Progressions

I'm sorry Mr. Blog. You've been idle for too long.

I spoke with Jennie (my boss/co-worker) the other day. Among other things, like higher education and leadership theory, we were speaking about an exercise that all student workers in the division of student affairs are doing. It was a skills assesment. So we were discussing, and we got on the topic of "being authentic" in the context of human development.

So, "being authentic" means this: You are trying to be true to yourself in all facets of life, in a sincere way. So, at work you're striving to be you. At home your striving to be the same you. At play you are still trying to be that same you. You're trying to synergize your roles in life into one person. This struggle is something that happens for many people during their lifetimes. This is the stage I'm currently at.

What interests me is the transition period. How is it possible to understand when a person makes one jump to the other. Is it a natural process in which one seamlessly passes through? Is it something that must be made discretely and explicitly? I do believe that it is made seamlessly but discretely as wel. I feel that most people mst not reflect to regularly, and thus only figure out that a jump in personal development has been made only after some "significatn" life event has been reached. Like, say an experience like camp. An experience like world traveling. So maybe after a pledge term at a fraternity or a summer abroad will someone get the opportunity, or even force themselves to reflect about what is going on with them in their lives.

However, this is yet another reason that I advocate for regular reflection (a blog is a very good way to reflect)...because with regular reflection, the jump--in personal growth--is constanly being worked on, but also it can be noticed quicker. Then, the skill or growth that has been improved can be exercised more confidently faster. Reflection is the practice in "practice makes perfect". This reminds of another interesting piece of advise that I heard on an NFL commercial; "Ameteurs practice until they get something right, professionals practice until they cant get something wrong".

How true is that. Skills are practiced. Leadership is practiced. Sports are practiced. Studying, writing, researching, and horseshoes are practiced. Everything can be practiced. What cannot be? Grace, i think that's it.

But anyway, how long are these transition periods? Are they turbulent? Do they come with age? Must htey come with age? What is the role of a nurturer or teacher? All these questions are fascinating.

I've also been speculating about what the next possible phase for growth may be, after "authenticity". I have a feeling it might be something along the lines of "finding/living by principle. Being able to live as one person, in a principled way. Then perhaps, being able tolive as one person in a principled way in a manner that benefits others.

It's so exciting...my only qualm is...it takes a long time. And being able to negotiate principles with my lifestyle would be really important in college, right now. I could really use the skill of pushing myself to be disciplined to benefit others. I mean, I wish I was farther in the progression...I could really do alot with those skills now. I feel as if some of these realizations might come too late in life, or they coul dbe better serving if they came erlier in life. What an adventure, what an adventure.

Goodnight moon.

Happy Diwali.

Also, it's sweet typing laying down with your eyes closed. it's so much trust in your mental ability, and a freeing sensation from your eyes and ears. typing without looking with your eyes is like putting a ton of trust into your sense of touch and the sharpness of your mind.

Oh how I miss the blog.

Just?

So, I just got back to my place from studying downstairs. I've been reading quite a bit; I'm halfway up to my eyeballs as of yet. Still plenty of steam left.

Anyway, I've been reading a good load about the O.J. Simpson trial--as required for my Legal Philosophy class--and it's been rather interesting. The last line of the reading prompted some thoughts about what is just and morally correct. More so, if some case is judicated erroneously is there ever a time where its justifed to defy the opinion through judicial nullification, etc. etc.

Actually, why don't I just quote the text.

"Can a historically erroneous verdict ever be a legally--and morally--just result? As a Socratic teacher of law, I leave you to ponder this uncomfortable question." - Alan M. Dershowitz (From Reasonable Doubts)

Basically, some argue that O.J. got away with double murder, but the question Dershowitz raises is if it could possibly okay or worth it (he was partially framed, the police work could have been unjustly and racially motivated, etc. etc.)

Well, I wish to go to the basic premise of why we have a judicial system in the first place. It's to punish offenders of the laws, but why do we have laws? To keep order, and keep the citizenry safe.

Legally-
Of course this can be legally justified. If the rule of law is followed in the proceedings, the judicial proceedings that is, then everyone has a fair shake at a fair trial. I believe that our legal system even compensates for issues like racial/gender imbalance in a courtroom body (juries, judges, lawyers) through jury selection, right to choose counsel, and the possibility for appeal. Also even accounting for jury nullification, the trial is still fair. It is an assumed risk that the jury might praise you or screw you over. Would you rather have it another way? No permanent eye-witness can, or probably should, exist...in any case everybody's case is in the hands of the jury/justice/group of justices. To break it down quick: shit happens (and sometimes juries are psycho).

Just-
Gosh, what is just? I wish Socrates were here, haha. Now, let's assume that the person gets off of double murder. Then it is just, because the defendant is innocent until proven guility. I suppose I define unjust as the innocent being proven guility, and everything else as just. Yes, this means that murderers can go free. But, if they commit crimes on top of double murder, they should eventually get caught. Innocent vicitims is the sunk cost in exchange for liberty and fair trials. Though, I pray that my loved ones aren't those trampled in vain by criminals who have walked.

Moral-
Wow, this is difficult to argue. I suppose it could be argued to be moral, if the trial overall has some societal good. As if, the helps maintain the order of law as a deterrent because the trial actually happens. As if, there is some fundamental good in the judicial system functioning, in and of itself. It could concieveably aid the citizenry, even if a guility criminal goes free, because the system yields benefit because it is acting legally and justly (see above).

However, I don't think ethical souls can stomach this defense (which I admit, is threadbare and not deep. To which I say, gimme a break, it's only my blog with a very small readership, if it has one at all)

I see this as undermining the moral value of the legal system if criminals knowingly go free. The system is supposed to find those who are guility, guilty. The system is supposed to make criminals pay. The system is supposed to be a beacon for fairness and truth, and it is simply not honest when guility criminals go free.

It is not fair to everyone for someone else to play the system. It makes the system appear dysfunctional, thereby causing a removal faith in the system as a whole (see, if a witness lies once, all of what he says could be a lie), a removal of faith in the system promotes lawlessness and in turn tarnishes the value of the rule of law...contradicting the purpose of having a legal system in the first place.

So...Legal, Just, but not moral.

But that's just from a pontificating semi-adult college student. Not to mention, he's wearing purple athletic shorts, listening to Mr. Brightside, how blasE. I'm not going to lie, I really just wanted to use the word blasE, even if it doesn't fit in context.

It's such a cool word, na?

The Killer Thrill

Thrills just need to be felt. My age cohort thrives on thrill. We learn, work, and play all in a thrilling fashion. We are addicted.

Look at the academic system for example. The system is high intensity with high-stakes and a high yield for rewards. Those who are strong push, push, and push. The ambitious ones survive and in turn seek more thrills and successes.

The same goes for the social scene: alcohol, sex, and loud music. It's rather thrilling from what i can grasp about it. I'm thrilled even when I'm in the evironment.

But, why are thrills so addicting? Could it be physiological? It must not be exclusively, because emotions/moods feel wierd when thrills are not present.

The only reason that I can imagine that thrills are so fantastic because of how controllable they are. They are pleasureable and controllable. It's a rush to feel like you are doing something...controlling something...and making progress. It's a occurence that is fleeting of tension and freeing of passion.

Why should I try to stop people from thrills? How to define the costs of a thrill? Because there are costs.

Revision about mountains

A revision about my theory of climbing mountains.

In the previous post "So you climbed a mountain, so what?", I concluded that
"The great expanse of western states is unimaginable and truly beautiful. But, I don't think it'll ever be big enough to satisfy the need for knowledge and global culture.
-Note: It sure is fun to explore, especially climbing things"

I would like to make a revision on that statement.

The incredible splendor of the natural world is unimaginable and truly beautiful. But, I don't think those things will ever be big, impressive, or beautiful enough to satisfy the need for knowledge and global culture, in and of themselves.

I make this distincition after spending a night sleeping on one of the dunes at Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore. I was there on a fraternity retreat; we spent time shooting the wind, bonding, and being generally amiable. My brother, Dan-O "Skeet Skeet" Ostahowski (an adventurer if I've ever known one) wanted quite badly I think, to sleep on the dunes for a night. It was late at the time and I said if he went I would go with him. Mind you, that I was banking on the fact that he might not go. (I was all about it at first, but then flinched when some were telling tale tales of "cougar attacks" the year prior).

But, we went. The earth was spinning below me. The sky was like I hadn't been able to see it in many moons. I wished on a shooting star.

And, we began talking...about intelligible--seamlessly with unintelligible--things. It was glorious. It was beautiful. I wanted to take back my childhood and spend more time outdoors. I wished my family had been a nature-loving one, instead of a let's get a hotel and go to tourist attraction types (to be fair, my dad was all about these sorts of things; at least we went car camping once because of him). In a phrase, I felt as if my life hadn't been complete thus far. It was not mixed properly; it had time spent reading, writing, exercising, and that sort. It was not complete with ample time in nature, barely any time until relatively recently.

So, I revise my statement as to not marginalize time spent in nature. Time doing many things is important. Without exposure to pop culture, nature, politics, atheltics, and whatever else life just feels a little incomplete.

Noise.

The television is off. The lights are off. The radio is now off. All that's on is the computer, and at the moment it's less of a PC and more like a notebook.

It's almost quiet. It's an interesting transition. This time last year I was uncomfortable with the quiet (dinner was accompanied by a television, drives were supplemented with a CD or the FM radio, even during showers I listened to 95.5 in the morning.) Now, I like the quiet.

The television seems like noise most of the time. I don't like having the TV just be on in the background...it's an overload to have so many forms of media encompassing all moments of life. I like hearing the sound of my breathing...I actually feel alive. I don't feel dead. The television makes me feel dead. It makes me feel like I'm living life passively. The less TV, the better.

I take that back, TV is cool when it is engadging. When you can connect with it, instead of just being entertained by it. Like Grey's Anatomy. It's a connectable show. Some people connect with Emeril Live. Others connect with Friends or CNN.

Alas, life is moving quickly...faster by the year, it seems. I don't know whether I like it. Sometimes I wish it would fast forward to the age of 27, other times I wish I could stay in a place forever. So...i'm undecided. But, what I have decided, is that it's better with the volume turned down.

A side note--progress is being made on proving the inherent good of love. I hope.

This I Believe

It has been too long since I have performed the "This I Believe" exercise. I think it's part of the reason why my moods/anxiety levels have been so out of whack.

I had to catch up on reading three essays today which were very varied and interesting.

The Craft of Dreaming- 9:45 PM
Not too long ago, I was riding in a car with my father. He was on his way to be unwillingly seperated from my mother because of a new job. He worked in the same engineering job for the same company for twenty years. He was now blazing a new trail.

My dad is a world traveler, but he rarely speaks of it (He worked on a boat for a shipping company for five years before he met my mother, taking him to Iran, Singapore, Portland, and Malta to name a few places). He is an explorer, a hard worker, an intellectual, a rock. Though, most of all, I think he is a dreamer. Not only does he dream though, he is an expert in the craft of dreaming.

He advised me in our discussions:"You must create a dream".

When I say the craft of dreaming, I mean the meticulous process of finding an idea, vigorously examining and challenging it, and realizing all the steps necessary to making it a reality. "Dreamcraft" was an integral part of my father's life, without the creation of a dream, he would have never moved to the United States from India. His defining qualities are the skills necessary for building dreams. He didn't get to where he is on luck, not by a longshot.

I'm begging to see that his advice is good. Building dreams is necessary for anyone without complete good fortune to try to chip away at getting what they want in life. The most successful people--financially, socially, romantically, intellectually, soulfully--are the ones who dream big and strong. It seems like the ones who have what they want in this world, have perfected and practiced the craft of dreaming.

I believe, I have to believe in the craft of dreaming. It seems like the only way to getting what I want in this world. Afterall, I'm not that lucky anyways.

--10:21 PM--

24Bash II is this friday. Will you be there?

Welcome home Melanie!

From round the country, and the world.

So. As most people do, I keep track of blog visitors. Don't worry, the only valuable information is the location of where people access my blog from, when they do, and how long they stay, etc. It's pretty standard stuff.

But...what boggles my mind, is where people log-in from.

Like...Denver, CO. I know about 3 people in Colorado...and I don't think any are from Denver. Boulder, maybe. It's kind of cool...especially because its Denver. I want to visit Denver SOOOO badly. Colorado in general. From what I can understand, I think I would love it there. Boulder too...except I don't think I'm wealthy enough, maybe not liberal enough, either.

24Bash II is next week:

http://umichigan.facebook.com/event.php?eid=2204958325

Cacti are around

So, I bring this post from sunny Phoenix, AZ. I'm sitting at "Sky Harbor" International Airport, and I decided a post was in order. I was most recently in Seattle, WA moving my father there.

We drove.

Here is one of the pictures.

So, there is some ethical dillema that has been bothering me quite a lot recently. The homeless.

Actually, let me articulate more. How do you handle/help the homeless on the street? Do you "spare change for a good friend", or "have a nice day" (a shout-out to all my Ann Arbor people). How much do you give a homeless man on the street? Should you give cash, or your Starbucks Latte? What will they purchase with it? Does it help or exacerbate the problem of having homeless people in the first place?

This problem definitely existed in Washington D.C. as well as every other city/town that one goes to. Sometimes I can't even beleive the getups of people panhandling. I don't know who to believe or what to do. Also, my beliefs of the free-market economy come into conflict...bringing this issue to something of a political dillema instead of just a moral and ethical one.

So, from what I understand about free-markets, peoples work and value of work dictate how much they should be paid, which is why Doctors get paid more than people who work as airline baggage handlers. The amount of skills and demand for doctors is greater than that of baggage handlers, so they are paid more. That's simple. So, now look at the average homeless person. The value of their services is slim, if anything at all. So, when adhering to free market principles, it makes sense not to give them any money. Artifically adjusting their wage would lead to surpluses and shortages (however small).

1-strike against helping the homeless.

But, then there is the notion of welfare, noblesse oblige, and helping those who are less fortunate than ourselves. As a well off human being I should try to help others. This doesn't require me to empty my pockets though, I think. I think pure altruism is a bunch of baloney in the long run anyway. (I'll just leave it at that...from the philisophical standpoint that I studied in my philosophy class last year). But, even a nickel or a dime. Or a cup of coffee. Or a candy bar. Surely that isn't too much to spare. And I can still function without difference than before if I spare a bit of loose change. On top of it all, helping others has somewhat of a selfish feeling. So, it appeals to my ego as well as my moral sensibilities. Helping others, its something we learned in Kindergarten, right?

1-strike against balking at the homeless

Okay, then theres the issue of the greater good. This sort of falls in line with free-marketing, but I think its sufficiently different to highlight on its own. What about the greater good? What if the homeless person buys cigarettes, or booze, or drugs. What if giving them a handbill prevents them from getting a job, and keeps them on the track of just getting by. And, theres the issue of...personal safety. It seems like a small risk to mingle with people who could be dangerous in some way shape or form. (Gosh I should like a neo-con). Society is better off cutting the fat, and people have to be held responsible for their actions right?

2-strikes against helping the homeless

And, the final issue on my conscience, what if those homeless are incapable of helping themselves? What if they are disabled? Insane? In poor health? What if they can't get by, and a little leg up will help them? Then it would be in the interest of the greater good to help them. If they were able to rise with a boost, its better to boost them and have them be off the homelessness circuit, right?

2-strikes against balking at the homeless

So...I'm at a stalemate. At least in this discourse.

But...There's something that happend that I think needs some sunlight.

I was in this park in Seattle yesterday, and I was watching some people, virtually all kids playing by this large fountain. This man, comes by on a bike. I think he was selling homeless newspapers (Village Voice-esque perhaps?) to make money. He seemed to only have a bike, shoes, a little bit of clothing, and a duffel bag of supplies. If he had more, he didn't have much more than that.

He asked me to watch his stuff while he went nearby and enjoyed the fountain (this is a really large fountain by the way). And he went. And he was free. He enjoyed.

When he came back, he reminded me about how awesome it is, and now necessary it is to just feel free. And it made sense. He didn't have much, but he was free. He loved himself. He was infinite. He was capable of only loving other people. We had a pretty nice chat. He was interesting. Talking to him was inspiring, not because he was down-trodden, but because he was one of the free-est people I've ever met. (Melanie/Jessi--not that I think you've ever read my blog--, you would've enjoyed this quite a lot, I think).

And...at the end of it. I thought. I might not be giving this guy a dollar, and hes not asking for any. But what's important--for us both--is that were communicating. And regardless of your philosophy on how to help the poor or homeless, we should be comfortable with the issue. Our daily experiences should be at least a little bit more than brushing aside someone begging for change which pretending to listen to an MP3 players (I'm definitely guility of this...it's hard not to do, because its so easy and innocent). Maybe its just our mentality. Maybe we should try to remember that the homeless/poor/eccentric/disadvantaged, regardless of whether we help them, are people too...and if we tried to help them, it would be better if we could look them in the eye and shake their hand.

That guy at the park, I don't know his name. But, he wished me a beautiful day, safe travels, and that he loved me. I cared for him too, i told him that i thought he was a beautiful person, and I meant it. He may not have asked me for help, and I may not have given him any...but after talking to him, as I walked out of the park, I sure wished he had enough to eat that night.

Perfect, it's boarding time. Adios Phoenix, Hello De-troit.

"All my gangstas and all my thugs..."

Ok, you climbed a mountain, so what?

I currently write you from Three Forks, MT. It is 11:01 Mountain time and I have to wake up in a few hours to drive the final 700 miles to Seattle. I spent much time driving through very scenic places today (the Badlands and the foothills of the Rocky Mountains) and I spent a long time thinking. For that matter, I was more like day dreaming/thinking slowly.

I was looking out the window, seeing buttes and mountains. I couldn't help but imagine climbing them. At times I wanted to stop the car on the road's shoulder and climb out into the prarie and just go--run, roll, walk, lay, bicycle, everything. The urge was barely controllable. I think climbing a mountain would be an amazing thing. Cause its, ya know, climbing a mountain. It's what adventurers dream about.

Obviously, I started to examine how I felt about climbing mountains and I immediatedly started vacillating about how good climbing a mountain actually would be. It's just like, so what, a mountain has been climbed. It has a nice view up there, and its good exercise, and its good recreaction. What does it do? Nothing. Nothing is gained, except the feeling of climbing a mountain.

But, that's precisely it. It's climbing a mountain. CLIMBING A MOUNTAIN. Why not climb a mountain, why else are they there? Since when does climbing a mountain need a positive externality anyway? Afterall, it's pretty incredible to stand atop a mountain in the first place.

[Went to bed here, it is now 7:30 AM local time the next morning]

So, climbing a mountain doesn't amount to anything, but its pretty flippin' sweet on an individual level.

But, just climbing mountains isn't enough for me I think. I don't think I'd be able to live permantly as a farmer or something. I couldn't only climb mountains. I think once we subscribe to intellect we lose the ability to only exist as natural creatures, the craving for learning is too much.

I can't imagine living in the country; I'd definitely have to have an internet connection and subscribe to various national news sources (and have a library close by).

The great expanse of western states is unimaginable and truly beautiful. But, I don't think it'll ever be big enough to satisfy the need for knowledge and global culture.

-Note: It sure is fun to explore, especially climbing things

Seattle, ho!

Wants/Personal Update

In the past few years, I have spent many moons thinking about basic human wants. In the past few hours, I think I have arrived at a working set of "wants". I ask, please review them, and comment and discuss...especially if you think I'm missing something. I'm not entirely sure if I am, but please comment. Also, please bear in mind that these categories may be inclusive (or for that matter exclusive) of what you may consider more primary wants. But, the fact that we may use different words to describe the same things is interesting in itself.

List:

1. To have peace.
2. To be loved.
3. To be free.
4. To have purpose.

I think that this is the order, as well. Please let me know if you think that the order is out of whack as well.

Now...the issue is. Knowing what I want, and not knowing how to get it. It's damn stressful. We'll...yes, it is. If I wasn't thinking about it, it would mean I'd become complacent. I'll pass on complacency. 'Live' is an active verb, ("He lived" versus "He was lived."). If you don't live actively, make it by choice. Meaning, if you choose to take a step back and go with the flow, don't let it be a rationalization of inaction. Be strong. Press on. (this was my self-taught lesson of the day--thoughts about self-study are to come later, I'm sure.)

------PERSONAL UPDATE------

I arrived in Detroit Thursday.
I'm leaving for Seattle on Saturday morning. My father and I are driving there because has accepted a job in Washington State. He needs a car there, which in my world means roadtrip. I will be arriving in Michigan late Saturday evening (12th of August).

I leave for school late-week, around the 23rd-24th of August, whatever that Thursday/Friday is.
24-bash's date will be set on the road somewhere. Check your facebooks ladies and gents.

My freshmen tour of Ann Arbor will be announced as well.

Call me while I'm gone?