Expectation: The Great Tragedy

Relationships. Thanks to an evolutionary advantage given to those of our ancestors who formed cohesive societies, today's modern 'man' has instilled in him an excessive need to form and maintain relationships with other members of the same species.

Despite my bitter opening paragraph, relationships do have their advantages; some evolutionary, some social. The evolutionary advantages I see are: security, reproduction, self-evolution through group cooperation. The social advantages I see are: appearance of being well-liked and easy to deal with to other individuals, people to appreciate one's achievements, politics. I feel that doesn't quite cover everything (it's a subjective list).

Neglecting the evolutionary gains associated with maintaining healthy relationships, the facet most seem to concentrate on is the negatives associated with relationships. Mainly, the difficulty it takes to initiate and maintain them.

From my point of view, the cause of all relationship headaches (and possibly the cause of all headaches in general, I haven't quite fleshed that part out yet), is expectation. When one expects something from another, and that expectation is not met, disappointment is experienced. Similarly, when an expectation is placed on an individual from another or from society, the pressure becomes uncomfortable, although a small sense of pride may be gained if the expectation is met.

An example I use is of the friend vs. the 'more' than friend:

In a relationship with one's friend, you meet (may or may not initially like them) and a plethora of random experiences determines the future of your relationship with them. One is not normally conscious of this, and doesn't think of the future of their relationship with a friend. It's not as if one can look back in 20 years and think: "I planned we'd be best buds right now!"

 By contrast, a relationship with someone who is 'more than a friend' is much different. The individual is constantly thinking of what the next move will be, hoping the relationship pans out as they wish. Being the eternal optimists humans are (in general) we only see the course of action which benefits us, and on some level, we expect this outcome to occur. When chance events cause a potential 'special relationship' to not develop as hoped, the individual becomes disappointed, sometimes depressed, and can even lead the individual to feel their own life is worth less than it was with the delusion that their 'significant other' was still on the right trajectory.

I feel that it is these expectations that cause individuals to lose their freedom in 'relationships' (you don't often hear about two friends, one of which is 'whipped' to the other). As such, I chose to conduct all my relationships on a very simple and obviously inferred premise - no expectations. This can quite often be difficult, but it allows one to act freely based on how they feel, not allowing social constraints and the concerns of other individuals to affect one's happiness. I feel this way brings a much stronger emotional and physical intimacy with others, as its a free act, not influenced by anything other than what it should be - emotion.

The internet over 5 million terabytes of information. Such volume of data and knowledge has never been seen throughout human civilisation. Amongst the mass of 1s and 0s, one can learn many incredible things, once thought to be impossible.

We can discover the potential of stretchable organic LED's, hoped to one day become a computer in a contact lens, allowing an individual to experience and interact with their surroundings intimately and infinitely.

We can discover carbon nano tubes which in the near future will allow us to construct an elevator to a space station orbiting Earth.

We can discover the amazing developments made in the fields of renewable energy, observe the hard evidence showing the effectiveness of geothermal, solar and wind, and witness adolescent attitudes and ignorance squander our chances for human evolution.

In such a wondrous environment its quite easy to generate a disconnect from the physical reality. Most would frown on those who privilege the virtual over the physical, claiming they are hiding from the truth, 'reality' as it were, and need to 'discover' themselves in order to live 'properly'. The physical world, like the virtual world, is filled with many breathtaking things. Breathtaking, but in a different way to the world wide web. I wouldn't be quick to judge those who choose one over the other, but I feel that both can be a truly awesome experience and it would be disappointing for one to miss an opportunity to experience both at some point in their fragile, fleeting life.

The power and majesty of the universe and our pale blue dot consume my being. It's only when we realise we are one with the universe that we can begin to really connect with our environment - emotionally, physically, spiritually.

As the late great Carl Sagan once said:

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Update

So recently I've been fairly busy with some personal projects (some subjective and other objective) and as such the message of this blog has not been spread as much as I'd like. I hope to correct that in the months to come by devoting more time to this wonderful online medium.

On a personal note, it can be quite tempting to stray from the objective logical course of action and take the standard way of living. I have found that unless one is constantly educating oneself, then one can become part of the machine without even realising - ignorantly blissful of what one is really doing. Similarly, the last few weeks have been about reconciling my objective and subjective points of view. They are both quite passionate (shows which side's winning doesn't it?) and can sometimes seem quite contradictory. I believe I have reconciled them nicely and am rather happy (but I'm always happy, you say). To sum up my views on reconciling subjective and objective views I have a quote I made up in an argument with a friend a year ago - "I think I'm better than everyone else. But I know I'm not." I believe you could apply this to almost anything, realising that it's fine to indulge in the subjective values, provided one is aware of the overall logical context of the values which one is engaging in. Making any sense?

Until next time.

Get to the Point.

When I resumed this blog a few weeks ago, I did so with a goal. This goal was to spread my views on the injustices which occur within society to the world and suggest alternatives or solutions to these issues. After much deliberation (believe me, it took months of trial and error) I decided that a blog was the best way to spread the message.

Activists don't really want change, they just want to be seen like they're doing something - so that was out of the picture. Charity work was also out of the picture (as I've explained in a previous post - see "Save the Children"). At last I realised the best method was education. In today's technological age the best way to spread information is via a website. But since websites cost money to host, a blog turns out to be a lot cheaper. In this way, people are exposed to the issues I discuss and if they are further interested they can check out some of the cool side links or google a concept. Google is a very powerful tool, and one should never be afraid to explore the web, moving outside the comfort zones of familiar sites.

But I digress; the point of this blog is to serve as a pathway to learning. Learning in a way which promotes sustainable values and not doing things 'half-arsed'. One of the most disappointing things about today's education system is the idea of testing. I understand the practical element, but we are teaching kids that if they know 'most' of the content, then it's good enough (i.e. 50% = pass). This is simply not acceptable in life. If a scientist is designing components for a space shuttle, they cannot be 50% right, they need to be 99.9999% sure otherwise there's a big chance some unnecessary life will be lost. An engineer designing a bridge cannot be 50% certain that it will stand. Do we accept these standards in industry? Then why do we teach our kids that 50% is good enough? No wonder we have so many problems in the world today when people are working on the assumption that they only have to get half of it right. I understand that it's almost impossible to learn something 100%, and mistakes will unfortunately be made, but we can strive to do the best that we can.

Rejection

Today was a momentous occassion. For those of you that don't live inside my thoughts (I'm assuming that's a fair majority), today was the day I posted my letter of rejection to the Australian Defence Force. For the last year and a half I've had my sights set on becoming a civil engineer with the Australian Army. My logic behind this was I'd be able to visit war-torn communities and help rebuild, while gaining a sense of camaraderie and team spirit in the process. When I told my friends, they only seemed concerned because it meant I would be moving out of the state, meaning they would see less of me (naive though they were in thinking that we would see each other if I stayed). Only a few told me that I was being a hypocrit, as my personal philosophies were so obviously anti-establishment a move to the Defence Force was in itself illogical.

However, I mostly dismissed these comments, ignorantly believing that this was the only way for me to help others while doing something I loved. I knew I didn't want to be a corporate engineer and thought this was the only other option (other than poverty). So, after completing the lengthy application process last year, I was selected to go to the Australian Defence Force Academy.

In the past few weeks I considered the offer I had. I had friends already at ADFA. I'd be living independently. Getting paid quite well to study for free. Have a guaranteed job at the end of my degree. Get to travel overseas. I knew once I got into the Defence Force I'd be relatively happy, but only if I forced myself to be ignorant of what I was doing and what I was advocating.

It seems like an obvious choice. Go to Canberra. But that last point kept niggling at me. I'd be supporting that which I had spent the last 6 months working so passionately against. In the end I realised that I can achieve what I wanted from the army in other areas. Camaraderie, volunteering, building, all combined. The road will be much more difficult, but I'll be taking it on my own terms, not owing anything to anyone, and as a result much more rewarding. This is the only way one can be truly happy, by relying on oneself, and not being so insecure as to feel a need to cling onto others (this attachment can take many forms).

The most poignant issue which made me change my mind was when I considered the purpose of the Defence Force: To defend Australia. Plain and simple. This is the end, and any means will be taken by the government to ensure this. As a member of the Defence Force, I would not be able to question the moral validity of this decision, I would be expected simply to obey as it's "In the best interest of the country". As someone who doesn't believe in nationalism, and as a human being, I could not expect myself to do that.

Save the Children!

Today I had a quite intriguing conversation with a 'volunteer' from the "Save the Children" organisation. Keoyn was one of the many 'volunteers' who troll Sydney looking to acquire donations from those they stop in the street. I love talking to these people, just to consider the way in which they view the problems in our world.

"Save the Children" is a not-for-profit organisation which advocates the better treatment of children, attempting to claim back a child's basic rights (i.e. right to survival, protection, development and participation). If you want to learn more about the "Save the Children" organisation, you can watch this short video.

During my talk with Keoyn, he told me about what they do and where they do it. The 'where' was pretty much every country on the globe (this was surprising, but ambitious, which I appreciated) and the 'what' ranged from a design called the Kanga Baby to providing education facilities in those countries without said facilities. I really admire the fact that someone is willing to donate their time to discuss these issues on the street, spreading the word. Keoyn's enthusiasm was quite inspiring and I wish we had more people in the world with his passion for change and justice.

However, I do have some issues with what they are advocating.

Firstly, the solutions they are suggesting are only temporary. Let me explain. The ultimate goal of these organisations is to eliminate poverty. This is done one step at a time through their programs. The solutions are only temporary as the goal can never be reached this way. While we live in a system which focuses solely on profit and acquiring money in order to acquire material possessions, poverty will always be present. Money is a class divider as there will always be those who have more than others. This spectrum results in the ones at the top being 'rich' and the one's at the bottom being 'poor'. If everyone has the same amount of money then it sort of defeats the purpose of it in the first place, doesn't it?

Using their methods in our current system, the only way to increase the quality of life of the incredibly poor, we'd have to either a) increase the living standards of everyone, so the incredibly poor are still poor, they're just better off or b) increase the living standards of the incredibly poor, reducing other groups to the status of 'incredibly poor'. Now it is plain to see that both of these methods are absolutely absurd. So one begins to question - these are great short term solutions being suggested, but how can we deal with the root cause?

The other issue I take is one of donations. Lets be serious, by comparison to government funding, donations mean nothing. They come out of the taxpayers pocket, are an incredibly small amount and are heavily taxed (i.e. as little as 20% of the money you donate actually goes to the cause). This is understandable, as these organisations have to pay for advertising in order to tell people about their cause so individuals can then donate (it's a vicious cycle, I know), but I think there are more effective ways to do this. Street people need to discuss the issues with members of the public, and if they show further interest, the street volunteers can direct them to information about how to volunteer their time and skills. No accepting donations and street talkers should not be paid by the hour (I find this apalling and hypocritical). There should then be another group which continuously lobbies their local MPs, discussing the issues and demanding more government spending be put into the infrastructure of the countries; suggesting programs and ways in which these could be implemented.

Keoyn's heart was in the right place, but I couldn't help but feel it was being insanely ineffective.

Related articles, courtesy of Zemanta:

• S.C.A.O Save Poor Children in Asia Organisation - Phnom Penh, Cambodia
• Charitable Work Helps Your Bottom Line
• Poverty; One Man's Crusade to Save Impoverished Children
• Post-Conflict Ivory Coast: An Interview with Annie Bodmer-Roy of Save the Children

Into the Light: Sentiments on Death

A while ago, a friend of mine expressed their sentiments on death. I think the Peter Pan quote summed it up quite nicely: “Death would be an awfully big adventure.” At the time I couldn’t quite understand their logic. How could death be a big adventure? What could one possibly attain from an infinite period of non-existence?

I think the reason for my lack of understanding was my narrow-minded approach. I’d considered death to be something we could scientifically quantify. I guess it was the cynic in me coming out. Just because non-existence is the most probable, rational, logical and realistic result of death, doesn’t mean that’s the way it will be. Who can prove what happens after we die? An obvious question isn’t it. 

So while non-existence seems the most likely, it might not be the case. That, to me is awfully exciting. One’s imagination could spend hours contemplating the many possible outcomes of death, all more fantastic or horrible than the last. In expressing my excitement, don’t mistake this for suicidal tendencies. Just because I welcome the adventure death brings, doesn’t mean I want to go and top myself. I have a lot of things left to do and accomplish while my body still sends electrical signals. Not to mention, life is a pretty big adventure already. Look at it this way; would you start playing Assassin’s Creed 2 before you finish with Assassin’s Creed?

The religious types out there believe that through death, they can achieve paradise. I myself am not religious, but lets just pretend for a second that this is true. If through death, one can get to their interpretation of paradise, then what is there to be afraid of? Now the obvious answer is that religious buffs feel they have more to achieve in the material world before they venture into the spiritual one. It could also be the fear of leaving those they love behind. This is cause to be sad, but hardly fear. It would be disappointing not to do all those things, but compared to the alternative, I'd be absolutely excited!

Regardless, I don't think Heaven and Hell are all they're cracked up to be. Irrespective of what mono-theistic religion you follow (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), they all have some kind of after-life in which you can spend an eternity in happiness. Provided of course, you follow the stringent code of your chosen religion. Heaven and Hell are the same thing. Initially, the experience would be quite different, I'll grant. In Heaven, one would be free to do what they wished, while in Hell, you'd be a slave to the devil, doing his bidding as he wished. While these two realms seem quite different from one another, bear in mind, you're spending an eternity here. Would it be safe to say that in life, if you're exposed to the same thing for an extended period of time, it becomes a normality, and a sense of apathy develops? Just think about when you buy a new car. At first, it's an extremely exciting proposition, and you have an increased amount of endorphins released in your brain. However, as time goes on, these endorphins decrease, and your 'new' car becomes a normality. I believe Heaven and Hell would be exactly like this. An eternity of the same thing over and over again would be utterly mundane. I bet the people in Heaven and praying for a day trip to the hot spas of Hell.

All in all, death isn’t something to be afraid of. It seems most young adults fear leaving this world, but they shouldn’t. Death is easy, it’s hard for those you leave behind.