Dead Astronaut
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Music
It's so weird how sometimes, a note makes you feel more understood than any spoken word can. There's this one split-second part in Jeff Buckley's "Hallelujah" that makes me run thousands of beautiful and hideous images in my mind, all at once. Specifically, when Buckley starts singing the last set of Hallelujah's in the song, the 6th time he sings it, he does something so powerful with his guitar that makes me almost go crazy listening to it.
I think of forest grove during the first major snowfall every year. Usually, when it snows, I go out for a walk when the sun is still asleep, and I think of how everything is so beautiful, cold and quiet. It's actually quite a mixture of feelings that I'm talking about.
Right there, lost in the soft whiteness, I remind myself of why I think silence is so beautiful. It's beautiful, because for a split second (much like in the Jeff Buckley song), I feel that my isolation from the conventional world is echoed and understood. ¶ 1:51 PM 1 comments
I think of forest grove during the first major snowfall every year. Usually, when it snows, I go out for a walk when the sun is still asleep, and I think of how everything is so beautiful, cold and quiet. It's actually quite a mixture of feelings that I'm talking about.
Right there, lost in the soft whiteness, I remind myself of why I think silence is so beautiful. It's beautiful, because for a split second (much like in the Jeff Buckley song), I feel that my isolation from the conventional world is echoed and understood. ¶ 1:51 PM 1 comments
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Oppression
Another rant.
Just as I believe that all the world's pleasures are interconnected, I think the same of all the oppressions. Let me start with the fundamentals on which humans are built. What distinguishes us from other animals? Abstract reasoning, of course. And abstract reasoning inevitably leads to the creation of language, since tangible symbols are necessary for analyzing intangible ideas and sensations.
Language then becomes responsible for how we perceive time. We gain the ability to think about the future, even though all other animals can't (since "the future" is only a hypothetical and non-material idea of what "could/should" be). In other words, our line of thinking becomes linear - past, present, future. This is particularly the case when writing systems are invented, since writing enables us to keep a record of history that is based on a linear cause-and-effect model. An event that occurred in "x" year, resulted in the "y" revolution, which created in the conditions of the "z" era.
Because we become really wrapped up in non-present time, our thoughts revolve around "should-isms" (ie. in order to get "x," we should do "y."). And this leads to our ideas of "truth" and rationality. We are able to objectify all our experiences so that we find cause and effect relations and therefore deduce "truths" that can be applied universally - that's the basis of science. Of course, if there are "truths," there are also "falsities." And this leads to a dichotomous worldview, where we create divisions like good vs. bad, true vs. false, black vs. white.
And this is how we begin our fundamental separation with the natural world (the dichotomous notion of "us vs. them"). In the human psyche, non-human living subjects become "them," and we become "us." In turn, because nature becomes an "other" that is detached from our collective experience, we give ourselves the right to mess with it; in other words, building human tools to help us better exploit nature to our benefit. If you think my argument that language and writing is responsible for this divide is flawed, you may take a look at Indigenous tribes around the world who never adopted a writing system. For instance, the worldview of First Nations peoples, before writing, was based on a cyclical view of time that was based on a relatively deeper relationship with nature than what we have with the advent of writing.
Anyway though, back to what I was talking about. Our exploitation of nature then leads to individualism. The more wealth we accumulate from the use of natural resources, the better. And this, in turn, creates a system of hierarchy in which some ascend and some fall back (creating another oppressive dichotomy - "poor vs. rich"). Who falls back, you may ask?
The first are women. Women, by virtue of giving birth, carry a deeper sense of compassion and sensibility than men (though this is a huge generalization and there are many exceptions). This feminine sensibility makes them reluctant to take on roles as individualists and oppressors of nature, and so the male gender becomes dominant. Although women and those with feminine sensitivities remain at the forefront of creativity, men are more likely to take on "male-traditional" roles such as scientists and doctors. These professions oppress nature, since most developments in either field are meant to benefit humans to the exclusion of other life forms. Incidentally, these professions become some of the most respectable on society's ladder - what we today deem "professional."
The second group that falls back are all "others." These "others" include groups of people who haven't developed means of manipulating nature based on self-interest - those who haven't developed the art of writing to the extent of the West. This makes sense if you think about it. Mesopotamia and Egypt were arguably the first civilizations to develop writing. The Greek alphabet was developed through an integration of hieroglyphics and phoenecian symbols (the latter of which was influenced by Mesopotomia). And finally, writing, as we know it today in Western European countries, emerged from the Greek and Roman civilizations. Given this analysis, it's no surprise that Europe and Eurocentric nations became the world's superpowers. The only non-European nations to come close to creating Western-style colonialist empires were China and Japan - and they did indeed do this, albeit to a lesser extent, probably because they drew from a smaller and less intricate pool of developmental influence in comparison with the West. Our separation from nature can most likely explain the harsh treatment of Africans and Indigenous peoples from the South Pacific and the Americas.
Queer oppression and the oppression of "otherness" has its roots here as well, I would argue. "Third gender" groups were not meant to procreate as a result of their sexuality. Instead of creating new life, some of these people created other things - what we came to know as "culture." By this, I don't mean that all gays/lesbians were responsible for cultural expressions. Instead, I mean that anyone outside the heterosexual gender norms (including many straight men & women, although it especially applies to "other-oriented" people) became more concerned with creating culture and ideas as opposed to creating life. Because (a) creativity often originated from a different worldview than linear logic, because (b) queer-identified people did not procreate, and because (c) "different" heterosexuals procreated for reasons other than the norm (ie. not furthering individualist human self-interest), these groups became oppressed too.
Wow. That was a long post.
As a caveat thought: please read the very last paragraph and take note that I have no bitterness towards anyone. Some of the sweetest people I know on this planet are white and straight and, yes, male. And I even think the male worldview is something quite beautiful. What we have today is not, I think, the original male worldview, but something that has been socially conditioned over the period of "civilization" to be destructive. The point of this post was just to show, ARGUABLY, that many of the world's problems can be seen as an interwoven web. Nothing can be examined in isolation from everything else. ¶ 11:48 AM 2 comments
Just as I believe that all the world's pleasures are interconnected, I think the same of all the oppressions. Let me start with the fundamentals on which humans are built. What distinguishes us from other animals? Abstract reasoning, of course. And abstract reasoning inevitably leads to the creation of language, since tangible symbols are necessary for analyzing intangible ideas and sensations.
Language then becomes responsible for how we perceive time. We gain the ability to think about the future, even though all other animals can't (since "the future" is only a hypothetical and non-material idea of what "could/should" be). In other words, our line of thinking becomes linear - past, present, future. This is particularly the case when writing systems are invented, since writing enables us to keep a record of history that is based on a linear cause-and-effect model. An event that occurred in "x" year, resulted in the "y" revolution, which created in the conditions of the "z" era.
Because we become really wrapped up in non-present time, our thoughts revolve around "should-isms" (ie. in order to get "x," we should do "y."). And this leads to our ideas of "truth" and rationality. We are able to objectify all our experiences so that we find cause and effect relations and therefore deduce "truths" that can be applied universally - that's the basis of science. Of course, if there are "truths," there are also "falsities." And this leads to a dichotomous worldview, where we create divisions like good vs. bad, true vs. false, black vs. white.
And this is how we begin our fundamental separation with the natural world (the dichotomous notion of "us vs. them"). In the human psyche, non-human living subjects become "them," and we become "us." In turn, because nature becomes an "other" that is detached from our collective experience, we give ourselves the right to mess with it; in other words, building human tools to help us better exploit nature to our benefit. If you think my argument that language and writing is responsible for this divide is flawed, you may take a look at Indigenous tribes around the world who never adopted a writing system. For instance, the worldview of First Nations peoples, before writing, was based on a cyclical view of time that was based on a relatively deeper relationship with nature than what we have with the advent of writing.
Anyway though, back to what I was talking about. Our exploitation of nature then leads to individualism. The more wealth we accumulate from the use of natural resources, the better. And this, in turn, creates a system of hierarchy in which some ascend and some fall back (creating another oppressive dichotomy - "poor vs. rich"). Who falls back, you may ask?
The first are women. Women, by virtue of giving birth, carry a deeper sense of compassion and sensibility than men (though this is a huge generalization and there are many exceptions). This feminine sensibility makes them reluctant to take on roles as individualists and oppressors of nature, and so the male gender becomes dominant. Although women and those with feminine sensitivities remain at the forefront of creativity, men are more likely to take on "male-traditional" roles such as scientists and doctors. These professions oppress nature, since most developments in either field are meant to benefit humans to the exclusion of other life forms. Incidentally, these professions become some of the most respectable on society's ladder - what we today deem "professional."
The second group that falls back are all "others." These "others" include groups of people who haven't developed means of manipulating nature based on self-interest - those who haven't developed the art of writing to the extent of the West. This makes sense if you think about it. Mesopotamia and Egypt were arguably the first civilizations to develop writing. The Greek alphabet was developed through an integration of hieroglyphics and phoenecian symbols (the latter of which was influenced by Mesopotomia). And finally, writing, as we know it today in Western European countries, emerged from the Greek and Roman civilizations. Given this analysis, it's no surprise that Europe and Eurocentric nations became the world's superpowers. The only non-European nations to come close to creating Western-style colonialist empires were China and Japan - and they did indeed do this, albeit to a lesser extent, probably because they drew from a smaller and less intricate pool of developmental influence in comparison with the West. Our separation from nature can most likely explain the harsh treatment of Africans and Indigenous peoples from the South Pacific and the Americas.
Queer oppression and the oppression of "otherness" has its roots here as well, I would argue. "Third gender" groups were not meant to procreate as a result of their sexuality. Instead of creating new life, some of these people created other things - what we came to know as "culture." By this, I don't mean that all gays/lesbians were responsible for cultural expressions. Instead, I mean that anyone outside the heterosexual gender norms (including many straight men & women, although it especially applies to "other-oriented" people) became more concerned with creating culture and ideas as opposed to creating life. Because (a) creativity often originated from a different worldview than linear logic, because (b) queer-identified people did not procreate, and because (c) "different" heterosexuals procreated for reasons other than the norm (ie. not furthering individualist human self-interest), these groups became oppressed too.
Wow. That was a long post.
As a caveat thought: please read the very last paragraph and take note that I have no bitterness towards anyone. Some of the sweetest people I know on this planet are white and straight and, yes, male. And I even think the male worldview is something quite beautiful. What we have today is not, I think, the original male worldview, but something that has been socially conditioned over the period of "civilization" to be destructive. The point of this post was just to show, ARGUABLY, that many of the world's problems can be seen as an interwoven web. Nothing can be examined in isolation from everything else. ¶ 11:48 AM 2 comments
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Salmon Fishery on the Fraser
I want to provide a little context on the R. v. Kapp decision that has heated up some controversy over the past little while. Last year, the Musqueam, Tsawwassen and Burrard First Nations were permitted to begin partaking in the Fraser River salmon fishery 24 hours before commercial fishers, as part of a commercial pilot program. Of course, this caused a lot of controversy, and non-First Nations fishers all joined the Aboriginal bands a day early in protest.
Many of the protesters brought the commercial pilot initiative to the attention of the B.C. Court of Appeal, where they argued that a "race-based" fishery was being promoted through such a program. In particular, they wanted the above-mentioned First Nations bands to begin their participation in the salmon fishery on the same day that non-Aboriginal fishers did. The Court of Appeal responded by announcing that the commercial pilot program designated for Aboriginals of the Tsawwassen, Musqueam and Burrard Nations is not racially discriminatory.
And I agree.
First, the commercial pilot program is not "race-based." If it was, all other First Nations (such as the Lower Mainland's Katzie and Semiahmoo Nations, to name a few) would also be entitled to participating in the program. They're not. This is a program specifically designated for three bands that regularly participate in the Fraser River salmon fishery every year. These Nations have been engaged in a salmon fishery on the Fraser River that they used for commercial (bartering) purposes since time immemorial.
More importantly though, the Indian Act (which is still, by the way, in effect) systematically took possession First Nations' lands and resources, and used some of the monies gained from the exploitation of these resources to create programs such as the reserve system and residential schooling, which were said to "help" these communities (the latter of which existed until 1996). ONLY RECENTLY, have First Nations had a say in how these monies get spent or how they get "compensated" for centuries of colonialism (even though the allocated funding represents a mere fraction of all the lands and resources in possession of the Canadian government). The commercial pilot program exemplifies Canada's legal duty under the Indian Act to either spend Aboriginal monies held by the government constructively, or to find other means of helping First Nations communities re-build from the years of cultural genocide. It is a right and not a privilege. ¶ 2:38 PM
Many of the protesters brought the commercial pilot initiative to the attention of the B.C. Court of Appeal, where they argued that a "race-based" fishery was being promoted through such a program. In particular, they wanted the above-mentioned First Nations bands to begin their participation in the salmon fishery on the same day that non-Aboriginal fishers did. The Court of Appeal responded by announcing that the commercial pilot program designated for Aboriginals of the Tsawwassen, Musqueam and Burrard Nations is not racially discriminatory.
And I agree.
First, the commercial pilot program is not "race-based." If it was, all other First Nations (such as the Lower Mainland's Katzie and Semiahmoo Nations, to name a few) would also be entitled to participating in the program. They're not. This is a program specifically designated for three bands that regularly participate in the Fraser River salmon fishery every year. These Nations have been engaged in a salmon fishery on the Fraser River that they used for commercial (bartering) purposes since time immemorial.
More importantly though, the Indian Act (which is still, by the way, in effect) systematically took possession First Nations' lands and resources, and used some of the monies gained from the exploitation of these resources to create programs such as the reserve system and residential schooling, which were said to "help" these communities (the latter of which existed until 1996). ONLY RECENTLY, have First Nations had a say in how these monies get spent or how they get "compensated" for centuries of colonialism (even though the allocated funding represents a mere fraction of all the lands and resources in possession of the Canadian government). The commercial pilot program exemplifies Canada's legal duty under the Indian Act to either spend Aboriginal monies held by the government constructively, or to find other means of helping First Nations communities re-build from the years of cultural genocide. It is a right and not a privilege. ¶ 2:38 PM
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Apparently...
¶ 10:12 PM 0 comments
 | You scored as Cultural Creative. Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational.
What is Your World View? (updated) created with QuizFarm.com |
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Antidote
Our bodies convulse to the moans
of a dying waterfall as it
collapses in heavy showers
that feed our blank eyes beneath.
The plumetting water carries
hollow shells that pretend
to contain the secrets of
a solitary weeping jasmine -
the final fossil of anti-apathy.
And as we digest the illusive
white-petalled whispers of a
rapidly disappearing dream,
we shake in the memory of rage.
"No crying on the premises." ¶ 2:39 PM 1 comments
of a dying waterfall as it
collapses in heavy showers
that feed our blank eyes beneath.
The plumetting water carries
hollow shells that pretend
to contain the secrets of
a solitary weeping jasmine -
the final fossil of anti-apathy.
And as we digest the illusive
white-petalled whispers of a
rapidly disappearing dream,
we shake in the memory of rage.
"No crying on the premises." ¶ 2:39 PM 1 comments
Friday, June 23, 2006
Goal
Peyvand got me a really awesome book for my birthday. To be honest, at first, I thought it wouldn't be my thing. It's a Douglas Coupland book called "Microserfs," and it's pretty much based on the fictitious journal of a Microsoft employee. I'm finding it fascinating, mostly because it brings up the issue of isolation in the "new" world. It definitely sheds light on why so many in the Western world feel that they're progressively getting distant from genuineness and, more importantly, detached from a sense of understanding.
And then I got thinking about my own life. I wanted to know why I had chosen all these different paths that I had taken in my (short) life, and to what end they either benefitted or compromised my well being. It dawned on me that I've been searching for understanding and meaning this whole time and, although I keep getting closer, I feel like it's a constant battle of theories, values and (most importantly) emotions.
I'm always afraid of sounding cryptic on my blog, by the way. I don't want to be just an abstraction on the web. That makes me think sad thoughts.
But anyway. I've decided that, when I'm an old man in diapers, I want to be able to think about anyone and feel compassion for them. I'll explain myself. While I do think that the greatest barrier to achieving understanding in the present western world is this emptiness that has been brought about by consumerism, apathy and a general disconnect with the developing world, I think that any sort of change starts at the individual level. And by this, I don't mean that individuals are responsible for bringing about social change. Rather, I think that they have the ability.
I believe that humans are generally good, but this ability to bring about change is definitely compromised by a world that makes us self-interested and hollow (and I'm not a snob cause I acknowledge that I'm no exception to the rule at times). Because I believe that people's intentions are generally good, how can I really hate anyone? And don't give me the "would you hate a psychopath?" bullshit cliche, because these people have mental illnesses (yes, the things that they do may not be excusable, but hating them doesn't accomplish much).
Of course, I do have profound dislikes (god knows I do - you've probably heard me talk about work). But that's my point. As I get older, I hope to gain the ability to empathize with all people (and, by extension, set aside some of my shallowness), so that I can at least pay my dues to this world that sincerely looks like it's going to hell at so many times. ¶ 8:20 AM 2 comments
And then I got thinking about my own life. I wanted to know why I had chosen all these different paths that I had taken in my (short) life, and to what end they either benefitted or compromised my well being. It dawned on me that I've been searching for understanding and meaning this whole time and, although I keep getting closer, I feel like it's a constant battle of theories, values and (most importantly) emotions.
I'm always afraid of sounding cryptic on my blog, by the way. I don't want to be just an abstraction on the web. That makes me think sad thoughts.
But anyway. I've decided that, when I'm an old man in diapers, I want to be able to think about anyone and feel compassion for them. I'll explain myself. While I do think that the greatest barrier to achieving understanding in the present western world is this emptiness that has been brought about by consumerism, apathy and a general disconnect with the developing world, I think that any sort of change starts at the individual level. And by this, I don't mean that individuals are responsible for bringing about social change. Rather, I think that they have the ability.
I believe that humans are generally good, but this ability to bring about change is definitely compromised by a world that makes us self-interested and hollow (and I'm not a snob cause I acknowledge that I'm no exception to the rule at times). Because I believe that people's intentions are generally good, how can I really hate anyone? And don't give me the "would you hate a psychopath?" bullshit cliche, because these people have mental illnesses (yes, the things that they do may not be excusable, but hating them doesn't accomplish much).
Of course, I do have profound dislikes (god knows I do - you've probably heard me talk about work). But that's my point. As I get older, I hope to gain the ability to empathize with all people (and, by extension, set aside some of my shallowness), so that I can at least pay my dues to this world that sincerely looks like it's going to hell at so many times. ¶ 8:20 AM 2 comments
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
The Irony
I remember Will Armstrong. In fact, I talked to him a week ago when I ran into him by the bus stop. We exchanged a few words, and both of us bitched about work. It was a very normal conversation from what I gathered. Last night, when Albert left a voicemail message on my phone telling me that Will had passed away by the railway tracks at 4:30 in the morning, it was a blow. I was never all that close to him, but he still hung out with Albert, Kurtis and I, and we all saw him practically every day. I do share a lot of memories with him - things he'd say or do.
One memory particularly stuck in my mind the minute that I heard about his death. Kurtis, Will and I would normally walk home from school, and we'd take Gaglardi Highway northward. While Will would turn left on Broadway to go home, Kurtis and I would normally take the trail that was further up the highway. This one day, right before Will was about to turn left on Broadway, he decided that he'd continue walking with Kurtis and I since he felt like hanging out with Kurtis that day. So he did. And literally 5 seconds later, a car collided with a large streetlight pole at the exact spot that Will would've been had he turned left. We all thought about the irony the next day: what if Will had died? If Will could escape that, we thought, he was probably invincible. Five years later, we found out that no one's invincible and that death is the one thing that humbles people universally. I hope he's happy wherever he is, and I hope he took something meaningful from his life. Perhaps he has finally found peace where he hadn't before. ¶ 1:18 PM 0 comments
One memory particularly stuck in my mind the minute that I heard about his death. Kurtis, Will and I would normally walk home from school, and we'd take Gaglardi Highway northward. While Will would turn left on Broadway to go home, Kurtis and I would normally take the trail that was further up the highway. This one day, right before Will was about to turn left on Broadway, he decided that he'd continue walking with Kurtis and I since he felt like hanging out with Kurtis that day. So he did. And literally 5 seconds later, a car collided with a large streetlight pole at the exact spot that Will would've been had he turned left. We all thought about the irony the next day: what if Will had died? If Will could escape that, we thought, he was probably invincible. Five years later, we found out that no one's invincible and that death is the one thing that humbles people universally. I hope he's happy wherever he is, and I hope he took something meaningful from his life. Perhaps he has finally found peace where he hadn't before. ¶ 1:18 PM 0 comments
