Puzzles.

Puzzles are fun, in the fustrating challenge way. I sometimes try the crossword, but quickly give up and just do soduku and word search and stuff.

In reality, I try puzzles each day. We all try puzzles each day. Most of life is a puzzle in itself. We're all trying to make the pieces fit in just the right way so we get what we want with no effort. We all wish that dream girl would fall at our feet. That we'd get a 4.0 in every class. That we'd satisfy everyone who expects something from us. Life never works this way. We're given a box of pieces and told to make our lives out of it. We all puzzle over how to live the beautiful life.

I put it together the other day. Physically. If only I can do it spiritually and emotionally.







The first pic says "Solve the puzzle in the world"... Marker bled a lot it seems, sorry.

IWW = Idustrial Workers of the World. Look it up perhaps if you don't know.

If I were you, I'd hate me

Yeah, I would.

I didn't hold the door for you.

Yeah, I threw away most of my food while people starve, because I can't eat that shit anymore.

I'm quiet. Yeah. News. It's probably the most valid reason to hate me.

Yeah, I say stupid things a lot.

And I'm the only one who laughs. I'm pretty damn selfish.

You should hate me.

will not sing in your damned parade.

What's been on my mind?

The month or so it's been since my last thought... Has been a time of putting thought into practice, in a way. Putting in an attempt to overbalance hatred with love, chaos with peace, work with boredom.

The struggle has been, for me, balancing my dislike and contempt for authority with love. The idea of loving your enemies is a hard one to balance. Where is the line between loving the person and being supportive of authority? Where is the line that divides between a good person and being a boss?

This troubles me. I cannot support them, of course. I can't wish them luck in busting down doors and going through everyone's stuff. But I can't hate them. I've know what I have to do, but this practice isn't easy.

Hopefully this becomes more regular, posting on here. It may not, I'm a little busy. I'll try.

Kid A

I have a fundamental problem in the way I live my life.

I can not effectively deal with people. [they say that you can tell that a person's lying if he doesn't use contractions. It creates a funny paradox in this case. I appear to be lying to myself over something I'm trying to accuse myself of. (Don't be afraid, I'm very lost too)]

You see, this creates a sort of... internal question to myself. How can I claim to love those I do not engage in conversation with? How can I be there to serve everyone if I don't know anyone?

The idea I've been interested in this summer, like all summers, you know, justice and freedom and love, and all that, doesn't work in a one man world. Thinking of it, reading of it, dreaming of it, does nothing if I don't practice it, aye? Well, how can I practice it if I don't deal with anyone?

I've had the flu or something these past couple days. Outside my family, and work, because I had to arrange for someone to cover my shift. I don't really think anyone noticed. This is kind of... worrying. I mean, I'm laying in the bed I made, it's totally my fault.

I understand what I'm doing wrong. I don't know how to be any other way. Herein lays the problem.

I want to be normal. I despise normality. It's a fun paradox to play with.

Thoughts that took nearly a month.

Sorry for the gap. My life hasn't spared me much time.

I've spent some that I have trying to engauge in debate with some people from the a forum I frequent on the topics of anarchy and socialism. I wrote this bit up the other day after a person, for the millionth time, said "Hey, you can't be an anarchist AND a socialist!"

For some reason, I get the impression that you're not quite in the minority in this thread. I don't know if you missed it or not, but it's a topic I don't mind addressing. It seems to me that most people have a very narrow view of communism/socialism and anarchy.

It's not just socialism and anarchy that people are confused of. As demonstrated earlier when a poster falsely welded the ideas of democracy and capitalism at the hip, impossible to be separated, when in reality socialism can be democratic and capitalism can be fascist. From history, we can get a great education, but it is foolish to think that the past must dictate the future. On to the meat and potatoes.

You are correct in your assesment that greed does make communism very difficult to execute on a large scale without a rigid, authoritarian government. Such a government wasn't part of the blueprint, but it was thought of to be an acceptable evil for the common good. But, as Mr. Orwell illustrates for us in Animal Farm, power always corrupts the leaders in such cases to stray from the original ideal into the same old human conditions.

The theme that power corrupts is a popular one to me. It seems to be nearly absolute. History does not offer many examples of a leader who never waivered in his or her quest to satisfy the constituents. Instead, it seems to me that they always know what's best for the people. That the people are petty fools who don't know what's good for themselves. This point is best illustrated in modern day Venezuela and other countries under the control of the communist party. Chavez thinks he alone can solve the nation's problems, that he can bring down what he sees as a morally horrific western culture. While I find some of his views to be agreeable, I do not think he should appoint himself dictator or anything of the sorts. Even though I could say that his economic ideas are somewhat decent, I cannot count myself as a supporter of him because of his actions reguarding elections, etc.

The base for communism is "commune". We all live in communities. In towns, in neighborhoods, in cities, in states. Communities, in my eyes, are not made up and ruled by town councils and police. They are given identity by the people who compose them. From this idea, everyone is different and gives their own unique contribution to the area around them. It also means that one person cannot make up a community. Instead, they are all influenced equally by individuals. This is why I don't think fascism and communism are forever welded at the hip. Stalin would have sent his dogs onto me for saying so, but let's not bind ourselves into history.

You're view into anarchy is also incorrect. Yes, anarchists like myself do want to do away with leaders. However, we do not want society to go away. We're social animals. No one can ever disband society. We can never be locked into small hamster wheels, we'll always find a way out. Do I see our society we live in now as flawed? Yes. But I wish to change it, not do away with it.

My preferred definition of anarchy is life without bosses. In this way, unlike what you say, we are then all equal. If there are no bosses, no one can be bossed around. With no slave masters, everyone is free.

Thoughts?

Hope.

I leave you tonight with maybe a little more hope than I had about people than before.

Courage.

What is it? I read a short story by Tolstoy today, that raised that question.
Per Wikipedia:
"Courage, also known as bravery, will, intrepidity, and fortitude, is the ability to confront fear, pain, risk/danger, uncertainty, or intimidation. "

It's one of those things that a lot of people have made quotes about through the years.
Churchill said: "Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm."
Aristotle said: "Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts."

So, what is courage? Whatever it is, can I be defined as it?

Certain courage must be a good quality. Technical definitions aside, I think Churchill doesn't have it all right. I know people who really like his quotes, but to me they are soundbytes that held England together in war, and not nessesarily purely philosophical. Aristotle's point was that courage is a verb and you can only be courageous if you perform courageous acts.

Which to me is a big gray area. By thinking in contrary to popular views held by my peers, am I not courageous? Surely, in some scary time, thought itself may be courageous. So maybe thought isn't enough, for now.

When I think courageous, you normally think of you know, a man running through a hail of bullets to complete his mission. Yeah, it's defitely courageous, but I think we'd be wrong to stop courage at a purely physical level.

If I had to pick one person who I thought was the most courageous, I'd pick Martin Luther King, I think... Maybe to be continued.