Psychological Observation #101 (the anatomy of addiction)

People MUST stop looking at addiction from the point of the device. True addiction originates from within...it's the FEELING, not the object. You can fill in the blank with anything: porn, food, lying, stealing, video games, getting another piercing, shopping, staring at the mirror, being a bitch to others, it doesn't matter. The FEELING that comes from the use of that object is what COULD form an addiction if abused. When doing or consuming something you like, the reward centers in the brain get twanged on, so naturally you want to do it again, and the means used to arrive to this point is really irrelevant*. Let that marinate for a minute.

*(the only exception is the safety *or lack thereof* of those means: the more dangerous it is towards yourself or others, the more imperative it is to address this)

When the word "addiction" gets thrown around, nearly every time the DEVICE gets blamed. It's a WAR on DRUGS!
FAST FOOD makes people fat!
Video games MAKE kids violent and MAKES them ditch school!
An inanimate object whose original design/purpose was probably to help one ENJOY life more, not be destructive. People...who are supposed to be INTELLIGENT and IN CONTROL OF THEIR CHOICES, blame THINGS! External objects! It really makes me laugh when I think about it long enough. As sure as nature, what happens when that object is removed (while the underlying cause remains unaddressed?)? Eventually, there will either be a relapse, or it will be replaced by ANOTHER addiction...one perhaps less outwardly malevolent, but still just as unhealthy.

A good example of this are those gospel-style christians I was exposed to at a young age. I was dragged to church growing up, whether I liked it or not lol. My grandma, no longer content with her regular church, started migrating around to other churches, this time she had us try a southern-style gospel church. It lasted for about a month. With the robes and the choirs and the loud and noisy (in a good way) dancing and worship music. There they preached fear, austerity, sacrifice and poverty as a virtue to the point you were convinced that the entire new testament was torn out of all their bibles. Their tradition was, every evening after church service, the congregation went to the pastor's (or other volunteer host's) house for a potluck-style dinner. And that's where all the holy virtue they worked up went out the window. It was really less like a communal supper among parishioners and more like a dry Bacchanalia. Copious amounts of food were, if it wasn't deep fried, it was covered in a greasy sauce. Plates were piled high, and there were lots of seconds and thirds...THEN plates to take home at the end! Many different kinds of salads, not one of them involving a green vegetable. No fruit left uncovered by a buttery crust. And their manner of eating was almost obscene. Let's put it this way: If a blind person were to walk in and hear their eating noises, they might assume they really DID mistakenly walk into a Roman orgy lol. It was such a frenzy, I actually saw them work up a sweat. Working up a sweat. By EATING! These people (unbeknownst to them) were experiencing a backlash of the suppression and self-denial they imposed upon themselves the rest of the time they were in "righteousness-mode". And it demonstrated that in truth, whatever "sin" they claimed to have walked away from wasn't really conquered, but replaced with a new one. BTW, nearly all of them were really, really fat...so it's safe to assume this eating habit WAS truly a habit and NOT an occasional lapse (which IS normal). But of course, I was a kid back then, I'm pretty sure they'd scoff at my observation "what do YOU know?" just like they did all the other times back then lol...even though it still holds true after all these years.


This is what I see happening in "rehab" so often. The relationship towards the DEVICE is worked on, and that's it! When in truth, it's NOT the device that is the root of the addiction, it's the addiction to the CHEMICAL RELEASE DERIVED from the device's abuse! And the FEELINGS that COME FROM THAT! THAT is the ROOT! And unless THAT is addressed, people are going to be forever confounded...or at best, taking action THINKING they've conquered their addiction, only to just replace it with another addiction to something else (most likely without even realizing it).

And before you judge, realize: 1)All addictions are, are overgrown habits. How many habits YOU are a slave of in day-to-day life? And how many of those habits are you willing to admit are ways in which you let go of yourself, habits that are not exactly healthy and are in need of change?
2)On some level, we are ALL addicted to that SAME chemical release, or else no one would enjoy anything. Ever. There would be no impetus to keep going, or to put up with the massive crap and pains of mortal existence just to derive those few bright moments of pleasure. It's plays a crucial part of a human's survival mechanism! However, it's when that need for chemical release is valued over all else, including one's health, safety, financial security, friendships, family, love, job, level of personal accountability, etc. is when it's crossed the point of balance and has become an unhealthful addiction. Now perhaps you can see that this device really CAN be anything. Even something as crappy and stupid staying on top of a "reality" show, a game on your cell phone or *shudder* FAKEbook, er, I mean facebook lol. On the other side, I believe in some cases that depression is a severe and/or complete DEFICIENCY of these chemicals, where addiction stems from an overproduction. But that's another topic.

I've always held (and have yet to be validly contested about): If you have a bad habit in need of change, you MUST address the DESIRE, NOT the object!

If you try to change by addressing the object (most commonly by removal/abstinence of it), without first addressing the underlying cause, all you do is 1) leave space to fill in with another addiction or, more commonly, 2) make a new challenge for them to get to their fix, perhaps even making it that much more appealing.


Think back when you were a child. The odds are good that you liked cookies. Let's say you liked cookies a little too much and your well-meaning parents thought it would "help" if they removed them from your reach....so they place it in the highest place of the kitchen. Usually the top of the refrigerator or uppermost cabinet. Honestly, what did that action REALLY do for you? Would "out of sight, out of mind" really come into play here? Did it TRULY "correct" your desire?

...Or did it spark your inner Indiana Jones? Your parents could have damn well turned that kitchen into an OBSTACLE COURSE, complete with bear traps, pendulous axes and flying darts, if you want those cookies enough, those obstacles will be as elemental to pass as taking another step from here to the crapper when you've got to go...when it was ALL MEANT to SERVE as a DETERRENT, it really just reinforces the "need". Your parents would have UNWITTINGLY ABETTED the feelings of reward in your brain (instead of control), reinforcing the addiction the next time the desire comes about, as the feeling of reward in satisfying one's desires after passing obstacles are that much more intensified. In plain words: you now have the thrill of "the rush" ON TOP of the thrill of satisfying your desire. That doesn't sound very conducive to changing one's habit, does it? lol! PLUS, add to that the deep unconscious human desire to be free (even kids). If an EXTERNAL influence REGULATES something FOR THEM, in part or in whole there WILL be a rebellion...even if it's deemed for the subject's own good (Best case: a parent trying to correct a child's behavior. Worst case: a country's government playing nanny sheep-herder on citizens who are *SUPPOSED TO BE* independent, intelligent, self-responsible, free-thinking individuals). It may make that person want it all the more simply for the sake of contradicting the external influence which is a perceived threat to their sense of freedom (even if they may not be mature enough to exercise it yet). Must I use the Prohibition Era as another example? lol Pretty much the same thing, different device, and on a much wider scale. BTW, removing the cookies from the house entirely may help unless the desire is strong enough, they'll find their fix from an outside source...or will move on to fixate on something else readily accessible. Doesn't sound like a resolution to me, does it to you? Maybe it's because we're addressing it from the point of the device! DUH! Deterrence/consequence makes a poor match against the power of desire, or else people would be afraid of breaking the law for the sake of ethics, righteousness and order...instead of the REAL reason most people are afraid of breaking the law, which is the massive toll it takes (time-wise, professionally, socially, economically) on your life. If consequence alone were enough, prisons would be empty. Or damn near close, anyway. If you really knew how many people would be willing to commit crime to get what they want if they were guaranteed a way there would be no consequence, you'd probably live out the rest of your life as a shut-in lol. Maybe YOU are one of those people...and that just proves my point.

It's the FEELING that comes from your reward center's stimulation...THAT is where the true root of addiction CAN originate if you are experiencing an unaddressed need (conscious or unconscious) or an emotional/psychological void you may/may not be aware of. Not alcohol, not drugs, food or porn. The feeling is where it TRULY starts. Now (regarding chemical substances in food/drugs): after enough exposures, the body CAN develop chemical dependencies upon the substance itself, which is outside of the dependency of the brain's reward centers' stimulation...but the latter STILL REMAINS the PRIMARY cause, and can be ended with no further progression if addressed then and there.

But of course, putting up blocks to the object of "desire" in the form of deterrents, or removal of the object in favor of abstinence is OBVIOUSLY FAR EASIER than going within ones self (or your child's mind if you are a parent) to explore the root cause of the void or emotional/psychological imbalance that causes the person to self-medicate with the device (to the point of abuse) in the first place. Right? Or else things wouldn't be where they are now...or there wouldn't be as many backsliding rehabbers...or a whole lot of finger pointing towards inanimate objects and the manufacturers who make them....right? Oh well. I guess it's just my observation. K'Bye!

The Anatomy of Grief

After spending many a taxing month caring for my grandmother & watching her slowly circle the drain, I had a lot of time to contemplate (occasionally between beers lol) life and grieving the loss thereof.


The more I observe the reactions of those around me, the more I start to notice that in grief, underneath the sadness, under the sense of loss, at it's root...is selfishness. Grief is selfish. Yep, I said it! And the same goes if that person is "religious". I was raised Christian (though, obviously, it didn't quite take lol), and the common notion is that there is no need to fear death and that the end of a person's life doesn't really mean the end. Then why is there so much sadness and grieving at every funeral I've ever been to/seen if this is the belief?


At it's core, grieving the loss of a person has much more to do with the loss of what that person means to the SURVIVORS than it has to do with the actual loss of the person.


If the religious concept of the afterlife is true, then it makes no sense to see it as a sad event...shouldn't the survivors be regarding the passing as "graduating" or "upgrading" the deceased one's existence? The ones who should be sad are US for being stuck HERE, away from where we came from, imprisoned in these finite mortal shells! Returning to where we came from as liberated souls should be a happy concept, the ultimate goal at the end of everyone's life, so much so that sometimes I think that birthdays should be sad instead of funerals. One more year stuck here lol. Well, maybe I wouldn't go that far lol.

When I see people cry at the loss of another's life, it's clear that it has more to do with the loss of what that person means to/did for the survivors...it can range from losing someone that keeps them from being lonely, to losing someone with whom you have invested a lifetime of love, care and money, now gone with nothing to show for it...to losing a source to feeling a certain way (loved, needed, even entertained, etc.)...or in my grandmother's case: the loss of a tangible link to nostalgic past memories. I'd honestly say 8 times out of 10, the reaction to her recent passing makes at least one mention to a past memory she was involved in one way or another. Even I feel that to some degree. The loss of grandma makes me ache for those times I stayed at her place some nights as a kid, her teaching me to cook and make sun tea, learning spanish by watching her novelas along with her, hearing my uncle practice Hendrix on his guitar through the window while I was out back playing with worms & frogs. But those memories are long gone with or without grandma's living. The life of the memories are NOT endangered or lost by the loved one's passing, it only SEEMS that way on a subconscious level because, as I said before, the deceased served as a living, breathing, physical link to those memories/experiences. In a way, it may feel that their death somehow threatens the existence of the memories, making one almost reflexively cling onto both a little too tightly. Also, their death may serve as a sobering confirmation that those times really are long gone, causing one to stir up fears of their own mortality & what little time they might have left. But it's all an illusion. Disassociating the fuzzy memories from the link of the person involved & enjoying the memory "as is" helps with letting go of the deceased. If anything at all, the deceased person is now safer than ever, now resting in as incorruptible a place as the memories that person is linked to.

This is not to say that I believe the selfish nature belying grief is wrong or abnormal...selfishness is natural in limited doses...However, it IS wrong to be stuck in that state, and lacking the ability to see it for what it is. If you consciously attempt to break the link between the nostalgic experience and memory from that person, and put each in it's proper place in your heart, you might find that letting go of that person a bit easier, letting them return home to the liberated state of existence we should all envy.


I guess I had to work that thought out to finally get to sleep. Ok, well, bye!

Psychological observation #47

One of my jobs is working for a company who dispatches us to service shelving/merchandise of retail stores, mostly grocery. And to assist the store with their shrink (unaccounted for loss in inventory due to theft or damage) or whatever else they need. In my particular company, we work in street clothes, we wear no store uniforms, no store name tag, we bear no indication whatsoever that we are store employees. Yet, we continuously get approached by customers who assume we work there...just because we are seen moving some items on/off the shelves? I used to wear my company name tag, but found it served more as a "moron magnet" than any functional purpose. Keeping my name tag in my pocket helps reduce annoyances for me a great deal, but not all the time. I still get bugged by them. There's no such thing as "idiot-proof", it's always just a matter of time before someone comes up with a better idiot lol. I still get approached by mouthbreathers, the brains stuck in neutral, the mental midgets, the...ok, I'm having too much fun with this lol, anyway.... Something happened at work today:

I got approached by another hollow-head while working, asking me which aisle (fill-in-product-name-here) is located in. I shut them down with the usual "I don't know, I don't work here." and that sent them on their way. I've been doing this for more than a couple of years, I've gotten to the point where I'm getting burned out when you consider (in addition) all the years I was stuck in retail having to be the one there to actually work FOR the store, wear the damn uniform/nametag and answer their questions. Even though I'm on the other side of the counter, I still get exposed to this crap that vexes me so...

And so I admit, over the years, I've gotten a little more smartass in my ways, my manner of speaking, and sometimes, my nerve. After the moron left, I joked to a co-worker working next to me, admitting that I in fact DID know where so-and-so product happened to be (I remember seeing it in passing on the way to do something else), but the fact that they're too stupid to recognize that I'm not an employee of the store, providing them with the answer would be to reward their stupidity. We laughed. I then started to joke with her (perhaps a little more "out loud" than I probably should have) about how much I hate dealing with stupid people and how we should not enable/reward their stupidity by answering their questions to where things are by allowing them to believe that their initial assumption (that we work there) is correct....EVEN IF we know where that item is. It turns out, there was a very LARGE customer within earshot standing behind me who eavesdropped about 75% of what I said. After she noticed that I sensed her presence, she began to walk off, giving me the death-ray stare as she passed and grunted really loud as she left the aisle "RUDE!!" I (shouldn't have, but) replied "only to the dumb ones!" As she turned the corner, apparently hearing what I said, grunted even louder "BITCH!!!" I replied "again, only to the dumb ones" and laughed.

Are you seeing what I'm seeing in what just happened there?


Do you think I'm in the wrong? Perhaps, but here's the thing that stuck out with me:

I wasn't really upset at her (even though she was clearly enraged at me), I actually felt a little empathy for her. Here's why: it shocked me to see how little she thought of herself when I was talking about stupid people, she assumed I was talking about HER?? There's no other reason for her to take such offense. Busted!!


Insults are only insulting towards you if you (on some level, consciously or unconsciously) IDENTIFY with it.


If you DON'T identify with the insult, you will interpret it as ridiculous and treat it as such, that is....IF you even PAY it any mind AT ALL.

Example: What if someone attempted to insult you by calling you a "purple-haired googly-eyed triple-boobed alien retard*"? How would you REACT towards that remark? Would you look left/right, wondering if that person is even talking about you? Would you laugh at their feeble attempt to insult you when that doesn't remotely describe you at all? Would you think that something is wrong with THEM and NOT YOU for thinking up such inapplicable nonsense?

If, in fact, you DO consider yourself an intelligent person, and someone directly calls you dumb as a means of insulting you, you should react EXACTLY as if someone had just called you a "purple-haired googly-eyed triple-boobed alien retard". Like "You're talking about ME? wtf? hahaha, clearly something is wrong with YOU for thinking like that, when that doesn't apply to me at all!" If someone in earshot happens to be making fun of purple-haired googly-eyed triple-boobed alien retards, would you turn your head to listen? Probably not, because you already know it doesn't apply to you.

So for her to take such offense to my talking about stupid people, she sort of incriminated herself in her reaction that she believed I was actually talking about her...I may have, I may not have, I don't know, since I don't know her personally...but SHE (not I) served as her OWN judge of character by her reaction alone. Had she considered herself an intelligent person, she would have immediately determined I was not talking about her, leaving her free to either move on and ignore, or even join in on making fun of them lol. Her assessment of herself was apparently already low, my remark just reminded her of that and THAT was the true origin of the offense.


Now I challenge you to ask yourself in COMPLETE honesty: if YOU had been the customer to overhear me mouthing off about the stupid, would YOU have reacted in the same manner as the aforementioned? The answer can be quite telling in YOUR OWN self-opinion.

This is one instance where the principle "the customer is always right" can be quite damning lol.


*my apologies in any possible offense towards purple-haired googly-eyed triple-boobed alien retards :.P

Spare me the "spare the rod" argument

It's amazing to me how some people not only believe in spanking a child is not only good, but their parental duty...and that not doing it is in some way "spoiling" the child, most likely bringing up the old biblical scripture "spare the rod, spoil the child". Didn't the bible also advocate living sacrifices? And...if humanity really originated from Adam and Eve, didn't someone, at some point in time, wind up banging their sister? (think about it *lol*) So how does hitting your child ever become okay? It doesn't matter if it's a belt, an openhanded slap or a backfist, it's all the same in my eyes. True, we're living in the midst of a douchebag epidemic as a result of overindulgent parents who under-discipline their kids if at all ( http://slyoyster.com/cheap-thrills/2010/are-you-raising-a-douchebag/ ), but isn't this behavior a counter-response of harsh strictness? Humans tend to have a stupid habit of replacing one extreme with another...which only makes things just as unbalanced and never solves anything. One example being the 60's, where people became living statements of rebellion against the repression of the white-washed 50's. Both radically different ends of the spectrum, yet neither was better or worse. Overcoddling is no solution to nor can it make up for harsh parenting...Yes, I am childfree...no, I don't know what it's like to be a parent, but I remember what it was like to be a child. I was raised by a family who believed in the old biblical belief of "spare the rod, spoil the child"...there were many times where I experienced this brand of "discipline", to teach me "lessons", and I won't go into detail about all my experiences, but I will say the main lesson I learned about those experiences is how wrong it is and how it should never happen. A child should always feel like their home is the safest place in the world...There were many times where, as much as I passionately loathed school, I dreaded coming home even more. The only place I really felt sanctuary was the bus ride in between. There were many times I would secretly pray the bus would break down or the driver would take a wrong turn because I knew what would be waiting for me at the end of the ride.

I believe the world and life within it is plenty painful and scary exactly AS IT IS, why add to it...especially in the name of "correction"?

Most parents who subscribe to the belief of raising their hand to their own children betters them usually say that "it's using pain as a way to correct their behavior because pain is what they most readily understand.". Perhaps. Pain is very primal, the most direct route, but is it the only one? Didn't humanity at some point develop intelligence and other ways of understanding in all these years? We're not cavepeople anymore. Think about this: raising your hand to your dog or pet for any reason is considered unnacceptable without question. In fact, others would most likely think less of you if you were caught striking an animal. Choking an animal with it's own leash or striking it in the name of behavioral "correction" are now practices largely rejected (and largely illegal) because it's considered unnecessarily barbaric and cruel...particularly now in this day in age where it's been proven that it's possible to shape, correct, even change an animal's behavior using ZERO physical force. Yet...there are some people out there who still believe that raising their hand towards their own child (for ANY reason) is acceptable? Really? That's sad to say...how DOGS can receive better treatment and regard than a child. If a parent doesn't know how to reach a child without going caveman on him, that's a physical testament of incompetent parenting. A baby cries because it doesn't know how to articulate what it wants and it's the only means of communication they know will receive a response. For a parent to use physical pain as a means of correction is an open admission of THEIR lack of tools and knowledge. And it's a testament of the parent's lack of faith in their child's capability to understand anything else but pain as means of effective communication. Maybe someone needs to explain to me the difference between a bully and a parent who uses physical force to "discipline" because I'm not seeing much of one. The main difference might be that parent may have "good intent", but their using the exact same means as the bully they're probably fearing at school, which is probably leading to the bad grades that's GETTING them hit by you in the first place. And...another problem is, if the bible really DOES advocate hitting, it doesn't draw the line on what is or isn't acceptable. Spare the rod...so does that mean use a stick? A broomhandle? A bat? How many strikes are you allowed to make? Are there any rules below the belt? What if that parent uses "discipline" as a channel of their own frustration and (consciously or unconsciously) vents it out on the child...which means the hitting stops once the parent feels appropriately "vented"? How long (and how many hits) would that take? When does one know when to stop (if at all?)? Doesn't that inadvertently make the child a punching bag for the parent's frustration? Some of these questions I have actually asked myself while getting "disciplined". Was I (at times) a brat whose behavior justified their frustrations? I don't deny that *lol* But for them to think that physical pain was the only way to get through to me was a little insulting. Back then, I had a friend who was about to throw away this comic book, but I asked him to let me have it instead. It was a Spiderman mini comic, maybe 10 or so pages. The story began with this kid who pissed off his parents for reasons I don't remember (bad grades?), and his dad was getting ready to knuckle up...Just then, Spiderman was patrolling the city and what caught his eye as he was passing was a man in the window raising his fist to a cowering child. Just then, Spiderman burst through the window and stopped the child from being hit...then proceeded to correct the father's behavior, NOT by kicking HIS butt in return, but by TALKING to him. He spoke to the boy too, saying that hitting one's child is NEVER ok... I read that comic until the pages came apart...So many times, I wished Spiderman would've bust through the window for me, just once :.(

Limitless? Or bottomless?

Someone else's blog inspired me to get thinking about this idea. I won't say who, I'm sure they don't want any credit for what I have to say *lol*. It's regarding the film "Limitless"...The the story of it raises the question for some people on whether this fantasy drug would really be a beneficial aid to knocking out the walls of psychological/intellectual limitations, if it were to actually exist.

In the film, the main character takes a fictional drug, NZT, that supposedly allows that person to access 100% of their brain at once, instead of the scientifically proven 10-20% used at any given time. And after implementing the drug, the character's life seems to blast off, accomplishing what most would only dream of in a fraction of the time it would actually take to do...

I've done more than my share of (voluntarily) reading up on psychology for quite a few years, and while I'm no doctor, I believe I have enough understanding of it to be the equivalent of a degree...a really small one, perhaps *lol* :.P

About 9 or 10 years ago, I challened myself to write a master thesis, to see if I could do it...It was on my belief on how base human behavior really is, even today, despite our supposed "evolvement" and "advances"...How humans only THINK they've outgrown the bonds of enslavement by our most base impulses. It says basically went on to say that virtually any human activity, thought or endeavor can be categorized into one of three: food, sex, territory. Pick virtually any aspect of human life, thought or deed, and somewhere underneath you will find the root cause falls under one (or more) of those categories. I wish more could be said about human behavior than being so apish, and if you disagree, feel free to correct me. I wish I still had my thesis...A lot of my stuff went AWOL after my (now FORMER)in-laws moved in, including all my notes from my psychology "studies", most of my artwork from art school...and books...and clothes...and dvd's...cd's...and cookware...oh, don't get me started on that *lol*

People marvel at how the NZT drug could "expand the horizons and abilities" of one's life, how much more one can do or become...

Even after all these years of so called "evolutionary development", humans still think with and are ruled by their limbic brains more than they might realize. All this drug seems to do is just "expand the horizons and abilities" for simply more of the same "food-sex-territory" thinking. Perhaps I'm not eligible to make an opinion on this, since I haven't seen the film, though from what I have read, seen and heard, the film's main character spends all his drug-induced potential pursuing very self-centered endeavors. Very "FST" type thinking *lol* Would usage of this drug truly elevate you to a new level of existence, or is it just knocking out the walls to expand the very floor you're on?


To me, the "limitless" drug just seems like a way to expand on selfish and base thinking. I fail to see how this would be any "advancement" for humanity...most everyone I hear talking about this drug applies it's hypothetical use in ways that serve only themselves and no one else...maybe a "trickle down effect" on others in their life, at best. Does it have the POTENTIAL to serve mankind in a beneficial way? I'd imagine so, having one's brainpower so turbocharged, one might easily solve the worst problems that plague mankind...one may be able to improve more lives and reach more people in a fraction of a day, than be treated as the overwhelming task it is...But...be honest...would you really use it that way if you had the opportunity? Or would you use it exclusively as a vehicle to improving only YOUR life? How much of brain power do you use NOW towards helping other people? Just like the old myth of being "changed" as a result of having more money...Having more money does NOT "change" you, it's merely a tool that allows you the freedom to be more of who you already are. If you were an asshole before money, you now have the freedom to be even more of an asshole with it. If you're a charitable person before money, you'll be free to be even MORE so with more money. If you perceive that person as "changed", then perhaps you didn't know that person as well as you thought you did. That's on YOU, not THEM...

The film raises another thought: The problem humanity always seems to run into in most anything in life: looking OUTSIDE yourself for an answer...looking towards another person to make you feel good, an object, substance or gizmo, a belief outside yourself...relying on external feedback instead of introspection...when you have virtually all the answers already inside you, here we are wasting time looking outward chasing quick fixes, pre-packaged solutions, fantasies, seeking people to trust enough to do the thinking FOR us. When will we learn? Have any of you seen the movie "Formula 51"? That proves my point pretty well... If you haven't seen it, then watch out because I'm giving the ending away... People in THAT film experienced such tremendous highs from the drug "formula 51" that it became pretty dangerous to be seen around...Due to it's high demand, it attracted attention from dangerous people wanting in on the make. In the end, it turns out, it was a PLACEBO. All that drug did was serve as a tool to let down that person's inhibitions just enough to let out what was already inside them. The human brain has a veritable pharmacy of hormones and chemicals already present, yet we rely so heavily on external substances for just about everything...from feeling good to just making it through the day. Imagine how "limitless" our lives could really be if we could access this?

My definition of "limitless" would be the ability to transcend the constraints of ordinary human thinking...something even NZT doesn't seem to accomplish...it just seems to widen the neuropathic channels for more stimulation, more material desires, more greed. Doesn't sound like an "advancement" to me...

notoriety ma-SHEEN

The thing Sheen doesn't realize and what really blows my mind about this is that he's CONFUSING the TYPE of attention he's getting for something else...

If you're involved in an auto accident and people stop and stare, like the vapid sheeple they are...do you honestly think they're stopping to check and see if you're ok??? Do you think they've stopped because they CARE about you??? Hell no! They stopped because they're curious and clearly enjoy indulging in Schadenfreude. Once they've gotten an eyeful of the damage and realize there's clearly nothing more to see, the herd moves on. I believe that Sheen is really convinced that the people who are paying attention to him are his "true believers". But it's tragic to me that he seems truly unaware that the vast majority of these people, for the most part, are no different than any given bystander of an accident. But unlike the bystanders who are surveying the damage after the crash, the people watching Sheen right now are WAITING for the crash to happen. And unfortunately, unlike bystanders of an accident, most of these people are pointing and laughing. The conditions leading to a perfect storm of tragedy appears to be aligning, and it's causing people to gather around..even people like myself who would, under normal circumstances, not give a shit about him aside from his sitcom and Major League (if THAT). I don't even think people KNOW what they're waiting to happen, yet they follow his "news" and anticipate...But, like every 15 minutes that have ever passed, eventually people will get tired of that, they will reach their fill of his ridiculous staccato noise that HE calls his "speeches" and realize his fame has more to do with his flailing for attention than any real acting or achievement...and will, at some point realize that there's nothing more to see...and eventually move on to something else, will unfollow him on twitter, and the only attention the media will give him then would probably be posthumously. Cue the "Look back on the tragic life of..." montage.

If it doesn't matter...

It happened again. Twice this month...yet the billionth time it's happened in my life. But it pisses me off every bit as much as it ever does...

"It's JUST a QUESTION!" People say...maybe they don't mean anything by it, but I know better to understand there's usually a reason behind it, and it's usually not good...

The question: "What are you?"

Seems like an innocent question, but to me it reeks of ignorance...and there's an ironic twist to it that I'll go into in a minute...

I had a friend come to me earlier totally exasperated on how he gets so many stereotypes placed on him simply for his racial appearance. Making such assumption-based remarks as "your favorite channel must be BET" (it isn't), or that he smokes and/or sells weed (he doesn't...not that I know of anyway *lol* HE says he doesn't, that's good enough for me)...or how (even STILL) he is often met with a shocked expression when he's heard speaking and it's NOT Ebonics...He remarked on how people can assume so much about him based on his racial appearance before even knowing HIS NAME! Which, I can understand...but what I didn't understand and what really knocked me on my ass is...IN THE VERY NEXT BREATH, he asked "Hey, btw, what are you?"

Just yesterday, a facebook friend, experiencing something similar, lamented on how he's fed up on how people just assume that he's a football player before even knowing his name, based on his (racial and general) appearance...Saying "if I get asked ONE MORE time if I'm a football player before even asking me my name or major, I'm gonna lose it!!" He too turns around and asks me, "so what r u??" Of course, being the smartass I am, I responded with another question "Hey, do you play football??" >:.P

It's a complicated answer for me...I'm a crazy mix of things. So of course, people can't figure out "what" I am...They look at me like I'm a math problem. And it really gets me, how I'm asked: "WHAT are you?" Like I'm another species??


And they insist it's just "curiosity", yet they persist asking me until I give them one name of "race" or another...which I don't, I just deflect. You'd THINK because they're JUST curious, they'd DROP it, forget it and talk about something else...But no...now they want to play a game of "20(racist)questions" with me, making intrusive (sometimes hurtful)critiques about my facial features and appearance based on their "guesstimates" on "WHAT" I am, asking me about what part of the world I was born (and NO, "America" is NOT good enough an answer for them), where my parents were born, where THEIR parents were born. Um, ok, this has now become an INQUISITION. And now they're really annoyed at me at this point...Um, why??? WHAT RIGHT do they HAVE to SHAKEDOWN MY family tree??? Or cut it down and count it's rings??? And what the FUCK does it MATTER to ANYONE, especially when it doesn't matter anything to ME??? A common reply of mine is: "Family business." And they look at me confused "Family business???" And I reply "yeah, family business...If you ain't family, it's none of your business!" MAN, does THAT piss them off!!! *lol* I ask them "why does it matter?" And the common reply is "It doesn't matter, I just want to know!" and I reply "if it doesn't matter, then WHY does it matter enough for you to ask??" THEN they act like I'M the one with the problem and they storm off away angry, usually muttering "GOD, it was JUST a QUESTION!!!"... usually alongside a few OTHER choice descriptive nouns *lol*. Perhaps at times it IS meant as a harmless question, but is it really? I say no. Just because it's posed casually, I'm not fooled. People always seem to marvel at how this question annoys me so greatly... It does because we SHOULD be living in a world where such an issue should be a NON-ISSUE. It's NOT an innocent question, it really is a tool used to label and judge people. I know better than to think it's anything else but a way to figure out what "category" to file you under. Think about it...

If it doesn't matter AS MUCH AS PEOPLE SAY it doesn't, then WHY do people STILL GIVE so much of a SHIT about it???

Companies SAY they're an "equal opportunity employer", yet they turn right around with "Hey, btw, WHAT RACE ARE YOU?". I always check the box marked "other" *lol*. If race REALLY doesn't matter, then what's with people STILL seeking to compartmentalize one another??? If we're REALLY in an age where we judge on character BENEATH appearance, then why is this still matter enough for people to ask? No one should care! I don't care! People really don't realize what a rude, INTRUSIVE (and yeah kinda racist)question it is...and it's information to which the casual conversationalist is NOT privy to. I don't know what gives them the idea that they're ENTITLED to know. And in my refusal to give them an answer, they often react as if I violated their rights in some way.

This shows me that we STILL judge on race & racial appearance as much as ever...and I want no part of it. I never ask such a question to others, I do my best to keep assumptions to a minimum(but I do have my human moments! Sorry!). I never ask "what are you?" to others, because 1)IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!!, 2) I don't GIVE ENOUGH of a shit to ask!! and 3)I understand how invasive it is and what racist potential it has. If you don't volunteer to share that piece of(PERSONAL)information with me, I'll never know!

The ironic twist I noticed with these two friends: they're playing right into the same compartmentalized thinking that other people are putting THEM through when they make stupid racial & stereotypical assumptions based on how they look! And what's worse is neither of them were aware of it!!! Both contradicted themselves, replying "Sure, I know, race doesn't matter...Judge the PERSON, not their skin...You think I don't know? I have it worse than you!!! You don't know how bad I have it, getting stereotyped on the way I look. At just about every turn, day in, day out...

.


.


.

"...so WHAT ARE YOU???"


*%^*&$^%*$%#*@%*$!!! (>_<)


I'm not saying I have it tougher than others, but being a mutt, it's not exactly simple either. There's a book that really helped me, I read it back in college, called "Half Asian,100% Hapa". "Hapa" is the Hawaiian word for "half". It became a derogatory term to describe Hawaiian "half-breeds". There's a minority in Hawaii that have parents of 2 origins: Hawaiian native and Asian. They suffer a surprising amount of prejudice in the native Hawaii in which they were born, and as a result, they feel adrift in their racial identity, both Hawaiian and Asian, yet at the same time identifying with neither (understandably so as many felt rejection from both sides). Within the book's accounts of "Hapa" people, in the face of their rejection and treatment (some of which was downright cruel), lie encouragement and in a small way, triumph. The "hapa" have since come to embraced the name, forging an identity of their own within it...and now it's no longer a derogatory term, but a name in which many today take pride in. It's a name that's transcended beyond Hawaiian/Asians and is a name used by other "mutts" of different origins. Though I do realize they're putting a label on themselves in the process...

I wonder if people have an unconscious, intrinsic fear of "half breeds". That if they're too numerous, there'll be a population crisis within the "pure" races. I've actually seen this question posed many times on tv. Back when Tyra Banks had a talk show, they were fearfully discussing how the population of "black" people are actually declining...By a small percentage, but it was enough to project a trend...and the overwhelming majority in the audience were all flustered at the news, blaming this negative trend on "black" men preferring to date "white" women instead of their own "race", and how this problem must be remedied by "sticking with your own race". Wow, really? If this were a "white" people's talk show, they'd be yanked off the air before the next commercial break!

Am I saying that I'm ashamed of my heritage (whatever it is)?? No...I'm just saying that I believe putting it at the forefront of one's identity is unhealthy and it fuels the fire of yet more stereotypical, judgemental thinking. Staking too much of your identity in your "race" is what leads to the ridiculous thinking of "breeding with your own kind" and the fear that results from the presence of too many "Hapas" and how they somehow threaten your identity and water down your "purity" and your "culture". I'm proud of my mixed heritage, but I will NEVER put it ahead of myself or use it to define who I am. I'd rather not put stake in any of it and am happy to remain racially ambiguous. That might not work for you, but it works for me...It's a decision to OPT OUT of a vicious cycle that we're STILL in the grips of even after the legacy of Dr. King. Sadly, I believe the legacy is really just the "belief" we've overcome this type of thinking...while we have advanced to some degree, I still think we're just as discriminatory as ever...people are just much more discreet with it...So discreet with it, the person themself may not even be aware, so of course they assume nothing when asking "WHAT are you??"

Maybe I'm defective in not seeing people as PEOPLE BEFORE color...Making my best conclusion on my impressions of the person instead of assumptions based on their appearance alone. I know it sure SEEMS that way sometimes...at times it feels like maybe I REALLY AM the one with the problem and should just start thinking in labels like everyone else...

Coincidentally, I just watched the movie "A Bronx tale". A story about a father & son in an Italian neighborhood, and the racial friction between the Italians and the resident "Black" people. A group of junior thugs spotted a black dude riding his bicycle down the street and they just suddenly decided to throw him off his bike and beat on him...just because he was black. They said such horrible things about blacks in different parts of the movie and while this one was getting beat...Names like "stupid", "savage", "ugly"...little do they realize they're living examples of the names they're calling THEM by senselessly beating on him. How quickly did the Italians forget the prejudice THEY suffered when they first emigrated here by the other "races" that beat them here by only a few decades. Way to pay it forward! That's something about racism I don't understand. People have these preconcieved notions about people of another race: "Black people steal", "Mexicans are lazy", "White people are discriminatory"...That's not how I see it...Those kinds of remarks imply a superiority over another. But theft, laziness, prejudice...they're ALL HUMAN errors...ESPECIALLY stupidity.


So...What "race" am I? I'm "HUMAN", that SHOULD be all that should matter...

...Though, in light of what I just wrote, I correct myself...maybe I AM ashamed of my "RACE" after ALL...