Ideal State
I was talking recently to a friend of a friend about political preference. How can you not with the election so near? It was a brief conversation but conclusions were drawn quickly. He's a PolSci major and while I'm certain he's more aware of current events (and historical trends) than I am, I'm not certain that I can agree with what he said. To put it quite simply he believes there is nothing that we can do to change anything. Asked about his ideal state, he said he would like it to be just like it is right now, he gave a reason for this that I can't quite remember but it isn't the reason that matters it's the fact.I disagree with this notion entirely. I won't get into political preference in this post, it's not what this is about. This post is about challenging your ideal state. I find it laughable that someone could just be satisfied with their current situation. If you're not careful you may read my previous sentence to mean something like "how can anybody be happy right now"-- that's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that in order to be happy you have to have something to strive for, you have to believe that it is not beyond your power to control future events in your life. I want to follow my previous sentence with "I know there are somethings that you can't change in your life" in order to placate all those people who say that some things are impossible. I will resist that urge and instead suggest that anything is possible. It's simple a matter of moving from believing we can't to believing we can.
What about my ideal state? Always changing, and no end in site. I don't ever want to reflect on life with the belief that I have completed everything that I had to. How sad would that be to be satisfied with the status quo?
posted by Rob and Lauren @ 1:54 AM
1 Comments:
Hey Rob.
I'm assuming this was me in a drunken stupor. Allow me to elaborate.
I agree with some things you say. The future is wholly in ones hands save for things in others hands or natural things out of our control. God isn't real. There is no such thing as destiny, blah blah blah.
The conversation we had, I thought by "ideal state" you literally meant ideal state. As in the ideal socio-economic and political status that resides within the borders of Canada. This is something I wholly accept because actually attempting to change these things is a waste of your time. I have seen countless people [read: neo-hippies] strive to do this but fail miserably. This is another debate altogether though.
Now, if I am to understand you, by "ideal state" you actually meant the conditions in which I, personally, would be most content with breathing oxygen and having a conscious state of mind. Here, I disagree with you but it is simply a matter of what I perceive an enjoyable life would be compared to yours. No right or wrong. So allow me to give my take.
I am a realist. Because of such things my outlook on the world is often misinterpreted as cynical [often times it is correctly interpreted as cycnical, that is neither here nor there]. However, I accept that some things ARE truly out of my reach as much as I would like to accomplish them. By accepting this, it allows me t ofocus on things that are in my reach. In my opinion, this is healthy. For example; I love my music. I love playing my guitar. I waste money on my guitar fetish. I would love to be a rockstar or pursue some type of career in the music industry. However, I accept that my playing skills are slightly above average and, as such, achieving this is highly unlikely. If I were to dwell on this and strive to achieve my goal, it would basically be a waste of time and be frustrating and highly counter productive. Sure you could argue that if I truly love it I should atleast make some attempt because there might be a shred of possibility that I might "make it," so to speak. I would disagree. The time we have to enjoy life is too short to deal with "maybes." Instead, I use what skills I have to be a creative outlet for myself. Much better than an unhealthy obsession with being a rockstar.
So that's my take on what you have to say. But I need to point out one more thing. "Status quo." This is the worst term ever. People throw around stuff about the "status quo" and about how "the man's keepin' 'em down!" and so on the so forth. What, prey tell, is the status quo? Is the status quo the fact that the the first year Japanese kid in the Math class I have to take is going to destroy me in that class? Is it the fact that I can't afford a bunch of the crap I want but don't need because the evil corporations are jacking up prices?
No.
"Status quo" is such a banal term. People throw it around when they want change even when they don't know what it is they want changed. And how can you describe the status quo? Isn't the status quo ever present? Doesn't change just create a new status quo that soon someone else will become bored with and want to "challenge?" The use of the term is not wholly unique but disconcerting.
If anyones wants to use the term "status quo," they should have to spend atleast 500 words logically describing what machine they want to rage against and why.
Again, no offence from this post, Rob. From the conversations we've had I know you're a smart guy with an almost overly inquisitive mind. We simply have different outlooks on the world. Yours makes you happy, mine makes you happy. The universe is in perfect balance and God is still dead.
Post a Comment
<< Home