Writing For Idiots

By Roger Colins 

_____________________________________________________________ Representitive Literature? Surely not... Normally, I give myself a wide birth. Is that me? Could be, but could be you as well.   When I give myself a wide birth I'm allowing myself the ability to be misunderstood and when allowing someone else a wide birth, allowing them the ability to misunderstand. Could you get through that sentence without reading it twice? If you could, thine be mine bretherin. If not, well then... Sorry to have to do this but I feel that it is an important, nay, a paramount point that has to be said. I am no elitist and insist that learning, is a long, swooping, never ending curve. I was always told to write as if writing for a three year old, or there abouts. The idea is that anyone can read your work and your work can be understood. Fair enough. But, wait. What if everyone suddenly turns into genii? Yes, it is a word, plural for geniuses. Whoops, there I go again. I'd have to up my game a bit so that my work isn't passed off as remedial when it is supposed to be something more. Come on, what if everyone turned into morons? Exactly, I would say. I'd just have to write so much more carefully, on a hope and a prayer that the morons reading my work had the necessary attention span to get to the end. I would, after all, have to use more words as the bigger words that would not be understood would require whole sentences to get the meaning across to these third graders. Let me give you an example. Shakespere  I was about thirteen years old sooo, lets say this is 1995. Holy shit! A long time ago. Hmm. Anyway, my upper school class along with myself were taken along to a certain movie, originally penned by William Shakespere, reproduced and depicted with the help of one, Leonardo DiCaprio. The problem was, that the original Shakespearean language was not tampered with and the dialemma, that it left me sitting next to my best mate, telling me he didn't understand a word. Oh Shit. Well, normally I would have turned to said person in the theatre and asked them if they spoke English. Nay, I did not for I have a kind heart in my breast may it damn me to hell. I just tried to give my friend the general idea of what was going on while Mercutio was pointing his 'swords' at everyone. And we return. Now I am somewhat the twenty years on now, I have the advantage of retrospect and can use it in this well formulated and entirely improvsed illustration. Just when are we going to be able to write for those that aren't idiots? Yes, he was my best friend and I do not mean to impinge on any of you that do not understand what I am saying, just, that I am bored having to make myself more stupid in order to create something new. If I want to sell a shit load of volumes and books, signings, posters, publicity and interviews and what ever so have you, yes... I have to write for the masses and leave my true talent, truly, wasted. I can freely understand that a paper that has to be specific in all areas of accuracy such as counting and measuring must be without any room for dispute. But those that have this room, the arts such as literature, for one, art, for one and all by one, dance, music, all the fun bits in life that spur the imagination so that the scientists may take and use them for a new idea of where to look and what to look for... have been encouraged to be so, bloody, stupid. Cavemen Complex I will ask that one imagine the beginning of, consciousness... for humankind, at the very least. A caveman perhaps, a monkey in a tree if you're more open to further possibilities. Now, take your future, as you see it now, where we have come from and where we are now along with everything in between and spin it, 180 degrees. Do you think we will have gotten as far as we are now? Do you think that by going in the opposite direction, we will have gone backwards?  Do you think we will have found something new?  Do you think we will have surpassed our current circumstances?  Do you think that we will have become stunted as a result? Do any of you think that by approaching the problem from the opposite angle there is a possibility we may have advanced further than we have achieved to this date, from the direction the human race actually did decide upon?  You can, also argue that we had no choice, fair play. I implied this earlier but feel that I should make it quite clear now. This, what I am writing, is unedited. Just like how you prattle and honk with your friends and family, I'm just spewing my own bullshit in the way that I see fit. There is an upside to this, unedited, live type as well. It is un-moderated. No one to tell me when to stop, what not to say nor when not to say it. No questions, no answers, no conclusions. There's another. It's true language. If you don't get it, tough shit and you can call me a bullshitter, talking utter nonsense and going nowhere without a point but, hold on, aren't there entire professions for this? Training Idiots Lecturers? Yes, Lecturers do the exact same thing but they will indeed have an entire script ready to read from that has been doctored and edited and messed with and refined so that the largest demographic, who ever they are, can understand it. Huh? Why? I don't see the point. If everyone can understand it then there's no point in giving a lecture, surely they'll figure it out for themselves one day... Might be a good idea to inform those that will never know, but they aren't going to be in the audience, are they? I say, challenge, push, and push hard. Doesn't mean that anyone or everyone is a loser, just means that they didn't catch the previous class. They can catch up later. I'm one of those, I'm catching up and not everything I hear is understood. Some things make no sense to me at all and I might even call some of them utter bullshit. That doesn't mean that in a hundred years time these things won't be known as law or fact or history. No, just means I'm just as much of an idiot as everyone else. The only difference will be is that I was not treated like one and did not consider myself one. Treating students like idiots, will surly turn them into idiots. Treating anyone like genii, will surly, turn them into geniuses as well and I beg for the day that the geniuses of this world are allowed to write for the geniuses of this world, as well... not, the idiots!

Shakespere Cavemen Education

Teachers That Can't Teach, Teach Teachers

By Roger Colins

I've done my fair share of the profession and there's a saying that goes, 'Those that can't teach, teach teachers.'

I don't teach literature, I've only ever taught language so I'm left here wondering.

Does the same apply to Literature?

Having gone through my inbox this morning I picked up on a couple of sketchy articles on otherwise interesting subjects. The first was discussing whether or not online editors are useful or not.

The article was short with a couple of examples. The second was a ream page of how to find a Literary Agent in the United States. Both were informative, inquisitive and useful.

Fine.

Clearly both are writers of one kind or another, yet their chosen corner of expertise here is 'How to write'.

There's nothing wrong with the odd tips and guides but isn't there something a little more worthwhile to garner one's attention? Wouldn't someone ask, if they had a problem they needed clarification on and aren't there institutions for this like, schools?

A writer, author, journalist or any established literati bang out prose day and night, hitting the save button on the word processor every two seconds. Some will have to wait a good nine or ten months before something eventually arrives worth finding the export button.

Blogging is a prime example and just because SEO's say that your content must be a 'How To' page, all of the creative posts appear to be disappearing. We're all turning into reporters.

If someone chooses to do a page on 'writing for dummies' don't they have anything better to write about? Unless these professionals have come across a new idea, that just so happens to be on 'How to' I expect they aren't going to waste their time explaining how they do, what they do, because they're simply too busy doing it already.


Are the 'How to' writers teaching teachers?

Have a look at the nearest best seller list and I expect you'll find that it's all pulp fiction, glossed up with a sharp jacket and glossy promotional posters scattered across the landscape.

Finding a good read these days is like trying to find your keys down the back of a sofa.

Looking at it from a top down perspective, there's an undeniable hole in the world, somewhere. Where have all the good writers gone and are they all teaching teachers?

Maybe they're all doing promotions instead of writing.

I'm busy as all hell. I've got this blog that I've been neglecting in favour of plotting and characters, I've got another site I'm building all on my lonesome, got students to consider, soirées to attend with the in laws and bills to pay.

Of course, I would damn the lot if I could and concentrate on what I love the most; writing. Now and then I'll do a post on the benefits of a useful program or the semantic value of certain words I like but I've only really done the one 'How To' article and haven't even published it.

Perhaps I'm turning into a teacher teacher?


There's Those Books

Having trawled the internet and forums and posts and blogs and articles on how to write, you might say to yourself,


     'There's got to be a book out there that will gather them all up and lead me straight from A to B to C? There must be one. Maybe I could write one?'


Well, there's a few actually and they're not very good, in fact, they're awful and rank about as high up the best seller list as the editions on the top shelf.

Upon such a tragic failure, most will turn to a favourite read and go to bed saying,


     'If only I could write like this guy Stevenson or this guy Tolkien or this guy Cornwell. They never wrote any how to books, if only they did then perhaps I'd have something to go on but, I'd probably not have these timeless masterpieces of Treasure Island and Lord of the Rings or Richard Sharpe.'


From there, one might just about be able to see past those glossy covers, enticing posters, pretty website designers and make a leap of faith.

Yes, you're holding the best how to book in your hand already. 

While teaching teachers might feel satisfying, it might just be a complete waste of time. Indeed, someone will one day come along and exclaim 'I've found it! Just what I was looking for!' or 'That's interesting, I think they might be onto something there.'

Informing others on one's own experiences is important, nay, an obligation for we would not be where we are now without the generosity of others but, we all know that our talents are being frittered away and that we could do our readers a greater justice by redirecting them to simple a book list of the masters and perhaps, start writing something a little less preachy. (whoops!)

#teaching #literature

Cool, Super Cool, Awesome and... Twat

By Roger Colins

Eddie Izzard once said that the difference between being a complete twat and super cool is about five or ten minutes. 

Working your way around a clock face the most of us hang around at about six o'clock. If you're at three o'clock, then you're just uncool and if you're at nine o'clock you're really pretty sweet.

Eleven o'clock is probably reserved for Rock Stars and half past eleven somewhere for the legends.

One o'clock is where the train spotters and stamp collectors congregate and half past twelve for the ultra creepy.

Good ol' Eddie goes on to explain that around about midday is a slippery slope because upon getting so cool, you can quite easily go just that few too many minutes too far from super dooper Marley-Morrison-Sinatra awesome to... Cyrus-Bieber-Gaga level twattishness.

It can be a fine line between the two and if you go too far then you immediately fall from the cool to the uncool. Eddie implied that one can not go backwards from the one o'clock uncool to the eleven o'clock cool because one has to follow the hands round in a clockwise fashion to get back into double figures.

Without going over board with the musician analogy we can see the Beatles achieve the twelve o'clock switch when comparing themselves to a profit, U2 managing it over a few years just by failing to smile in front of cameras. Politicians cross the meridian very quickly and stay there while actors can repeat the process a number of times without being permanently pinned a prat. There are of course exceptions...


How do artists get away with it?

Artists can strike a healthy ten or eleven and stay there, forever. The likes of Ai Weiwei and Banksy have struck a perfect balance of creativity and controversy to cement their legend status. They've pissed off the one and two o'clockers while befriending everyone else. Even Tracy Emin or Salvador Dali can tempt and toy with the twelve o'clock limit but still, can't quite cross it no matter what they do.

What about writers? They can be terrible, just bad at what they do but there's a difference there because they'll keep coming back in the same way musicians manage it. Flip the coin and you'll find actors and artists emote a forgiving atmosphere from the public.

Writers don't get much past seven o'clock. Thomas Hardy can certainly sneak round past nine but when you look at Rowling or Clancy, there's enough people on both sides of the clock to balance out around six, just like the rest of us.

Indeed, if a writer does happen to pass ten, then he or she will be sure to fly into twat territory in no time before spinning back round into the fours and fives.


Hands off approach

A sort of passive approach exists for those between six and eleven where the uncool one to fives appear to force their agenda. Nerdy four eyed swats used to be uncool but inside a single generation they've slowly ticked their way all the way round to a steady nine o'clock, happy and content in their space if at three or nine.

Celebrities famous for being famous, is a new thing. They, along with the supermodels, the bankers, politicians and media have had to employ monstrous marketing and advertising machines just to try and keep out of the low digits but low, they are. Should any of them strike one o'clock, the machine kicks in and cranks the hand onwards and upwards until about seven when it slams back to one again.

This might appear to indicate that unless you have one of these publicity machines backing you up, then you're better off not caring about the clock. Trying to get into the nines and tens is a sure fire way to get into ones and twos.

Actors and writers might just be the ones that aim to be like the rest of us, hanging around six. These two just play and dream, enjoying their own art for art's sake and if they're good at it, then they might see a nine or ten but certainly won't see a one or two unless they're trying very hard to do so.

#cool #clocks #artists

Interpreting Literature

By Roger Colins

I actually have a great deal to say on this subject but for the sake of the reader's eyes I'll try as always to keep things as short and concise as possible.

I've finished and published The Post Office part one so should anyone have an electronic viewing device and an interest in spy thrillers, feel free to check it out from Amazon here.

You can also follow the link in the top right of this page for the other posts I've made on the book. I'll be sending off a few emails to fiction agents in the coming week so with a little luck you might even be able to pick up a copy in paperback, some time.


A Depressing Finish

I always imagined that upon finishing any work of an immense mass, there would be some sort of satisfaction involved but upon encountering this particular experience, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Now, I strongly believe in the initial premise for writing this book. I still believe it is the finest thing I have done and am confident that with time and a few follow up novels it find will a small modicum of success. I do not feel that there is nothing more to do. Sometimes this odd depression can arise as there may be an emptiness in the realisation that I don't know what I am going to do next. It is difficult to explain but that is after all, the whole point.

I have felt no accomplishment in finishing this book because it works. I wrote the whole thing from beginning to end for myself and as far as I am concerned I hit the bullseye, I would have accepted nothing less.

The depression stems from the fact that I will never get to read it for the first time and seems something not too far removed from suicide. There's a lingering irony and humour there somewhere and can't help but assume I'd actually feel better if it gets panned by the critics, as I would have my evidence that it was not understood.

Alas, I suppose I should have seen this coming but since I did not, it is worthwhile leaving a brief caution for those that endeavour to do likewise and write for themselves.


Insanity

One theme I have included in the book was on perspective. We have all heard that a painting can tell a thousand words but a book, can have a million different perspectives. The plasticity of the brain just shifts things around when we go through a bunch of sentences. Even scientists and reporting journalists will get comments and feedback that go right from one end of the spectrum to the other.

It appears utterly pointless to hear interpretations of literature because each person's interpretation is going to be different. Sure, one can share thoughts and point out bits that another missed but there we have it again, that first read.

The first time is not only irreplaceable but unchangeable as well. Therefore, what I have attempted to do in the most studious way is to write something that can be read differently the second time. In doing this, my hope is that all that do read it will find their own personal interpretation entirely separated from all others, as well as find something new with each follow up read.

Having said that, there is more. I also kept the prose, rhythm and style quite linear. This, in order that the first read is not damaged and, so that we might be able to appreciate just how fallible literature really is.

Even though I wrote this in military fashion, even though I sorted through grammar books and thesaurus's and the greats to ensure that there is nothing, not one word in the document that can be misinterpreted, underneath there is a universe for each individual.

Consider those books and novels that are, dubious. The book with a turn of phrase, a saying or proverb or quote of wisdom, a life affirmation to elicit some sort of emotional response. If my book turns to water then these others must turn to plasma.

Words are not thoughts. Collect a few words together and you'll get a picture but move some around and the picture changes. We all have our own way of attaching words to a thought and even though we may wish that they be uniform, they are not. Not even close. Us English speakers should consider ourselves lucky with our million word vocabulary and gold medal eloquence factor but compare that stunning accomplishment of human history to the brain in your skull, would be to compare a letter to an alphabet.


#literature #ThePostOffice #interpretation

The News Show

By Roger Colins

Civilisation has gone as far backwards in morality as we have forwards in science. The very posture of pious, modern society could not make it any clearer that barbarians have higher moral standards than we do.

The cold blooded, hypnotising snake is but an amateur.

Just because millions of starving, mosquito ridden, disease infested children aren't dying on our doorstep does not mean that we aren't letting it happen.

This kind of hypocrisy could just about have been excused when we didn't know what was going on in the world. Those that would come back from war with stories beyond belief, explorers that returned from the sea with tall tales of giant sea monsters weren't likely to be believed and when I first saw a news broadcast as a child my soul quite immediately decided for certain this could be nothing other than sheer, fantasy.

My parents would not have allowed these things to take place, they wouldn't even let me be late for school. The same therefore goes for every other adult that went around telling me what to do. They'd all been entrusted with a responsibility over my life and had to live up to it, which included the news show. It too was a part of my life now. Therefore, this news show could not be telling the truth.

 
My Tablet

From there we arrive at a space age alarm clock going off at half past five. A hot shower, coffee, breakfast and smoke before horror strikes as the realisation dawns. Out of our of a collection of three hundred garments, we just can't decide what to wear and are already late for work. We stare long, just at that one collection. In the back of our head we hear 'I earned this.' Get up early every day, put on a big smile and work like a drone to pay for it. 'I deserve it.'

Hypocrisy sounds curiously similar to the Greek, Hippocrates. You've probably heard of the Hippocratic oath and may even have some notion of what it involves and yet, those that have gotten this far will still admit they don't want to hear it and those that haven't, are already watching a video of a funny cat.

Why not, here it is in full:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art — if they desire to learn it — without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but to no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgement; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favour of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfil this path and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honoured with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

Murder

Two things happen when you kill for the first time. You'll vomit, and then you'll explore an overwhelming sensation of power. It feels good. This is not dissimilar to when you got your first pay check. Something inside you managed to count how many people died for every last penny you earned and made you feel sick. Then that cool feeling of God like power washed over you, and the feeling of sickness was forgotten.

I'm not talking about animals or fruit or an accident or self defence. I'm talking about deliberately taking a human life. One six year old girl dragged thirty kilos of copper twenty miles from a mine to an airport across a stretch of war torn land.

Her pay check is survival. She deserves to do it again until she fails to earn that pay check next time.

A five year old boy then manipulated that copper into wires in a toxic furnace halfway across the world. His pay check is a bowl of rice.

An insane, ten year old girl then puts that wire into a computer circuit on the other side of the city. Her pay check is in actual money.

That circuit is put into a computer by another, that computer is packed into a box made by another and those boxes are loaded onto trucks, trains and planes by another.

When the boxes land at their destination there are machines and robots to pick them up and move them into that shiny high street shop where a fat, peaceful, charitable, enlightened, educated, happy, well paid, insured, knowledgeable, well balanced and all around nice husband and father takes your credit card and you've got a brand new tablet. You feel like God. You feel this way because as far as this world is concerned, you are.

#hypocrisy #morality #civilisation

Sad Fury / Furiously Sad

By Roger Colins

Instead of dealing with our problems, Freud gave us all the easy way out with this lethal invention. 

Thinking that one has depression, makes one depressed. It's a paradox. It doesn't even exist and yet our clever little brains can force it into reality.

Try sadness or anger. It has to be one or the other and both are useful where depression is not. Being sad lets us educate our emotions, teaches us what to avoid in the future and how to deal with it when it does happen again. Anger will do the same but can also be used as motivation.

Sadness means that when we're done, we'll return to being content along with some added perspective. A little faith in the knowledge that the feeling won't last forever but will come back, and when it does, a little less intense next time. The same goes for happiness.

We want to avoid unhappiness and anger, that's what the purpose for them are. To identify the emotion, recognise it and discover where it came from so that in the future, such things may be preventable.

The only certainty we live with is death and we will always be sad when things come to an end but even then, the end is important in all things. When sadness ends, happiness begins and vice versa.

Emotions teach us to not waste our time. The trick would be to stay content.


Grumpy Teenagers

Puberty drips mind bending hormones into our blood to fire up an all enveloping furnace that burns the heart right out of us, replacing it with that annoying, infuriating sex drive.

If there were such a thing as a heart monitor for our emotional state then it would show a steady sinus rhythm up until puberty, and then go nuts. Every day after that, is a fight. A headlong, never ending war to get that insane pitch and trough back to a normal sinus rhythm.

The faster these ups and downs can be moderated, the less likely one is going to feel the illusion of depression.

Ecstatic joy is certainly a wonderful thing and where we would all want to stay, twenty four hours a day. It's not ideal however, as being mortifyingly sad every day is exactly the same thing.

What we're really after is serenity, a neutral balance between the two.

We know that happy times will come and go, we know sad times will come and go but until then, we need to be cool, calm and relaxed to see past the cloudy confusion of our emotions and work out what it was that made us so happy, what it was that made us so sad.


Neuro Chemicals

Shrinks play a dangerous game with patients because a patient will look up to their counsellor for help, even if that professional has the honesty to admit they really don't have a clue.

The patient still wants to believe this person must have some kind of understanding of the condition. They've been studying the damn subject for years. They must have some sort of answer.

Drugs, all drugs, do the exact same thing. Change the emotional state you're in. Anti depressants are specifically designed to simply remove all awareness of emotion. This is dangerous because they also remove progress. Drugs are a stop gap, the symptoms are temporarily removed but the problem carries on and gets worse the more it's left unaddressed.


Good can feel bad, Bad can feel good. Confusing, but quite fine because all that is happening is our emotions trying to figure out what we like and what we don't.

If a person managed to maintain a perfectly objective point of view upon experiencing their first kiss, or their first war time fire fight, they would not learn which they liked or not.

That person would find that they like everything and fear nothing. While the entire universe may turn into an ancient Greek interpretation of beauty, that person may be considered psychopathic and slightly less human, for these emotions are meant to make us what we are.

Therefore, a 'healthy' human would again balance them-self halfway between psychopathy and mania.


Hypnotised

Depression doesn't strictly exist because it cannot be defined. It's just a trick the mind plays to get around the problem because we can't see the forest for the trees.

Figuring out why we are depressed is insane, and that's the point. It simply doesn't exist because there is no such thing.

What we're displaying are the symptoms of utter confusion, not depression because we are so certain that it exists, so certain we feel like utter useless shit and want to know why, so it can be solved.

While logical, this happens only because objective reasoning has been replaced with an easy tag line that looks so damn accurate, but if you were to try and objectively reason what depression is you would only come up with a list of symptoms and nothing else.

Being depressed is nothing more than dancing around a problem one is afraid to face and the problem we need to face, simply doesn't exist; The problem of not knowing. Once we can admit that we don't know and may never know, then we can get back to the things that we do know and can work with.


People who are depressed are to be highly praised. These people look at life with an ideology that is pure and honest. These people view life in it's truest glory and understand that there is a solution to all problems so long as we work at them, for they have gone so far as to seek out a problem that doesn't even exist.

This is an innate, natural human condition that we all have to go through one way or another. It is the resolution of depression that is the trick, for depression is real and it's solution, illusory yet the illusory solution is based in logic and reality. Paradox solved.


Training

If everyone insists that something is real then you'll have a hard time believing anything contrary.

Control by training. It works best while still young. The brain stays quite plastic (changeable) up until the mid twenties so you've got a good ten years to teach yourself how to process the new slant to pubescent emotions.

If you're still depressed in your thirties, it's not too late but it is more difficult and this training has to employ slightly more advanced practices to compensate for a greater knowledge base but the method remains the same.

Training takes will power with concrete knowlegde and that is what we are having to learn. Instead of feeding off an emotion when it arrives, you take moment, breath once or twice and observe that emotion from a semi removed aspect.

Feel it, instead of allowing it to overwhelm and control.

Teaching oneself to control the effects of that emotion is the point so that there is give and take between the conscious part of you that conducts all deliberate action, and the randomly wired brain that fires off neurons which ever way it feels like, whenever it feels like doing it.

One can of course go too far and start feeling nothing at all. This is the same as feeling everything all the time so training has to also account for when, how much is too much sadness, or too much joy, or too much neutrality.


Anger versus Sadness

Depression accounts for these two emotions. They are in opposition. Anger is passionate, strong, a growling intensity that wants to do something positive, something actionable and fight out against that which we deem wrong.

Sadness is the opposite. Apathy, weakness, pointlessness and passive suffering. When these two opposites get mixed up then we become totally confused and label it depression.

It is worthwhile working backwards and do every effort to split depression back into these two constituents.

Deciding which bit is making us sad and which bit is making us angry gives something to work with and we'll be able to work through each in turn.

One might be depressed about work, a reason being that there is no satisfaction. We're angry that we are forced to endure this pointless job and that makes us sad. We are sad because we are unable to do anything about it, and that makes us angry.

Whichever emotion came first is the one to focus on and work through, without allowing it to delineate to the second. Stick with anger or stick with sadness because on their own there is resolve.

If sad, go talk to a loved one, cry your heart and let them feel that sadness. If angry, take a pillow and beat the shit out of it, scream, jump or run for as long and hard as you can.

Just make sure you don't let one emotion become the other until you've sorted out the first one first.

#psychology #emotions #depression

Contradiction with Terms

By Roger Colins 

___________________________________________________________ Contradiction. If you don't already know what it is; contra|dic¦tion Pronunciation: /kɒntrəˈdɪkʃ(ə)n 1. a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another: 'the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions' 2. a situation in which inconsistent elements are present: 'the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction' 3. [mass noun] 'the statement of a position opposite to one already made: 'the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first'     [count noun]: 'the experiment provides a contradiction of the hypothesis' (Courtesy of the Oxford English Dictionary) Normally, when we come across contradiction there is one of two choices. First is most obvious. The contradiction is erroneous and false, we do away with it immediately. The next option is to read between the lines and divine the underlying conflict that's been illustrated by use of simplification with two opposing factors in order to evoke, incite or elicit a specific cognitive equation. The solution is down to you. It is possible we have been remiss. It's always possible. There is a third option and the reader should allow a moment to guess at this point, whilst a clue is hidden in plain sight. The third choice you didn't see is halfway between the first two options and the holding ground for literalism. To contradict. The effect of literal contradiction is neither sarcastic nor ironic but that of both, neither and one. Firstly, literal contradiction possesses two elements in opposition as would any, whether ironic or sarcastic. 'He's on fire and yet so cool.' - All contradictions must always delineate opposition. Next. Literal contradiction will not be sarcastic or ironic. In order to achieve sarcasm there has to be double entendre; two meanings, and in order to achieve irony, a third. Therefore our literal connotation arrives at one. Contradiction is not three nor two but one meaning. The contradictory statement is not contradictory; hence, literal contradiction. If there are any more than three positively identifiable connotations, we venture into the realm of wit. Irony and sarcasm can of course be witty, but having numerically counted the references of each we have no other choice but to assign their appropriate value. All together now and in descending order, wit, irony, sarcasm, contradiction and statement. Let's attack it from the reverse angle. A statement can only have one possible outcome. If it has any others then it loses it's lethargy. 'The black cat has a white tail.' No real room to manoeuvre. Sarcasm more often crops up in spoken language thanks to insinuative pitch and timing, not that it cannot be found in literature but only that it is difficult to replicate without expert timing and flawless context. Two meanings appear to be much harder than one or three and most certainly, more difficult than our literature flooded, wit. Life or Death The beauty, if you can call it that, of contradiction is that it can disguise itself as any one of the others. If it looks clever, then surely it must be. Wrong. Contradictions by their very nature spark off a ream of purposeless dreaming without end and this is nearly always mistaken for something truly valuable. If something is witty then it says one thing in many ways. If something is ironic, it says it in two ways to get a third and if something is is sarcastic it says it one way to get two. A statement is of course one to get one. Mistakes can mean life or death.  Why do we chance it? Now, if you were passing on life or death  information. Do you really think you would use anything except a pure, unadulterated statement? 'Stop!' or would you try 'Red lights usually mean Go, don't they?' perhaps 'Strange, a traffic light on a straight road?' and if you're ever so quick you could venture 'They're going to swap green for red one of these days.' Am I Dreaming? At the very same time, have you ever come across fictional literature that used only statements? If so, I bet you put the thing back down and carefully nudged it away with a stick. That previous sentence may well have been sarcastic but if so, can you get any more than two definitive meanings out of it? The book was bad. The book was so bad I treated it as if it were diseased. There any deeper meaning? No. If it were contradictory then you could get a million, should you so waste your time waddling around in your own head. It will make you think, sure, but what are you thinking about? Everything and nothing. Your mind is watching a tennis match without score and the whole exercise, mental masturbation. It feels good but shrouds the truth of the matter because it looked so much more damn puzzling than anything you'd ever seen before, sending you off to eternity. We humans love puzzles but remember, we turn rage frightful when led down a road without solution. Stare at a white wall, summon up everything in existence that has to do with wall or white or sight. You can start with the first letter 'W' and count off every word beginning with that. This is contradiction. If there is absolutely no definite, singular imperative to any one string of words then this is instigation to dream, and arrive at your own conclusions. Arrive ye shall and attribute thine newly found wisdom to that one contradiction as if it were genius when it was nothing more than another man dreaming. Not as easy as it seems Take a long, hard, look at the title of this post and decide for yourself if it is a statement, sarcastic, ironic, wit or contradiction. I have not given a full example of literal contradiction thus far. Only now shall I grant a handful. My only suggestion is that you count the ways they can be interpreted. These are but the simplest examples I could find and still, I leave you to decide for yourself. That is all. 'One has to be cruel to be kind' 'People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid' 'Facts are the enemy of truth' 'Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance' 'When you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you' 'Wit is educated insolence' 'It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid' 'Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same' 'Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you' 'The spiritual man makes judgements about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgement'

contradiction literature definition

Diamonds at Dogs

By Roger Colins 

____________________________________________________________ Who's a pretty boy? Should a charitable act be made in public or privacy? Publicly, it's the demonstration of bravery, kindness and compassion for others to do likewise. If made privately then the person cannot be accused of vanity. I find this remarkably similar to an old motto; 'Don't throw diamonds at dogs.'   Dogs can even be interchanged for pigs, depending on which you consider more arrogant. Motto being, to save your time and energy for something worthwhile. The argument can be made that sometime later, mister dog may come upon that diamond and snatch it up while no one's looking therefore it has been worthwhile, although the good Samaritan will never know. The other slant to the saying is ugly. The gesture of charity to encourage others happens to be a double edged sword. Praising the gesture for it's genuine benevolence and not the gesture's purpose, results in the opposite intended effect. This genuine applause means the public will clap the next one they see without ever considering to give themselves. This happens because the reception of the gesture is seen as showing off and, trying to make everyone feel guilty for being so mean. Some, may act upon that feeling and make a donation themselves but odds are they'll still feel weird. It wasn't their idea in the first place and there's no public backing them up with cameras and microphones. The clapping and cheering is there to spite such a display of atrocious vanity because the audience is quite well in their moral standpoint, happy to give the philanthropist his moment of glory in the hope to encourage him to do it again. Private donations do not seem to warrant investigation, until you use the dog analogy. The gesture is actually the same, showing off. The dog has no use for the diamond and made to feel perturbed by such arrogance that the thrower, with all his lofty superiority, can't even see the dog doesn't care. This is however, a private donation. The dog doesn't get to say no, no one is going to stop the thrower and no one likes taking charity. Crazy, no? Reality Check-Mate Next we have a beauty. Are any charity donations ever praisable? They are stop gap measures, the person that goes to a birthday party with a gift voucher to show he genuinely doesn't care. Instead of handing over a check, the donor could go and buy some bread and give it to the poor himself. Take along a camera crew, film the whole damn exercise in order to drive that gesture home. There is a chance that could be seen as force feeding the dog therefore we arrive at the final step, teaching the dog to grow his own diamonds. Did the analogies get too mixed? The dog never liked diamonds in the first place. 'Fair enough' says the philanthropist, the dog could sell them. He still doesn't like diamonds, besides, the pigs will come along and steal them. Security, the philanthropist will teach the dog kung-fu. The dog asks what this kung-fu is, and still isn't interested in diamonds. Philanthropist goes home and picks up some bread on his way. The dog licks his nuts in a pile of diamonds. There was another motto in there and in case you missed it's 'Give a man a fish, he can eat for a day. Teach him to fish, he can eat for a lifetime.' The dog still wasn't interested because he already knew, what's valuable to the philanthropist is out of kilter with what the dog wants. In none of these mottoes has the dog ever been asked what he wanted and if he were, he'd probably want to just be left alone, pigs and all.

charity vanity philosophy

Meditation

By Roger Colins

___________________________________________________________ meditate Pronunciation: /mɛdɪteɪt/ verb 1. focus one’s mind for a period of time, in silence or with the aid of chanting, for religious or spiritual purposes or as a method of relaxation: 'I set aside time every day to write and meditate' 'it was here that the monk spent much of the day reading and meditating on Scripture' 2. (meditate on/upon) think deeply about (something): 'he went off to meditate on the new idea' (courtesy of the Oxford English dictionary) Addressing any definition, I always consult the Oxford English dictionary for my research simply because it is the most familiar to me and of course because I think it's the best. That does not mean that it is beyond mistakes.  Some years ago a mistake was found in the definition of syphon. It described a syphon being liquid drawn via the force of atmospheric pressure but missed the added influence of gravity to administrate the rest of the process. Here we can see that the first definition for meditate claims meditation is either for religious or spiritual practices, or a relaxation method. I find holes in both. Meditation can be used for spiritual purposes and can be be used as a relaxation method but does not fully adhere to either in such a manner and certainly has nothing to do with religion.  The Buddha was first of all, a Hindu and safe to say he was a reliable authority on the subject. Buddhists would argue that my use of the past tense is somewhat callous as the Buddha is still alive and well in his N-th incarnation as the Dalai Lama.  Hindus and Buddhists have been using meditation for anything between 2500 years upwards to 5000.  This does not mean that meditation is a religious or spiritual act. Quite the contrary, this suggests that the two religions, are a meditative act. There is no doubt that meditation has strong roots in religious practice but so far as Buddhism is concerned, the man himself would disagree his teachings had anything to do with religion. They are far more philosophically based. 'My body is my temple and my religion, kindness.' - The Dalai Lama Religion or Spiritual Spirituality would be more accurate if one were to look at it from this point but from another, it is just as inaccurate as religion. Any devout following of a man's teachings, devoid of any personal reflection is a religion, or a faith. Christians follow Christ, Judaism Moses, Islam Mohammed and so on. Spirituality has become a coined term for a more introspective practice and can easily separate itself from anything faithful.  Prolonged concentration of the mind can achieve a great many things.  Balance, perspective and peace are the traditional goals for meditation and these would be the something close to the values of spirituality. Traditional, however can also translate into 'the status quo'. Something to be ruthlessly dissected.  Should meditation be concentration of the mind and spirituality, the peace of mind, one can say that the former is used to achieve the latter, and, that both are indeed the one and the same. Here we move onto the second definition; To think deeply about. Meditation can be used to quiet the mind but also to invigorate it. This is clearly has more in common with religion than spirituality.  Anything can use the adjective, religious, if it is repeated unerringly. noun a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion: 'consumerism is the new religion' adjective treated or regarded with a devotion and scrupulousness appropriate to worship: 'I have a religious aversion to reading manuals' Practicality  But let's try and avert religion from now on and concentrate on meditation.  There are near limitless methods to practice the skill therefore it may be useful to begin with what meditation aims to resolve. These should include said antonyms of the dictionary's definition;  To focus, to silence and to think turn into: out of focus, noise and ignorance. Thought and ignorance are difficult subjects to apply to meditation as different methods use both, and ignorance is a sticky subject all by itself. As both are clearly apparent we can strike a compromise.  Mindfulness Now this has a real ring to it when we summon up what meditation is all about. It is not about digging into things to discover the hidden secret nor leaving it completely in the open and praying that our answers will unveil themselves. It is a middle way and the teachings of wise men can be heard echoing.  Another word for mindfulness can be awareness as neither approach nor retract from whichever subject matter meditation is attempting to resolve. There is a symbiotic existence between our mind's perspective of what is going on without direct influence of subject and object, object and subject. Humans are said to be self-aware. That we can relate ourselves to the world around us and put ourselves firmly in it.  Awareness would be the relationship between our existence and the world around us, removing the 'where we fit in it' or 'where it fits in us'. Such an implication goes very far indeed.  By the simple detraction of self from awareness gives rise to the true understanding of, self. A paradox!  Remember awareness. Meditation focusses the mind to increase awareness and allow thoughts to think for themselves. Theory being, that the mind is much better at thinking than our conscious state could ever be.  So, meditation is nothing more than a tool employed to get rid of our screwed up conscious ideology, morals and ego so the mind can get to work.  Whatever method works best for any one individual in order to meditate and gain even the slightest progress does not matter for the purpose is the very same.  Simplicity  I can therefore concede that the definition of what it is to meditate is a difficult one but that the goal is simple. Breathing is a common denominator in all schools of meditation. I did not encroach upon the dictionary's definition of relaxation either.  The Lotus flower. Common object for meditative concentration The body's posture is outlined in every quarter and practice, though heavily encouraged, any guru, monk or yogi will agree that even the slightest attempt at meditation will have a profound positive effect upon the overall well-being of the human condition.

definition philosophy religion spirituality practicality mindfulness simplicity