A Heart of Stone

A stringent hope is all that remains; a hope that all things will get better one day.  But it's an incoherent dream- a strident goal that can never be achieved because it exists in Utopia and that's just make-believe isn't it?  We have never lived in it, thus how can we know it is there?  It is a falsification.  A non-entity.

 

That said, we live in hope.

 

People are again those weird animals.  Why do I look at them from above?  Probably because I'm better than them.

 

Try and defy me.  You will fail.

 

=-=

Does demise even care?  Does demise ever stop and consider you?  Does demise ever think of you? 

 

Demise doesn't.

 

And for that, I despair.

 

=-=

Ideas in time perpetuate the mind.

 

The stream of consciousness is an unusual concept.  If you sit and you stare and you start to think of what goes through the brain and then attempt to convert this base of thought into words, you stop. 

 

Writing down how you really feel is the hardest thing in the world.  Language, the written word, is inadequate.  Orwell knew it.  I know it now.

 

Despite these... limitations, I will share with you, the words that floated within my mind during one spell of destructive criticism-

 

Hello?

Why?

Despair?

"Nothing comes of nothing"

The end.

 

Pray, do not be alarmed, I do not think like this constantly.  Sometimes, I perhaps even draw a horse.

 

=-=

Use or you will be used.

 

A philiosophy I have not used, too weary to use, too scared to use.  But is it a reverberating realisation?  It surely follows the principles of human nature based on the instincts of the animal of which we truly are.  If we are to believe evolution, then we must part take in the belief that we as the "political animal" follow the basic rules of engagement i.e. eat, sleep, fuck.  Thus follows that we also run on the Darwinian idea of competition.

 

Competition, the "survival of the fittest".  What does that mean?  Is it merely the race to become the best at the expense of everything; my so-called 'stepping stone' belief?  Is that all it is in the end, using others for yourself, like the mental tools that we have developed to use with our brains, like a spanner with the hand?  Is that it?

 

Life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" said Hobbes.

 

I first read that eight months ago.  And I put it down to cynacism, pure cynacism.  However, how right is it?  Six words of resonance-

 

Life is always-

 

=-=

Ever felt like you were being humoured?  You probably were.  It's a strange misconception of people when they think that there is a perfect person in the world.  What is perfect I ask; I challenge?

 

=-= 

A theory.

 

The problem with theories, and there have been many theories, is that they can be so very true that they shake the very foundations of the earth; that is, society, consciousness and the soul, or, they can be so very wrong that they make the smallest ripple in the fastest stream.  This is one of those theories; make of it what you will- there is little research behind it and in all fairness, there is little substance to it.  But, a theory is a theory and a blog is a blog- length does not necessarily produce quality.

 

My theory rests in the psyche of social groups, or friends.  Now, before you conceive the theory that I have little friends and am thus bitter, that is not true, however in the depths of despair, at the lowest of the low, one does reflect on the constructs of life; the particles that attract one person to bond with another for x amount of time.  My question was, what was this?  What bonded person A with B?

 

Possible solutions included- Age?  Sex?  Taste?  An endless list...

 

But then another theory encapsulates all of those.  It is this theory that I put forward to the masses now with hope of observation.  All friendships, I am told, rely on gives and takes- it is the principle of all contracts whether they be formal or informal, written or not, but there is at the fundamental levels, this small expectation by both parties that by doing something for A, B wants something in return, eventually.  

 

Thus, if all relationships are based on this, then it would be safe to say that all 'non-relationships' do not have this; there is a level of power of one over the other, subservience to master.  This is the case for most bullies; an issue of power and to command others.  However, a part of my theory rests on the idea that this definition isn't so clear cut.  It is my belief that all relationships rely on this power element.  I can think of no friendship that is absent in this fact- there is no true balance, more an acceptance of one over the other and that is what confers the difference between friendships and non (with the bully example); whereas with A and B where they accept that A has a leadership role perhaps, in the bully concept with C and D for example, the balance of power can be seen as being evident, but the difference is that D does not on the smallest level, accept this- the struggle, therefore, creates the tension, the antagonism and thus the two tier system.  Again, this can be seen when friendships fall apart.  Why do they?  When power becomes an issue.  When B feels oppressed by A, they rise up and contention is caused. 

 

This theory, I repeat, is just that.  It could be complete rubbish, however I believe it just one factor out of many that could be considered for a minute or two.

 

=-=

I shall start with a question, when is it too much? 

 

This seemingly ambiguous question has many implications, however, we are mainly concerned with its relationship with the blog culture.  When I ask when is it too much, I am not referring to the size of the blog, but to its contents.  You have a relatively new blogger, who sees this as his or her chance to make their mark, albeit a pin prick, on the World Wide Web, yet a problem arises.  What to write?

 

Many intrepid reporters will write about their lives, their loves, their news and views.  That is agreed to be the purpose of a blog; in a sense it is an online diary with the universal rule being that what you write is accepted by all, and if you disagree you resign yourself to leaving.  However, yet another problem arises with blogs.  If people are allowed a free reign to put whatever they like, where is there a line drawn? 

 

MSN handily alerts those who begin their blogging adventure to the rules of engagement.  "You shall not discuss material that is of a sexual or otherwise unacceptable nature" et al.  Now this may place some limits around what some people can write and the majority succeed in this, but what happens if person A writes about something that annoyed him, another person or a company who we shall embody in B. 

 

If A wrote about B and how much he hated that person, is B entitled to write back?  To complain, hoping for a restriction?  Is A liable for prosecution even?  This has occurred in some companies; but of course, writing about how much you hate about your job and boss on a system that he or she can view is perhaps not the brightest thing to do, but is A not entitled to their opinion?  As their own personal space, should they not be allowed to write about what they really feel? 

 

If this is not the case, then surely freedom of speech is in jeopardy...

 

Naturally, there is a balance, I am speaking from inexperience on the matter, not being one to discuss those who I dislike, but surely I should be entitled to my opinion should the need arise, so long as I justify my case.  There are some cases, though, where I would agree that there is a line; mainly in the areas of discrimination, which is unjustifiable.

 

So here is the crux of this argument- if A called their boss an idiot for making a bad decision, and the boss discovered this, should A be sacked?

 

=-=    

So I have taken some time out to contemplate about different things both deep and meager, so apologise to those who have missed the sporadic updating of late; here is another one to whet your appetites, although it may be a pinch of salt in comparisson to a full feast.  Still, it should carry some taste.

 

My position on some Spaces still stands to an extent.  Although I was not really deterred by the comments of some, their reasons were either absent or fruitless, their apaprent annoyance has made me take a second look at these Spaces and has thus allowed me to appreciate in some ways that people have different opinions. So seeing as this is true, I will say sorry if I came across as harsh on those who wanted to delve into the online world for a "bit of fun.  Rest assured, I have slapped my wrist and will promise to be good in future.

 

As a general point of interest, thoguh, I have noticed that other Spaces have similarly spoken out against the types of comments that I had previously listed below, so I am not alone in feeling this.  Another point to add is the fact that, itis not so much the comment left, but the ignorance that is associated with it; when the words "great space, visit mine" are entered in, there is little reflection of the blog itself.  Courtesy would say that it is far better to comment on the piece of text above, before adding that as an ending to show that you have at least taken a few seconds to at least scan the content before commiting yourself to it.

 

Anyway, enough of the subject for I fear that boredom may take me, and you too.

 

It is a great thing to read a blog that is well written and funny, subtle and yet leaving that impact on you that makes you want to check it every few days for that update.  Similarly, what is also good, and something which I am glad to see, is that age is not really a factor with Spaces.  In a real-life scenario, an 'article' by a teenager may be disregarded by an adult; the younger person being viewed as inferior in a mental comparison.  However, that is not an issue on here and I am glad to see that the correspondence betwen adult and teenager works in both ways.

 

I, for one, am for it.

 

=-=

To the limitless crowd of people who are so eager to voice their 'negative' views of this Space, please just leave.  You don't have to stay, you don't have to read what I have written, and you could at least, if you are going to waste your time reminding me that I am a 'pretentious twat', please justify it, instead of being your usual anonymous self.  Or, now here's an idea, why don't you click the red cross at the top and go, problem solved?

 

I think so.

 

=-=

During my time here on MSN Spaces, I have had the chance to view the Web Logs of others.  The majority seem to be made up of similar material; copy and pasted work, descriptions of drunken nights and how bored they usually are and that it is due to this that they are writing the particular entry.  What intrigues me, though, is the comment feature of Spaces.

 

At first, I was unsure about using it (fear of the unknown I am sure), nevertheless, I did end up using it in response to the comments I received here, which are greatly appreciated.  However, whereas there are some Spaces with few comments, there are some with literally hundreds.  I pondered upon this and brought myself to look at the content of one particular entry in order to see the 'miracle' of the written word, which enticed so many to add a comment. 

 

To my amazement, there was no wondrously skilled writing that I could see, more just a blog about somebody with the aim to get over a thousand comments.  My question now is why?  Why would somebody set on this pointless aim?  In addition, why would anyone comply?  Perhaps it was due to the colourful font, which varied in size.

 

There must be some hidden psychology behind this.  Perhaps, this person wanted to be proved popular, obviously using the comments as a gauge for this, although any good person will tell you that it is "quality, not quantity".  In my opinion, it would be better to have a blog that made you think, rather than appealing to a mass to just add something to make you look that bit popular in this world of over six billion.

 

Another thing I came across is something I have seen in the past, yet failed to pick up on until now.  It is the people who go around with the sole aim of collecting comments.  They manage this with just one comment, copy and pasted and basically traverse the MSN Space vastness and post it, with that small hope that someone will reply and make them feel better.  The trouble is, I have noticed the age of some of these people and let's just say that it is over adolescence.

 

Here's the comment-

 

 

Please note, use of smiley to achieve a similar effect....

 

So, in this world, there are people who really, really want the recognition of others, even if it is in the form of a sentence with the brand-spanking new txt language and little or no punctuation.  They may want it to define an existence, to look popular or want something to read when the night-time boredom sets in.

 

=-=

A week of mixed emotions has been had to say the least.  On one sunny Saturday at the beginning of the month it looked as if the World had finally come together as one to help out the poorer nations in debt; our African friends.  A momentous occasion to say the least, although time will tell if the attempt succeeded, or failed.

 

Four days later and London is again basking in the glory of both the sun and of the victory of the Olympic bid.  Yet another show of unity was brought to our attention; a blissful reminder of how good life is at the moment; how people are finally realising that there is some good in life, that together, London can host the best games.  Together.

 

The time of joy, however, ended with the atrocities of Thursday 7th July.  The explosions with which each of you are more than aware of served to crumble this pride, this unity, this love of life; to crush what people now take for granted, which others despise with such a passion.  It seems unthinkable- do these people not have a conscience?  Do they not feel guilt when they press that trigger?  Are they so deranged in their own minds that they actually think that killing innocent people forms some kind of revenge?

 

But revenge for what?  Going to the supermarket?  Being able to ride on public transport?  For holding hands with the one you love?

 

Tell me, does that justify it?  The answer is most certainly a resounding NO.

 

Does anything justify the taking of life?  it's all well and good giving the immediate answer of yes or no; many of you have not or will not face that decision.  Now, everyone will agree with me that the taking of the innocent's lives was unjustified, yet revenge in the sense of killing those who brought about the destruction in the first place would be hypocritical wouldn't it?  However, the flip side of the coin is- if these people were caught and subsequently sent to prison, that would be it.  They would lose their freedom, but that would be all.

 

All the ideas above contrast and contradict each other; killing those who killed may satisfy people for a short time, but would it turn them into martyrs for others?  In addition, would it pull back our society to their levels?

 

Whatever happens, I do not think that the justice brought against these people will be sufficient in the long run.  Let us just hope that the families of those who suffered can at least have that small amount of justice in whatever form it takes.

 

The week ended with a celebration.  The 60th anniversary of the ending of the Second World War was commemorated yesterday.  It is many people's opinions that this is the last time that such an event will take place, due to the age of the veterans, so I felt it important to watch the proceedings and to remember.  I was impressed by the turnout; the pride of England evidently still shone through, despite what had happened.  Just like in previous years and decades, the grit and determination of this country proved to be greater than that of mindless tyranny.  Similarly, this was shown today, with the commuters once again boarding the underground trains; unfazed by the obvious apprehension that some may have.

 

I am indeed proud.

 

=-=   

If I said that I was an individual, that I did not conform or fall into any categores whatsoever, then I would have made the fatal mistake of joining the masses who claim this very fact.  Would this mean that I myself conform to these others to make a group just as potent as say 'Chavs' or 'Goths'?  Granted this group does not smoke odd substances or wear stripes as if it were the only clothes available, but if you do think about it, this individual group (oxymoron) does share similarities.

 

Could this be a higher perception of the world?  A more cynical nature?  More prone to depression?

 

I wouldn't know myself I have not asked other individuals, what I pose above is what I personally believe, so take it with a pinch of salt, although I do think that I am correct.  Do not think that these are the only traits of these individuals, of course there are more, and more positive ideas too.

 

Being the 'individual' that I am, it is great to see what is an endless battle between these groups- 'Chavs' against society, 'Goths' against 'Townies', 'Moshers' against 'Chavs'.  A circle indeed, which almost goes back 10,000 years to waring tribes in search for food.

 

In truth, society itself has never changed.  It may have become more modern, faster, cleverer, but fundamentally, the same ideas still exist; the ideas of conforming into groups for safety, to raise status, to not be alone.  For that is what a human wants out of life- to not be alone.  They end up going 'crazy'- talking to themselves or creating imaginary friends; think fo the film 'Castaway', for an idea- he spoke to a football.  Now this may seem like I am degrading this idea.  I am not.  Actually, this could save a life, the soul, the mind.  It may seem crazy, but it just highlights this idea that humans do not want to be alone, hence conforming into these groups.

 

Let's take the new national phenomenon, the Chav.  The butt of all jokes.  Now to be honest, I don't like this group.  I know it's stereotypical, but in essence, if you asked me the question- do you like Chavs?  No would be my answer and no doubt it would be the answer for many other people too.  Now on an individual level, if you asked me about certain people, I would answer differently.  Providing I knew the person then I would consider the answer carefully before making my answer.

 

The quote in 'To Kill a Mockingbird' about seeing people as individuals is very good at describing this fact.  Actually, the entire book is very good at showing this fact.  If you are familiar with it then you will know of the incident with the lynch mob coming over to kill Tom Robinson and the fact that it was stopped by a small girl appealing to the individual.

 

This just goes to show that individuals are individual in their own right, however, there are many who like the same ideas- music, clothes, ideas and as it is widely known, in this rare case, like poles attract; if you put someone who likes 'indie' with someone who likes 'indie', they will discuss this fact- they will talk about familiar things.  People are too easily banded together by stereotypical names.  I do not think that anyone actively tries to join these groups by dressing up in the clothes and trying to like the music- it would be a falsification of themselves and they would lead a double life.  However, if they are not actively joining, how do the stereotypical names arise?

 

Here's an analogy.  Think of the Periodic Table.  There are over one hundred individual elements in there and they are banded together by similarities and then placed into groups, co-existing with each other as one, but essentially, individual.  These groups are names for simplicity's sake- from one to eight. 

 

That is how it is in the world.  Based on a very small amount of information, people are banded together and labelled.  It has been going on for 10,000 years and it wont stop.

 

=-=

The first blog. 

 

I approach this with mild trepidation, for it usually the first blog that makes or breaks the Space; the determiner which will either result in the return of visitors, or ward them off, with that bad feeling in their minds.  Therefore it is important to get it right and also maintain a certain level potence and charisma whilst writing subsequent articles so as to not disappoint that audience, we are, afterall, the entertainer, so we must perform to expectations, lest we fall in the reviews.

 

This is, however, talking from a business point of view, which applies to almost, if not everything in this world. 

 

First appearances are everything. 

 

Some may disagree.  These people have learnt that this appearance can be broken with time; the image shattered so to speak.  Yet, the funamental point is that this first impression was made and to be honest, I do not see those people returning here over time to shatter this image; this first impression.

 

This does beg the question- who are we really writing for?   

 

Certainly, we are writing for ourselves, otherwise this exercise would be entirely pointless, yet, if we are doing this solely for our benefit, then why are we broadcasting it to the masses; the unknown entities around the world who care not for our daily doings or our feelings.  If this were the sole case, then why are there not flocks of people running to the local stationers to purchase writing pads and enquipment, and setting out their lives not in pixels, but in ink; by pen and not keyboard.  That would seem like the logical idea.

 

Therefore, there must be another reason.  It is for the masses.  Simply put, attention seeking.  People want their lives to be looked upon, to be read, to be commented on , for the simple thrill that one gets when they see that someone in the world, anyone, has looked upon their lives and found it to be mildly interesting.  It is for this simple little fact that people spend time on these, and there are a lot.  People like the attention of other people even on the smallest of scales.

 

I make no refusal at the fact that I am being a hypocrite, do not take these words the wrong way, I am not ridiculing these people nor viewing their habits in any derogatory way.  I am merely detailing the nature by which we act.  Blogging is just the online version of what has been going on for centuries, and it is indeed a mild revolution.  Some may call it addictive, others a waste.  Either way, the lives of other people- normal people- are today, being thrust upon others more and more.  The question is, when will it stop?

 

=-=