life balance

There are things that are necessary to do, and lives that I have to live. Obligations, requirements, inclinations, and unavoidable necessities that need to be kept in sufficient ratios to keep an enjoyable, prosperous, easy-going, productive and non-neglecting lifestyle.

These:

eating/sleeping
school life/homework
dance team
viola and guitar practice
love life/sex life
socialization with friends
various hobbies (blogging, listening to music)
family activities/interactions and obligations
personal time (plain thinking)

are hard to balance properly within my life. What is my top priority? My second? When choosing between the party of a dear friend and seeing a movie with my family, where is the priority? Lately I have had no time to watch tv (save a little on weekends) when I really do enjoy The Office and House. Frankly, I would rather blog or listen to music or think or waste time chatting with friends. But that's when I really should be doing my homework or making plans with a long-lost friend.

Most debated in my mind is the love life factor. As this overlaps with social life I am known to think that they are interchangeable. They surely are not. Is a love life just an extra thing I should have if everything else in my life is completely taken care of, balanced and secure? Or is it something that will relax, steady and put my life into perspective of what is most important (whether it be the relationship itself or not).

The way I figure it is that I will always have some certain bare minimum of procrastination and personal time that I just cannot live without, so I have to work my life around that, along with sleeping and eating and such.

I think as long as I stay happy and I have OK grades, that I am fine.

historical personification in theory

To get the "big picture" of a wide time time range of historical events, one learns the "most important" things, and tried to make sense of why large groups of people did the things they did "over all".

At what point was it that there was so much history one had the resources to learn of that one was resorted to personifying countries and social classes as individual people? I know it seems kind of redundant to be personifying people, but it's just as one personifies a bug. You guess what they are thinking by their actions, for have no way of knowing their thoughts

Do large groups of people really act as one? Are we referring to the majority of the population of that country or the governmental decisions alone? If it is governmental standings then yes, small numbers of people and wide statements representing a large population can be said to have dialogue. But still, how accurate are we in those examples? Quite a bit of history is inferred and deducted from hazy scriptures, badly translated texts, dug up toenails and word of mouth passed down from prostitute ancestors. I am not debating science. I am just saying; 1) who cares? and 2) aren't we all just people going around doing things? How would you feel if you never mattered in the story of 21st century society in textbooks later on? That no matter how much you went against the majority or the anti-majority, that you would never be remembered as a blood-thirsty absolutist tyrant would be remembered and mentioned in textbooks?

An individual rarely thinks about how an outsider would view the changes in trend and political movement, and how they are either part of the majority or against it. There is the now, and there is the then. The now is the now, and it will always be the now. Hell, even the then is the now for an individual, it's not too often that someone sees the changes they are taking part in as a historical event. Or perhaps the opposite; everyone sees everything going on in the now forevermore important, even though in a 26th century textbook it will be viewed as a bland, peaceful, perhaps even treacherous time that that child will yawn to. It makes me so mad at that futuristic 8th grader. PUT DOWN YOUR VIRTUAL SUN-BATHING GOGGLES AND PUT ON THAT HELMET THAT SHOOTS INFORMATION ABOUT THE 21ST CENTURY INTO YOUR BRAIN!!! Spoiled little brat. But the horrible thing is that I don't wish that I could learn more intensely about past times, because there is no intense information out there for me. Those times are boring in theory as these times are boring in theory.

But I do like the idea of speeding through all of history in such short summary. The idea that I have been everywhere and know what happened even though in reality I would need a time machine and a boat to know is pretty cool...in theory. Sometimes I just really don't care. I mean sure, it's interesting, but there is only so much interest I can have before i get tired of being interested. I want to be confused and angry and pleased and relaxed. I don't want to be constantly trying to know how the hell this or that lead to this thing and how 37 years went by with nothing theoretically important happening.

The very fact that I can get bored means I am not going fast enough and putting in enough personification for it to make sense and be interesting. I like social issues between people. So when countries and social classes are displayed as individual people, I can see why they ended up doing what they did and how they went about doing it.

But this does cause problems. Certain things do not make sense until I have a reality check and remember that these ARE very large groups of people, and that they will act differently than an individual. Things are harder to be kept secret, it isn't as easy to begin and end fights as instantaneously and it isn't as easy to stay in mental stability. If countries were individuals then they would all be bi-polar and crazy and homicidal and suicidal and dominant and submissive at the same time. These would be some very messed up people with some serious issues.

Heh...what if I were a country? Would I play nice with the other countries? Would I share my juice box with them at snack time?

antiquated vernacular

Often I use archaic and obscure language in modern settings to convince people of my respectfulness or sound more sophisticated than the meaning of my words is actually conveying. Some examples of such would be similar to this:

"Over yonder, I presume" as opposed to "Somewher over ther I THINK"

"Excuse me young gentleman, could I trouble you for the time?" in substitution for "Er um, shit forgot my watch! Hey, you, uh what time it be?"

"As do I" instead of "Yeah I know right?"

"Indeed", "How true", or "Indubitably" in place of "Yerp"

The funniest thing is when I mix in one sentence some wannabe ghetto terms or speaking styles with the inaccurate Shakespearean language. It takes some deciphering to comprehend meaning as I am not using usual terms consistently. Even more so when chatting online I can mix these two English language variants with 1337 speak; num83r5 1n p14c3 0f 13773r5, mssng vwls, and acronyms (lol). Taken to the level of pure incomprehension, I am known to throw in a spanish word every now and then to make it even more confusing. This takes superior brain power, and often I get annoyed at even myself for the odd image and character I am creating with the wirting style.

Has your bubble been burst? I am not a perfectionist, overly descriptive, precise or an informative writer. Or am I? I enjoy manipulating language. This can be executed various ways; one of which is to convey the meaning that I have to say, but do it is a long and entertaining way filled with my stream of consciousness on the subject, which you have seen on this blog. Another way to manipulate language is as such being described throughout this post, making people work for your meaning and being as eccentric as possible to make the normal things said be found newfoundly and unnecessarily interesting. (Not to mention the words I just plainly make up, hence newfoundly.)

That will be all. For now muahaha.

update

My newest favorite word is splendid.

strictly geometry

There is a point in someone's life when the details of their private life is beyond the line of decency in normal conversation. Sometimes you have to bite your tongue and internally smile or frown. The conversation becomes shaped around automatic and predictable responses to personable questions rather than further insight into either participant of the conversing or the happenings in their lives, which were the topics currently under speculation from the beginning queries.

I don't complain about being forced to have this objective at times. My angle is to tell the people who want to know and keep select segments of my life under the radar to the people who do not care.

There are certain properties about myself which make it difficult for me to control myself from bragging or venting to people I barely know.

I can get around this by only giving fractions of my private life to each person. And if somehow they all converse on the same topic then they might be able to figure out the entire story, but I doubt they have the mathematical minds to do such a thing.

one who has heart

Preface: Sometimes I wander between self consciousness and egotism. Between confidence and self belittling. I am used to being praised, and when I am insulted I take it hard. Is it jealousy? Meh, I've concluded sometimes it is. But it can't always be. Is it because people hate my personality? I doubt it but it may be true; some people clash, fight and breed awkward and confused silences in comments and understanding. But it is not the words that come from other's mouths that disrupt me deeply and make me question if it is all a lie. It is my own criticism backed up with hard evidence that I suck when I know that I thought I was great and I tried really hard. That's when it is unavoidable.

There is a culture in America concerning "heart". I am not sure if it is present in other countries in this exact form, but it is most likely slightly in some regard with religious, cultural, or moral ideas. It is the thought that one who tries their best with, or more culturally accurate, better than their best with good intentions, should and shall be rewarded for their efforts and personal determination.

In that statement I disagree with the words; shall, personal determination, and should. It would be a great world if this were true. And it is not a bad thing to live by in a lot of cases as long as one stays within jumping distance of reality. But it goes against my personal philosophy.

If I want to better myself at something, people need to tell me I suck, not that I have heart. Living in the mindset of a bettered image of one's self causes a black hole in the psyche between reality and understanding if the illusion is somehow broken.

Should: If one sucks, what gives them the right to win, to achieve? Is the world fair like this? I would not be myself if I didn't follow what I was good at. I like things because I'm good at them. Things I am not good at or would be good at, I rarely like. Who are these people who like things they suck at? People who grew up with overly encouraging parents, people who plainly suck at everything, people who grew up with people telling them this one thing was "the shiznits" and they have nothing else to strive for, and people who don't know when to quit. Do you respect these people? In theory, yes, they have their dream, they work for it morally and humbly and respectfully...but aren't they also selfish, ignorant, maniac, obsessed, hopeless, helpless, desperate, childish, and painful to watch? Should these people really be doing what they are?

Personal Determination: If I suck at something, I do not want to humiliate myself in front of people obviously trying but failing miserably every time. If it causes pain, don't do it. If you don't feel like it, don't do it. If the only reason, or most of the reason for one's doing something is being praised for how wonderful one is at that thing then there would be no reason whatsoever if their talent was lacking or nonexistent.

Shall: Heart perpetuates the idea that you can succeed if you try. And it is completely untrue. You can try with all your might and still fail. You can give your all and be thoroughly disappointed. You can never give up but still die. You can use all your connections and still get cut. You can do nothing else and screw yourself over. You shan't, you shan't, you shan't.

I don't care if I have heart. I would know if I had heart. Having heart does not define me.

But I am a hypocrite. This slightly goes against another personal philosophy of mine which is: If you believe it, then it is as good as true. And it applies here. As long as you think that you rock then you do.

Afterwards: It was not at the point that I realized I was a hypocrite that my situation subsided. It was when I realized there was no way out of humiliate myself and I had to go through with it and make the best of it. If I was going to be humiliated, I better be looking cool in my mind. And that meant giving it all and making a mental fool of myself. Well, I swore in my friends. If I sucked then I would murder them in their sleep if they did not tell me the truth. Thankfully, I did not have to get my hands into any illegal business (well regarding that anyways) and my friends greeted me with awe and praise at my non-suckage. Was it all in my mind? Was the evidence faulty? Did they lie? Were they too far away to see me looking retarded? Am I hallucinating? Or did my mind in that half self conscious state transform me overnight? Does it matter? No. Because I rock again, and egotism is at an all time high.

One last note: Rudy=bad movie

hippie preaching

"Do it or I'll kill you."

Doesn't this phrase, among scare you and shock you...sicken you? Just the thought that human nature could be so much more savage and uncompromising and down to the main point than we are supposed to view it. We are supposed to have faith that humans are above other animals and that we can be above the horrible truth of life...that it's about preventing our personal death.

We still use this technique so much..."Do it or I'll kill you." Or sometimes used "If you do it I'll kill you." We are saying it every time a person holds up a gun. In fact, on a more natural level, we are doing it every time we give a menacing look.

I want to know, am I the only one who gets this feeling? Isn't threatening of death is just a little too real, a little too vital to be threatening all around every day? Bang. Dead. Instant death. It's sickening. I mean granted, when it comes down to it, that may be the only way to get people's attention...but still. I can't stand it. I'm not sure if I've ever been that close to gun. I have seen them on cops that sometimes are security at school dances...but other than that, I am sure I would be very very frightened if I saw one. My parents used to check when I was younger with a friend's parents if they kept a gun in the house before I went over for a play-date. The didn't tell me this until a few years ago, and I was kind of shocked by it. I don't know why I was, maybe because I thought that a gun shouldn't ever come between two little kids running around and playing hungry hungry hippos. But I get it now. Guns kill people. That's their purpose. They kill. And what reason do we have to kill in this suburban place we live? None...it causes more danger than it does protection. The fact that people have a gun demonstrates that they have fear. What's more important is that where the fear is deriving from is death, the theoretical death of themselves and their family, which would inevitably be caused by a gun in the end.

You heard me. I said guns make more guns and perpetuate fear.

But maybe my younger self was right. Just because there is a gun, and people have fear, doesn't mean it will be used. People need placebos and things to set their mind at ease sometimes, is it really making me in danger? Have I crossed into the realm of over-fear? I mean, fearing death is one thing. Fearing guns is another. Fearing being in the far vicinity of one is worse. And as an odd fear, which I should address because I have, is fearing fear. Does this post not portray my fear of fear?

Living with nothing seriously threatening my life every day, I have learned to mostly ignore death. And when the subject of gun control comes up in politics I usually don't know what place to take my stance. But I do know that being held at gunpoint is a thing no one should experience.

We have come to far as a race to keep this simple and main forcefulness in everyday life...it's what is preventing us from moving on. Or maybe it is the only thing letting us move. If people weren't forced, by guns, to move in the same direction as each other politically and socially and technologically, would our technologies and social ideas be more widespread and intricate and developed? Or would they still be waffling around not knowing where to go? Would one person be in the same place that other person was a minute ago and then vice versa a few minutes later? Or are we actually evolving at the same rate, making us progress forward in the same way no matter if anyone is forcing us, by way of guns, to do so? Where would government and war be if we had no guns? (note: This is not about who was killed, even in large amounts, by guns that changed society, but how people have been able to make people do what they say by way of guns which changed society. Just in case you didn't follow what I said. )

I'm not sure if I made the point I wanted to. And I'm not providing any solution to the point you think I attempted to make. And I'm not disagreeing with the 2nd amendment, if that's somehow what you arrived at from the things said. I just dare you to disagree with what it is you found my point to be. I'm just giving my complaints and weirded out feelings and semi-disorganized tangent-like ramblings--something far from what I was originally going to say, but still did want to say at one point.