Neil just plays it like he sees it, and in the moment, the crowd — which is usually much larger than those at Edward Sharpe shows, and thus innately more unruly — can be just as much a factory of disconnect as it can be pool of mutual happiness. In that case, Neil looks at it (the crowd), recognizes it as an individual in itself, flips it off when it shows him no respect, and does what he came to do — play music.
Regardless, recognizing the true nature of one’s involvement in “the whole” of things gives you a wholesome perspective on how to act in said situations. Allowing myself to let go of all the restrictions I’ve been indoctrinated with over the years has let me enjoy experiences with a new level of intensity; on the flip side, such an enlightenment has also let me forgive the mob-mentalitied crowd, as they know not what they do; and lastly, it’s given me an understanding of those who react to the mob rather than the individuals its comprised of; it’s only natural.
So, the obvious conclusion of this little rant is that Ed Sharpe should cover a Neil Young song. I’d give a few suggestions, but I’d probably end up listing the discography, so surprise me.
Quick Note to Self
There are certain things you wish to do in life that are difficult, as they require persistent forfeit of short term pleasure in exchange for long term accomplishment. There are also other things you wish to avoid; things that (supposedly) yield short term pleasure, but at the expense of long term suffering.
In order to make progress in either of these endeavours, you need focus, and the only way to gain focus is by practice.
Anything can count as practice; as long as you stay focused on a specific goal and try, however painstakingly, to accomplish that goal, you will make progress in honing the skill of true focus. The most low level form of this practice is, by definition, meditation. To sit and attempt to stay focused on a single, simple, point of interest, like the breath, you progressively learn to focus on a single idea of your own choosing, while simultaneously learning how to effectively recognize and deal with distractions.
This is what you’ve forgotten. This is what you need to remember.
Thailand Notes (Part 4)
In hindsight, I still haven’t found the proper way for how to express this idea just yet, but you got to start somewhere…
Competition and Self Reflection
When you’re submersed in a population you’re familiar with, it’s easy to recognize “mistakes” other people make because it’s easy to see yourself in other people. What I’m learning is that when the opposite occurs - in other words, when you’re submersed in a population that completely clashes with your sense of normalcy - it’s really difficult to connect, and thus you’re alone with yourself, sort of speak. In the former case (e.g. New York, for me) I can turn behaving righteously into sort of a game, and the competition of it makes it easier for me to feel content and good. Observing other people doing things with inevitable negative outcomes makes it easier for me to not repeat such behavior in my own life. But in the latter case, I’m left alone with myself (metaphorically speaking), and mistakes go unrecognized because of my ego and lack of setting. I get lost in my thoughts, and the end up getting caught up in these cycles of hate and angst due to my lack of regiment or comfort, and there’s no one to call me out on my behavior because I’m blind to it myself. The conclusion: when left alone with myself it’s easy to catch the self-conscious cabin fever; it’s something I’ve got to work on. Meditation anyone?
