Influence - Advertising

"The secret of my influence has always been that it has remained secret."
                                                                                                         -Salvador Dali

Very simple quote. The secret to powerful influence is in its subtlety. If people realize that they're being influenced they are much more likely to ignore the message, or even lash against the attempted manipulator. True influence slips through the outer barrier and into a person's subconscious. Advertisers know this and have experimented countless times to do so with mixed results.

My favourite quote from The Persuaders was:

"They are the ones who make clutter. They are therefore also the ones who are always trying desperately to "break through the clutter." That's the line you always hear in ad agencies, "We can break through the clutter with this." Well, every effort to break through the clutter is just more clutter."

It quickly and concisely portrays the "white noise" effect of influence. Companies are always trying to find that element to give them the competitive edge. Something that will not only catch your attention, but mesmerize you.

A message that transcends words.

We witnessed the evolution as words like "delicious" or "bright" lost meaning and brands were forced to use their commercials to convey the feeling behind the product. Subtly placing them in movies, while even creating narratives surrounding them in television programs. Two more interesting concepts however were Market Guru Rapaille's idea of the "subconscious code" and the idea of "cult worship".

Rapaille's concept was that the human mind is actually quite illogical and that every word; be it coffee, car, or even mother, all have a mental imprint in our minds, forming this mental highway or subconscious code. All one has to do is to break the code and suddenly companies have the key to a vast majority of consumers. It's still a work in progress in some cases, but it ties in with the next idea. "Culthood" is essentially what all companies are striving for. They want their products to not just be an item, but a very lifestyle that they live (such as Linux Users, Apple, WWF fans from the film). It sounds a little far fetched, but combined with Rapaille's code breaking and the concept of cult "branding" will become much more mainstream in the future.


A world where advertisement owns our subconscious...

So if this were to occur, where exactly would this line of thought take us? As said in The Persuaders,

"Once a culture becomes entirely advertising-friendly, it ceases to be a culture at all. It ceases to be a culture worth the name. It has to have the constant mood that shoppers require."               -Mark Miller, New York University

I especially like this analogy because in it the individuals are literally replaced by shoppers. There are only those shaped by advertising. This is dangerous because it means the media will control our definitions of everything. What men are, women, how we should act, speak, the possibilities are limitless. Yes I suppose you could say society already implies such rules for how we should act, but in many ways that's to keep us safe, not in the interest of being used. Telling us whatever will bring in the highest numbers.

The further integration of advertising is unavoidable, along with the messages they send. All we can really do is encourage you to think for yourself. If we really don't like the message put forth by a company than the product needs to be boycotted by the people. This is far from an easy answer, but if the messages of advertising are unavoidable we should really do our best to ensure the messages are those benefiting a culture, not a shopping mall.

Never stop questioning.

More Individuality - Masks

“If I'm going to sing like someone else, then I don't need to sing at all.”
                                                                                           -Billie Holiday

“Don’t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive."
                                                                                          -Howard Therman

There was a lot we talked about in terms of individuality a few days ago, so to avoid a complete mass of hypocritical ideas here's some of the concepts we talked about, but I didn't get to last time.

-Is individuality "good"?
-Are "copycats" or "posers" being themselves?
-Is it right to judge people as being true to themselves?
-Can people pretend to be someone they're not?

 I'm going to get that first point out of the way immediately because I do believe individuality is a great characteristic we possess. The ability to see things differently opens up possibilities and solutions that may not be possible to view looking a single way. True it allows the possibility of conflict, but it also opens the door to new ideas. I like new ideas because, although we cannot conventionally achieve "perfection" (or being), there is always room for improvement. Be it law, education, etc. If we stick with a flawed system, we will only ever get flawed results.

As for "posers" it's a bit trickier. These are the kind of people who will intentionally scratch up their skateboards, walk around with them without truly knowing how to even ride them. These are people who want to be judged as "cool". Could they be hiding who they are? Mark from class argued that "who we are" is untouchable, we just play many, many different roles as we go through life. I like that a lot, but it kinda forces you to wonder if you can ever break free of your mask or see through that of others. I think so and think that some people are capable of being "themselves" most of the time (a rare few) because they hold a strong inner confidence that is who they are. As for the others, it requires an intimacy not typically reserved for all to see. We all wear masks at some point.

There are instances where copying other people however can have dire consequences. I remember a video a few years ago where celebrity look-alikes started believing themselves to truly be the people they were impersonating. They felt a loss of identity. One instance in particular was when one man was kidnapped by Saddam Hussein to serve as a body double. When he eventually returned to his family years later he appeared to have adopted many of the harsh personality quirks (abusive to women for one) of his role. I can't even imagine the stress undercover cops must have trying to hold one identity while not letting the "original" go.

What face to wear today?

In this light, the masks we choose to wear can ultimately hold much greater influence than we may realize on the person they hide. The more you put into the mask the more it will affect you in turn. How does one hang onto their identity? I can't say I've been in that situation, but if I were to guess it would be by linking ourselves to a strong inner desire. A passion for music for instance could be the chain one uses to anchor themselves to who they are, no matter the face they wear. Why would we bother to do that if change is supposed to be good? I think the reason why is because the mask we wear isn't always a good one (or we agree with), sometimes it's for survival.

Can we really judge people based on their mask? We all know the saying "a first impression is never right", but it is effectively an evolutionary safety mechanism. If we see a bear in the woods our instinct is to judge because it will keep you safe (assuming your mental judgement is, "Holy crap a bear!?! Walk away slowly!" opposed to "I wanna pet it!!"). For judging others it's a bit of a toss-up because, to use the cliche, you really shouldn't judge a book by its cover. Never assume you know someone based on a first impression. People will surprise you, so always be on your toes.

The idea of people wearing masks is an interesting one, especially when you consider it in terms of their creation to fit in with "society" (more on that later). If we know that everyone wears masks, how can we ever trust anyone to be who they say they are? I think the reason we can is because the masks we do wear are often just an extension of who we are. Yes, there are huge exceptions, however I feel a lot of the time the masks we wear do have some reflection of who we are, perhaps a little more confident or outgoing. If you're having a bit of an identity crisis over which is real, just act without thought and it'll come to you. I think the easiest mask for you to portray is your own skin. Not necessarily the easiest for society to accept, but the important thing is to always stay true to yourself. Whoever that may be.

Never stop questioning.

Individuality

"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
                                                                                       -Oscar Wilde

Ah, Oscar Wilde. A master of the written word. Anywho, I feel like this is a quote that we have all thought about at one point or another. When you think about it, we are learning from the very second we are born (maybe even before we're out of the womb). How far fetched is it to say that we are the products of the opinions, ideals and attitudes of others all combined into a singularity? The entity as a whole. You.

I'm referring to the person in the direction of the above point.

If this is true, we could be comparable to a quilt. A patchwork of different ideas coming together as one to make up who we really are. This quote could have created complications as to whether there are truly any "new" ideas, however Oscar Wilde did not say all people are mimicries, just most. In The Merchants of Cool, advertisers strove to track down the estimated 20% of teenagers who are trend setters. They hoped to find the "next big thing" to market before it became "cool" (the second it becomes cool it's dead in society). In that light it becomes a cycle. We display to these merchants what is cool and they in turn sell that image right back to us. We adapt, move on to the next trend and the cycle continues.

From the sounds of it, the majority of the population is ultimately just copying one another. Are "You" and "Unique" the same thing? Perhaps the true secret to being original is like the following quote states:

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." (Albert Einstein)

Clearly he is a wise man.

Mitch and I discussed this and he believes there are original ideas we have. We can hear another opinion, ponder it ourselves and choose to add it to our cumulative knowledge or not. I argued however that the fundamental knowledge he is utilizing to judge the ideal may very well be the product of mimicking others in itself. Is that a bad thing though?

One of my favourite quotes from Paulo Coelho goes something along the lines of, "a fool is one who constantly quotes wise men" and to some extent I agree. It's one thing to ponder the musings of others, yet completely another to just quote them for the sake of quotation. You have to think for yourself. I remember reading a headline that smarter people are those who actually didn't go to school. Heck, a high percentage of millionaires are dropouts. Education can be seen as one of many mediums that mold us into puppets. We are told exactly how to do things, while also what is and isn't possible... definitely a fun little tidbit now that we're almost done high school.

I had a point to this. Got it. Copying, bad or good? I choose "or". Yes, a great deal of who we are is a collage of other's ideas, but we are in ourselves a unique collection of these different thoughts. I believe that our original, unmimickable experiences provide us with our own perspective, leading to new ideas. I may be shaped by one idea and another as well, but the two together can create something new and exciting that we couldn't have seen before. Like yellow and blue making green. A real life example is a university student went into engineering her first year and switched for biology. Though she continued through biology for her PhD, that mathematical influence she got from engineering gave her a unique perspective different than that of her peers.

At the same time we shouldn't act like herded sheep. Thinking for yourself is vitally important in life because it allows you to strive for what "you" want, not what society deems you should aspire for. Whether or not it's even possible is debatable, however I do think that on some level we are unique. We have different eyes in which we view the world and they're not something that we should allow to be closed without a fight.

Never stop questioning. (The next few entries will be much more concise)

Society - Men and Women

So we've been looking a fair bit at the ideas behind "What is a woman or man?" in class. The world of advertisement has apparently made answering this question incredibly easy. According to the majority of ads, women should be passive, seductive, innocent and, most importantly, physically beautiful (quantified as generally thin except for the breasts and arse). Men on the other end should be the epitome of strength. Be it physical, mental or emotional, true or not.

Now naturally we look at these ideas and see them as ridiculous and we should. At the same time though we have to ask ourselves... where did the media get these ideas from in the first place?

Think faster Bobo!

I never took a psychology or family studies course, but I did have the privilege of reading over someone's shoulder during theatre rehearsal. The book was all about what men look for in women and what women in turn look for in men, but essentially how relationships function between the two. Not reading the entire tome, one experiment did stick out. In it men and women were shown individuals of the opposite sex wearing a  fast food uniform, clean casual clothes and a suit. For men, the study showed that they were more attracted to the women of greater physical beauty regardless of their attire. Women were more likely to be drawn to an unattractive man in a suit than an attractive one in a fast food uniform. Conclusion.

Women are more likely to be attracted to men of status.
Men are more likely to be attracted to women of physical beauty.

Some people have already realized this.

Now these weren't set in stone rules, however the trend was very much apparent. If it is true it's a pretty depressing statistic because it correlates precisely with the messages put out by advertising. Before jumping to the conclusion that this mindset is "because of the ads"... what if they're just holding a mirror up? Sending the message back that we're giving off, we pick it back up from the media and it becomes this big cycle. Evolutionary speaking it makes sense. Dominant men would be more likely to survive (passing resilience to their offspring) and more "attractive" women were more likely to be fertile.

Similar ideas can be seen in today's society, with the stereotypical idea of the man needing to be providing more for the family financially, the woman often transitioning to a "stay at home" parent more often than the male. These are troubling ideas because it causes men to blindly seek ambition solely for the sake of ambition, and forces women to believe that image is everything. Are these ideas right? Definitely not.

The real question we should be asking is whether we are able to escape these apparently instinctual ideas of "man and women" or if it's hardwired into our nature. Being a bit of an optimist I would like to think yes it is something we can move away from. A great deal of change has surfaced in the past hundred years with women leading a much more active role in society (being able to vote in Canada in roughly 1917). This change can actually be further exemplified in recent society. Just a few months ago British Prime Minister David Cameron went on paternity leave. A random example I know, but at the time I was shocked. However, after thinking it over, I realized how respectible such a decision was. The existence of paternity leave in itself demonstrates a lessening of the gap between the traditional roles of men and women.

Whether or not men and women will ever be considered complete equals I'm not sure. Not that one will be superior to the other as a whole, but in specific circumstances perhaps (would you prefer a women or a man to babysit your children?). It's understandable for some discrepancy because women and men are physiologically different (not that one is smarter than the other, but think differently? Definitely). I do believe however that we can lessen this gap significantly by challenging the ideas of "men" and "women". Women should be allowed to push themselves towards ambition, while men shouldn't be afraid to take a step back (which I feel is probably the more difficult change society has to face, easier to strive for power than relinquish it). More importantly though is that members of the opposite gender must also be open to accept these role reversals.

There will always be those who would challenge this change, but ultimately I feel that it is much wiser for one to not only be open to change, but encourage it. New ideas need space to breath and grow to come to fruition, especially if this truly is a world of becoming. I'm not talking about an overnight instantaneous change, but society can aim towards true equality step-by-step. If a society's ideals are defined by the beliefs of the majority, then we must change our own individual beliefs so that they may one day catch like wildfire.

"Be the change you want to see in the world." (Ghandi)

Never stop questioning.

Society and Men - Advertising

Tough Guise: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-9632437500432634#

I thoroughly enjoy how witty the title of the above video is. Again an awesome video, but you can get away with watching the first ten or so minutes to see the main message of the talk.

First off, I really thought that this was a nice change of pace from the traditional idea that women are the only people affected by advertising. It is an issue for women, without a doubt, but they're not the only ones. The idea of a man having to be physically strong, violent and generally dominant is an idea that has existed for some time, although it is interesting that the speaker pointed out how it seems to have become a greater and greater factor as time has passed (larger guns for actors in films, bigger biceps in children's toys, etc.).

The speaker really drove the topic home when he pulled out the statistics of male violence opposed to women. Taking a look at the ideas surrounding us, it doesn't come as quite a shock that dominance is a huge aim in the media towards answering the question of "What is a man?".

But we can't all be Chuck Norris.

I was watching a sit-com the other day and it connected to this issue very deeply. The man of the family refused to watch a romantic movie because he thought it was sissy, though his wife thought he should show his sensitive side. He ends up watching it himself and gets very emotionally attached to it, even crying. His wife finds out and is touched, but when they finally sit down to watch the movie together she is turned off by his "baby" attitude. Now, being a sit-com, I expected a touching solution to this problem. Perhaps the wife learns to accept her husband for who he is and the husband agrees to tone it down a bit. Instead when the wife confronts him on it he lies, telling her that he was just joking around about it. She believes him... that was it.

Disappointing According to Jim. Disappointing.

Shows like these are usually pretty light-hearted, but I couldn't let go of what this "solution" meant. The man was forced to put up a guard for how he was really feeling, hiding a part of who he was from the person he shouldn't have to hide anything from, his wife. What does this mean for their marriage? In terms of the sit-com obviously nothing, but if it were in real life I feel like there would be problems. The episode just seemed to resonate the message from the talk that men have to put up this tough exterior.

So what can guys do to combat this image? I feel that that shouldn't be all that a man is. Nobody should feel weak all the time, but at the same time showing weakness at times I believe can be a strength (especially since society has the idea we should be otherwise). The talk itself featured examples of highly respected men who break the stereotypical image and I thought that was great to illustrate. Men feel they need to be strong to get any respect and it's a terrible thought that they have to hide a part of who they are. No one should have to hide what they really want. Ultimately I feel that men should try to throw away their "faux" strength and replace it with true strength. The confidence that comes from being who you really are. No matter what anyone else thinks.
-Never stop questioning.

Society and Women - Advertising

Killing Us Softly 3  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1993368502337678412#

Though dated around 1999, this video is a fantastic piece about the depiction of women in the media and I highly recommend anyone with even a faint iota of interest to give it a look.

Now again it is a bit of a dated piece, but still provides quite a bit of insight into advertising's view of women and potentially what they should apparently strive to be. Are things different today? Yes and no. The very first piece of advertising about birth control pills likely wouldn't last two seconds in today's market (unless it was in jest, but never seriously). The idea of women being fixated on household choirs is unquestionably offensive, but as the talk illustrates there are much more subtle ways to depict this passivity (being silent, vulnerable, etc.) Of course the speaker is being a tad bit selective about her ads to prove her thesis (elevators are dangerous?), but, overplayed or not, the message is still there. Objectivity and the unobtainable image of the "perfect woman" are quite clear.

Now if you were to ask me the question of if things are worse today for women I would have to say yes. With the internet being much more integrated into our daily lives the potential to see these images increases exponentially. There are companies trying to move away from these images purposefully, like Nike's ads specifically aimed towards positively depicting women and their body's, and it's a fantastic step in the right direction.

"My shoulders aren't dainty or proportional to my hips. Some say they are like a man's. I say, leave men out of it. They are mine. I made them in a swimming pool then I went to yoga and made my arms."

The only problem is that it's the equivalent of throwing a pebble in the ocean when you think about it. It's a good disturbance, but it will hold little sway over the giant wave of ads constantly washing over women. The biggest issue I think though is that these awful messages are getting to girls at a younger and younger age. My friends and I were recently talking about how a great number of modern children's cartoons have become so sterile you can actually feel yourself losing brain cells with censorship (although tailored more to avoiding violence), but the internet is fair game.

However, a friend of mine pointed out how the show Dora the Explorer, a show featuring one of very few non-adult characters like Barbie, is being sexualized in a spin-off show. Why? This all seems so contradictory. It's scary that there are products aimed for toning the body's of little girls at the age of seven (shoes by Sketchers) and scarier still that padded bras are advertised for such a young age demographic before they've even started developing. What kind of message is this sending? Girls this young should not be thinking of themselves as sexual beings and it's terrible how they're constantly given figures that instill the belief that physical beauty is everything.

I'm looking at you Disney.

Sadly there is no quick fix for this kind of problem. I mean you can't exactly keep these girls in a bubble for their entire lives. Big change needs to happen in the world. I feel like the best thing you can do is keep an eye on your child and instill in them at a young age the ideal that physical beauty is not all that they are. They can be smart, imaginative, passionate, caring, devoted, independent, all of these things and more. Is it a guarantee? Unfortunately it's not that easy. All we can really do is give them the right tools in life and hope they make the right choices when they begin to venture out of the nest.

Never stop questioning.

Sources:
http://adland.tv/ooh/nike-gets-real-ads-women
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/skechers-markets-butt-toning-shoe-to-7-year-old-girls.html?page=2
http://voicerev-sharemyjourney.blogspot.com/2011/03/padded-bras-for-little-children-what-on.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/parenting/2009/03/dora.html

Self - Buddhism

""Know Thyself?" If I knew myself, I'd run away."
                                                                  -Geothe

From the above quote it is pretty clear what the speaker is trying to say. Basically if we look at ourselves there's a very good chance we would not like what we see. Certain aspects of who we were that we wished were different, heck we might not even agree with it. If we did "know ourselves" there's a good chance we would "run away" to re-define ourselves. Prove that definition wrong.

Another thing we might want to consider is whether we can find our "self" at all. David Hume had the idea that trying to look at your self is like chasing your tail because all you ever see is abstract past emotions, experiences, etc. Never the true "now" of self. John Locke on the other hand believed in the "tabula rosu" or "blank slate" view of self that we fill in with our own personal experiences, creating self. Buddhism offers a unique view into the idea of the self. It doesn't exist. Plain and simple.



Yeah you. You don't exist.

I'm not an expert on Buddhism by any means, but here's a shot at a very brief summary. Believing in samsara (wheel of time, cycle of life and death, reincarnation), Buddha essentially believes that everything in the world is suffering. A more optimistic view of this is that everything is always decay in the world (dying). That said, the second you establish a self, thus attachment, you open yourself to potential suffering. Here are the four noble truths of Buddhism.

Four Noble Truths of Buddhism
1) Life means suffering
2) The origin of suffering is attachment
3) The cessation of suffering is obtainable
4) We should follow the path of suffering's cessation

No self or "anatta" is the idea that by accepting the now (always in a state of arrival and departure) one will free themselves from all suffering. Basically, the whole point of this state of mind is to one day break free of the cycle and into Nirvana.

Not to be confused with the band.

A lot of Buddhism seems logical. I mean focusing on the "now" to avoid worrying about the past or future makes a ton of sense. On the one hand though, as Steph and I pointed out, a life of no attachments is kinda iffy. Side-stepping the issue that if there is no reincarnation you could very well have screwed over your one and only life, it goes against our traditional definition of "living". A huge part of how we live our life is by setting goals to try and obtain. What does this say about friendships we make? Relationships we have? I mean they do have the potential to create suffering, but does that mean we should avoid them altogether? In a never ending cycle of life and death, yes I suppose.

I see where this belief is coming from, but since I don't share the idea of reincarnation I choose not to throw away some of the very things that make life so interesting. A purpose gives us something to strive for, something to achieve and most importantly a reason to wake up in the morning. Could you potentially never get what you want? Suffering does and will occur if you don't because it was something you truly desired to have. That desire and drive however, so long as it keeps burning is what gives us hope and meaning. It's true that friends and relationships can and likely will blow up in our faces at times, but the time prior to that far outweighs that loss.

The idea behind letting go of material possessions and truly living in the now are fantastic concepts, however I see them as a way to better appreciate the life we do lead. It is our desires and friendships that make life worth living, despite the chance that it might not work out. After all, " 'Tis better to have loved and lost / Than never to have loved at all." (Lord Alfred Tennyson)

Never stop questioning.

Being and Becoming

This isn't something that we're really talking about in class just this second, but it is something I've been meaning to write about for some time. I want to address my issues if we're living in a world that is solely becoming (multiple truths opposed to a single truth).

Before getting into that, we have to look really briefly at the four different mechanisms (realms of truth) which we use to find truth in the world; Rhetorica, Mystica, Empirica and Logos. Rhetorica is all about any truth given through language or communication of any kind (conveying an opinion). Mystica is unwavering truth that is found through religion or spiritual beliefs. Empirica is when truths are found through scientific theory, i.e. with evidence to support. Finally, Logos are indisputable facts in the world and is largely focused on mathematical laws. The Pythagorean Theorem for instance is constant, has always existed and will exist long after we're gone.



Question that punk.


Now factoring in being and becoming, we can actually arrange these realms of truth...

Being<------Logica-------Mystica-------Empirica-------Rhetorica------>Becoming

The image is pretty self-explanatory. Now if the world is solely one of becoming that means that the "truest" truth would be rhetorica... yeeeeeah I hate that idea. Here's my reasoning. If rhetoric is the only method by which we can find learn and experience truth, suddenly the world becomes one in which the best truth is only found through whoever can convey their argument best. Since there are multiple truths of equal weight, finding truth would be merely an act of persuasion or debate. As we know from Thank you for Smoking, the great thing about arguing is that if you do it correctly you're never wrong. Theoretically what this means is that if a single person was extremely good at rhetoric, he/she could effectively control the world.

I despise using this individual as an example constantly, but Hitler's ability to persuade the German people is an instance demonstrating just how flawed a world of becoming can be. His astounding ability to mislead and persuade upstanding German citizens is still something examined by many psychologists.

I'm fine with having multiple opinions and such in the world, but the reason why is because it's difficult for us to see the world of being. By shooting down every idea that's different than our own we are denying the possibility of what being can be, but at the same time I believe there are such truths in the world, things that are universally right and wrong. Can I say precisely what they may be? No, but there are a select few in history who apparently have gotten a glimpse and it's apparently awesome. I think there are moments in our lives where we get a glimpse of it as well. Little moments of complete certainty that cannot be explained. I've had one or two of these moments of clarity, so that's why I feel I can vouch for it.

Ultimately, I feel that we walk in a world of becoming, but it is a surface with tiny cracks in which we are able to catch occasionally see the layer of absolute truth beneath. I really do believe there are fundamental truths out there, if only because the alternative of truth constantly being a tug-of-war just feels wrong in my eyes. Like a tree, perhaps our ideas can branch out on their own, but ultimately all link back to one point. The roots. Being.

Never stop questioning.

Ethics - Kantian Ethics

Alright, so there are ton of different ethical models that exist in the world. They can essentially be divided up into three broad categories: virtue ethics (desirable qualities a person should have such as honesty and loyalty that we obtain through practice), duty ethics (all humans are required to fill certain duties of right and wrong) and consequential ethics (the right act is one which leads to good outcomes).

One we focused on primarily was Kantian ethics and it's an idea which interests me quite a bit. Part of duty ethics, Kantian ethics thrives on the "Golden Rule" of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It's based on the idea that not only are there "right and wrong", but that by following one mantra it is obtainable.

Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law.

It's an ingenious concept applicable to a great number of situations. For instance if someone believes it is alright to steal, then you must be okay with everyone stealing, including from him/herself. If you think it is okay for you to kill someone, then it is also appropriate for everyone else to do so. Makes sense. If you hate the idea of skinning animals you shouldn't wear a fur coat. Looking at lying specifically, if it was a universal law that one did not lie, Kantian ethics suggests the world would be a better place. No matter the potential outcome, this branch of ethics suggest morality is only in the "right" intention since we cannot predict outcomes. An end to justify the means is not acceptable. Again a fantastic idea... but it falls apart when put under specific circumstances...

If for instance you knew the whereabouts of someone hiding from a killer and were asked by the killer where he/she was. By lying you could potentially be saving their life, but that would make lying okay all the time... The simple solution to this matter is that this is acceptable behaviour because it would be universally moral for anyone to lie in this specific situation. Logical for Kantian ethics, however suddenly a few general universal laws becomes rather chaotic. How would one ever be able to keep track of how to act in every single situation?

Yes it is based on personal decision on what should or should not be a universal law. But even still I do not believe it "right" to stand aside while people close to me are being physically abused simply because I believe violence is wrong and the abuser clearly doesn't share my view.

It's in these little details that Kantian ethics falls apart. Some may argue that I'm just nit-picking by creating specific situations that will likely never occur, but I would say the contrary. I feel the details are the most important part of ethics. There's no point in having a massive wall if it's full of holes people can sneak through. Courtrooms are forced to deal with these specific issues on a daily basis and there are times when "right" and "wrong" isn't so clear. (Another situation would be euthanasia...)

So what do we do? As I've said in earlier posts, I do believe there is ultimately a truth, but it is definitely difficult for us to see let alone construct a society around. I do believe Kantian ethics has something going for it when it says we must focus on the intent, not necessarily the outcomes. There's the saying that hell was paved with good intentions, however we can't predict the outcomes of our actions either. Ultimately, in the absence of this truth I believe that (in terms of ethics) we must act in the way that the majority views the world when providing judgement and making decisions. I'm not saying we need to push our ethical beliefs on everyone, but I guess I just hold the optimistic belief that the more people involved in an ethical belief, the closer it will be to being the "right" one. Naive? Perhaps, but I guess I'm hoping that belief is one in which we support the rights and freedoms of everyone.

Never stop questioning.

Self - Identity

"Everyone is a moon, and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody."  ~Mark Twain

I've always thought the idea of "identity" was an interesting concept. I mean, what is it that truly defines who we are? Is it your unique talents? Interests? Personality? Appearance? Thoughts? Relationships with others? Career? Suddenly a simple question becomes ridiculously complicated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-GV46SUcWs

A quick scene from the movie Anger Management that has been stuck in my mind for years. Yes it was probably largely done to frustrate Adam Sandler's character, but it does a great job illustrating just how difficult it is for someone to define themselves.

Can we ever define ourselves at all? As the above quote graciously given by Mr. Twain says,  there is a side that we hide from the public, but who is that person really? There are actions and personas you take on in different company (wouldn't speak the same way to your grandparents you do to your close friends... I hope). Are you all one in the same or is one the "real" you? (Stopping with the questions) There are times in public however that you might alter your character slightly to "fit in", especially if you're new.



"Yes, it was Maria. But who is Maria really?"

 

I always liked the idea of your name having a big impact on who you are. Maybe not so much the name itself defining who you are through the combination of letters (although an interesting concept), but representing who you are.



The difficulty in classifying people is likely because no one person typically fits into a single stereotype, nor are we so complicated that any form of identification is impossible.  Personally, I think there are two possible explanations when it comes to defining oneself. The first possibility is that we give ourselves purpose (and therefore an identity) by deciding whatever we choose to live our lives for. Some people may say, "I'm a musician" or "I'm a teacher" and that could very well be a huge part of who they are. That particular interest or career is something they shape their lives around and becomes a large part of who they are. It's our purpose. The only problem is some people do not see fit to limit themselves to one thing, and that's alright too.

The second idea of mine, and my favourite, is that we are ultimately defined by our actions. We can sit in our room and pretend to be someone different all we want, but it is our interactions with the world make us who we are. Our little decisions we make in our lives add up really quickly and shape what we become, or perhaps just bring something to life that was always there. Combine that with names and suddenly when someone sees that simple text they also see your experiences together. For some it could be something small like "Oh they were nice" to an avalanche of emotion and memories that goes beyond mere words. We breathe life into our names everyday.

I'm not saying it's a perfect explanation and sometimes people may accidentally associate your name with things that may not be true about you, but that's not something you can change. That's really their call. Best just to not think so much about "who am I?" if you're completely unsure but to really just act. Not to sound like a broken record, but if you do what feels natural, everything will likely fall into place.

Never stop questioning.

Dependency

When we're infants,
we need others to survive.
                  
When we're dying,
we need others to survive.

But here's the secret. In between,
we need others even more.

                                                                      -Tuesdays With Morrie

Another quote from Oprah Winfrey's production. We watched the film quite some time ago, but this is one of the lines of dialogue that really stood out above the rest.  Naturally at birth we are extremely dependent; unable to feed, bathe or survive on our own whatsoever.  This is also true, and even illustrated, in those who are dying as the viewer observes the deteriorating health of Morrie. To say that we are even more dependent in-between these two phases is bold to say in the least.

Clearly Morrie is not speaking of physical dependency, but an emotional one. The friendships and relationships we have created are apparently far more vital to our sanity than we might think. Something about it doesn't seem to stick though... This September many of us leaving the nest and setting out into the world to pursue higher education or enter the working world. We are entering a time of complete and utter independence. It's exciting, it's scary and it's happening. It's a time of great change in our lives and for this quote to enter our lives at such a crucial junction causes a moment of pause. It speaks against the very independence we are trying to strive for.

Time to head out...

Before analysing the quote, what is it about dependency that scares us? When we're children all we can ever dream about is growing up and acting on our own. Is it merely a matter of human pride? Or could the idea of relying on others be scary because others are unpredictable? People enter and leave our lives all the time. The only real constant is ourselves. Maybe it's because we're afraid to trust. The idea of physical dependency is most certainly scary because we like to be in control. Perhaps the same is true with emotional dependency. The D-word is often associated with one thing, weakness.

Morrie insists time and time again (by the way the film is based on a real person's life) that our relationships are the most important aspects of our lives. It is the people close to us that make our lives worth living and according to him, we need them to "survive". Despite appearing contradictory to what is going on in our lives, what Morrie says makes a lot of sense. We may not realize it often, but the people we allow into our lives have a huge effect on us. As for how this relates back to us leaving for University, maybe his idea can still hold true. Not only is this a chance for us to really spread our wings, but to test the limits of our friendships. It's true that some will snap and break, while others will hold firm. It's risky, however this is a time to fly that might be necessary.

As for emotional dependency it's iffy. As I said, in the grand scheme of things, the only constant is truly you. Are we really a constant though? More than that, many people thrive on human contact. I believe he's hinting at the fact that the time between birth and death we are in the very middle of our life journey. Anything and everything will happen. We enjoy the company of others more at this time because it's comforting to know that we're not the only ones journeying. As tough as life gets, we're not alone. There's nothing wrong with independence (knowing how to live with yourself is important), but don't completely shut out everyone in your life in order to achieve it. You are as much a part of their lives as they are of yours. Supporting one another is far from weakness.

Never stop questioning.

Truth and Lies

“Truth is beautiful, without doubt; but so are lies.”

                                                                        -Ralf Waldo Emerson

“The first reaction to truth is hatred.”

                                                                        -Tertullian

“Lies that build are better than truth that destroys.”

                                                                        -Sengulese Proverb

“I’m not mad that you lied to me, I’m mad that I can never again believe you.”

                                                                        -Nietzsche

I know it’s a lot of quotes about the relationship between truth and lies, but I couldn’t really limit myself to one or two because it’s a concept that has come up countless times.  As human beings we have this innate desire to find “the truth” because, in my eyes, it’s something sturdy that we can hold onto in the world.  I think that is why many people would prefer to hear the truth over a lie.  As the first quote goes, lies also have the potential to be beautiful, but only when the person never discovers it to be a lie. The problem with this however is that the longer the lie remains concealed, the more devastated the individual will probably be if it is revealed.

I contemplated what it would be like if we could only blurt out the truth and coincidentally House just happened to have a patient suffering from a condition that had him do precisely that… an eerie coincidence, but I’ll take it!

Thank you television.

So it tackled a lot of really interesting concepts about the condition really quickly. On the one hand his lack of filter caused him to insult a few of the doctors, but his brutally honest (if not rash) comments flattered some of the female staff. They even talked about whether the fact that he always had these comments, but just never said them, changed who he was now that they weren’t filtered. The episode got really touchy though when he called his young daughter “below average” and that his wife’s career was “for people who can’t accomplish important things themselves” (the look in his eyes as he tried to hold himself back was heart-wrenching). He participated in an extremely risky surgery to remove himself of this condition. For him the choice was easy.

Now it was just one man, but if we analyze it from a human perspective, it becomes scary how hurtful little comments we hold back from the people close to us can cause a ridiculous amount of pain. The man was cured and his daughter will likely forgive him some day, but what he said to his wife… he can never take that back, despite how much he loves her.

Then for some reason I got this weird concept in my head, is something that goes unsaid as bad as a lie? Pondering out loud, I got a pretty impressive response, with one of my peers saying that if we said everything on our minds all the time things would just be ridiculous, but holding back something that you believe needs to be said is just as bad as lying. I really like that differentiation.

Can I honestly say that lying is always bad? No, because you can likely throw out certain scenarios where a “white lie” is actually more beneficial (a surprise party for instance!). Personally I would prefer to be told the truth all the time and do my best to do the same for my friends. If we are honest as much as possible maybe we could prevent a situation like that man was in. Am I perfect? Far from it. I can understand how a lie can have good consequences, but compliments and musings don’t have to be lies. In fact, I think a truth that makes you feel good is one of the best feelings in the world. Both receiving and delivering it. Yes, the truth may be difficult to swallow at times, and even met with frustration, but it is in essence beautiful because the truth is the simplest idea there is. It’s not sugar coated or pretending to be something it’s not. It is origin. It just is.  

Never stop questioning.

Forgiveness - How Much?

"Learn to forgive yourself and to forgive others. Ask for forgiveness from others. Forgiveness can soften the heart, drain the bitterness, and dissolve your guilt."

The above quote is from the movie, "Tuesday's with Morrie". It's a delightful film about a dying man mentoring his young student on the secret to living life... delightful may not have been the best word, but I quite enjoyed it.

This aphorism stuck out above the others and I really wanted to look at it deeper. It makes a lot of sense that forgiveness is good for the very reasons mentioned. It softens the heart, drains bitterness and releases guilt... wait guilt? (I'll tackle that in a bit) In a perfect world everyone would forgive everyone else, but when you hear it in our world it asks the question... we should forgive any injustice?

After years of MADD Campaigns, I find myself jumping straight to the families influenced forever by a drunk driver. Watching actors depict unbelievable sorrow or rage the family must have experienced over such an easily preventable incident. One occasion in particular however I remember was hearing about a drunk driver finding the mother of the victim and apologising. A gutsy move, but what I found even more astounding was the mother actually ended up forgiving the man. He now does talks with students. I cannot even fathom the magnitude of strength it must have taken to do that.

Don't quote me on this, but I remember having a conversation and being absolutely disgusted at a shooting in an Amish Village years ago. Several people died and though the police caught the suspect, the families could not press charges because it was not part of their beliefs... no words. To be forced to forgive despite what happened... just disgusting.

I mean I can completely understand forgiveness being a way of acceptance, but how much is within human capacity? Moreover, if someone forgives every little injustice, what's to stop them from being walked over by others? Lawsuits handed out like candy on Halloween before in the world are suddenly gone. Is there a point where it's better to cut someone out of your life opposed to forgiving them?

I think we should try to find a balance. Life's too short to be angry at everyone who has ever hurt you, but your forgiveness should not be something given out on a whim. Hating someone has a very negative effect on our health and well-being. The "guilt" referred to is likely the bad feeling associated with hating someone in that you want to let go, but feel unable to forgive. Forgetting and forgiving are too different things (hiding from your feelings will only make them resurface again at some point) and forgiveness is only truly effective when it is a conscious personal decision, but it really is the best route to happiness in my eyes. Forgiveness allows one to move on and it's something I do not associate with weakness or being a push-over when implemented properly (standing up for yourself, not pushed aside), but strength.

At times forgiveness may seem greater than human capacity, but are we not striving to be greater than merely human? I like to think so. It is alright to dip into hate and sorrow at times when life seems unfair, but it should never be lingered in. A life consumed with hatred is a huge loss. Morrie himself wished he could have forgiven his father before he had passed on. I have been fortunate enough that forgiveness has been extremely difficult at times, but never out of my capacity. I cannot speak for those who have witnessed unspeakable atrocities, however I hope it may one day be achieved, even if it does take months or even years. No one deserves a life of sorrow, and forgiveness is how we may leave it behind for good.

Never stop questioning.

Epigenetics - Nature vs. Nurture

Ghost in your Genes: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1128045835761675934#

Very cool video on the study of epigenetics and how the turning off or on of certain genes can have huge effects on human development.  More than that, it brings up how we aren't just blank faces passing on genetic code in each generation, but our actions and influences will influence our genome. As the video said, we really are the caretakers of our genetic code now. Which definitely makes us feel much more important, like we really will leave an imprint on the next generations of the world. Makes us less reluctant to be abusive to our bodies, such as smoking, abusing alcohol, etc. At the same time though, this principle applied to our ancestors as well, meaning that we may be the product of their life decisions... both the good and the bad.

Good thing my dad didn't join the Dark Side...

From an evolutionary standpoint it is really interesting to see the effects of a famine my grandfather experienced carry on to my generation, but what about the negative decisions our ancestors made before we were even conceived? I'm not talking about the klutzy nature of my mother, serious issues such as depression, addiction, mental illness, eating disorders, etc.

According to the documentary, it's like our the "nurture" characteristics our parents experience become our "nature". While the potential to pass on good traits is certainly present, it seems really unfair that their problems can plague us. So it begs the question, can we escape their decisions or are we locked in the natures established at birth? It adds another level to the "nature vs. nurture" argument.

I've personally believed that we're 30% nature, 70% nurture, however the fact that we may be forced to face our parents mistakes as well may make nature have a bigger impact than I first believed. However, I don't think that people whose families have suffered from negative influences should count themselves out. It really still all comes down to doing the best with the cards you're dealt. Yes, there will be people who are given a better hand in life, but it's how you play those cards that truly matters. Never assume that you are going to become your ancestors, because in reality you are your own unique person.

You may be created partially in their image, but you face your own unique experiences in life to create and shape you. I'm not saying it won't be difficult at times, however I truly believe we have the ability to take the helm and chart our own course in life. Don't let a history you never had a say in define who you are.

Never stop questioning.

Memories of the Heart

Transplanting Memories http://www.viddler.com/explore/hawker1009/videos/4/
The above video is rather long so you might want to avoid it. I can summarize it pretty well.

Quick Summary:
-heart transplant recipients have reported characteristic changes (tastes, personality, fears, charisma, music tastes, etc.) quite similar to those of their donors (approx. 5%-10%)

-presents the idea that memories have the potential to be transferred from donor to recipient

-researchers at the institute of HeartMath have discovered a grouping of neurons present in the heart with its own nervous system (behaves similarly to the brain)

-though still not an accepted concept in mainstream science, the heart may play a greater role in our emotions than we originally believed

First off, if you're skeptical just try to open your mind to the possibility for a moment to how this might be possible and what implications this might have on us if it does prove to carry weight. I'm not here to defend one side or the other, but to present possibilities. Yes the figure may appear low, but the level of coincidence between the changed behaviours being eerily similar is too large to be dismissed as merely trauma from the operation.

It's true all of the body is connected to the brain, but for the heart this is doubly true. In the video, the idea is that we learn through a never-ending cycle of feedback. We get better at shooting a basketball through the feedback of what technique works and what doesn't. The brain and heart are in connection more than any other organ and scientists propose it is so strong, information is able to be passed through the heart and even partially retained there in a unique grouping of neurons. It may even generate its own information about emotion apparently.


...there are no words to describe this



A fantastic analogy my friend Cam made to this idea of the heart transplanting memories is that it is in a way the same idea as transplanting a plant from one garden to another. Say the soil is the mind and the plant is the physical heart and you move that plant from one patch of soil to another. That plant may hold on to some of the soil from the original garden on its roots, which would mix in with the new soil. If the heart is able to retain information from the brain it actually seems possible, like the brain leaving an imprint on the heart. Then as the new organ is introduced to the brain-heart feedback, that residual information may be drawn upon.

For some reason I really like the idea of the brain being able to leave an imprint on the body and it kinda draws back to the whole, "Which is more important? The body or mind?" concept. Personally, I believe the mind governs the physical body, but again it's really interesting seeing how the mind may influence the body. It's almost like giving two people the same empty bedroom and they each customize it based on their own unique personalities. If our ideas and thoughts can influence the world around us, who's the say that they can't affect our physical shells? If the documentary is true, perhaps we should be paying closer attention to the heart instead of focusing exclusively from the neck up. As the video said, it's not about the idea of limiting our being to the cognitive abilities of one or the other, but exploring the possibility of "and".

Never stop questioning.

Compliments

A few days ago we were assigned the task to write a random compliment on a slip of paper (happiness chips) to give to each person in the class. It was actually more difficult than I thought it would be. Not because giving a compliment is difficult, but simply because I like to make compliments personal (instead of just "you're smart" or "nice shirt"), which is difficult to do when you barely know the names of some of the people in the class, let alone much about them.

So we got our happiness chips and I actually caught myself smiling at a few of them. In that sense I suppose our little class experiment was a success. Some of the ones I got were,

"Devin Brooks. I like how you are very energetic."

"You are a very original person. - Devin"

"Devin Brooks: You're hilarious and so nice!"

"Devin Brooks, You are really funny and you can make anyone laugh. You are awesome."

"Devoin. Very personable. Always in character."

"Devon. You don't speak the obvious and have a lot of interesting things to say."

"You will be next U.S. President."

Smile while you still can Obama.



The experiment came up with quite a few interesting observations. One for me personally was that I rolled my eyes at the comment whenever I saw someone had spelled my name with an "o" instead of an "i". It just put a bit of a damper on the compliment following. Looking back now I realize just how stupid that was. A lot of the people in this class have never felt the need to spell my name before, but the comment that they gave was still quite nice. Why couldn't I just accept the compliment? I think it might be just because many people just don't know how to take a compliment. Even when a kind sentiment is given to us we feel the need to scrutinize it, even twist it like the real truth is the worst manipulation. (Exp. Why did they write "good" instead of "great"?).

Another example of how we seem driven to negative comments is when Luke found comment that said something along the lines of him being bad smelling (someone had changed the original comment). Despite all of the other great compliments on his desk, he seemed fixated on that negative one. As we said in class, it's almost like getting a happiness chip makes us feel great, but getting a single negative comment is like taking ten of those chips away. It just seems so odd when we look back on it. Are we so obsessed with pleasing everyone that one insult can knock us down?

The reason that I feel that the more personal the compliment, like I really know the person, the better the other person feels is because if they can see the connection to themselves, they are less likely to analyze it to pieces. One of the people I gave a chip to actually posted a thank-you status on facebook to the anonymous contributor (aka me) saying it her day.  Which really made me feel great. 

A random compliment can make a huge difference in someone's life and it really isn't difficult. I mean there are a lot of times when you see complete random strangers and mentally compliment them (really clear skin, bright eyes, cool jacket, hairstyle, etc.) so how hard is it to actually vocalize it? Kind gestures have a bigger impact than we realize. Apparently there are times at Tim Hortons where someone will pay for the order of the person behind them as well. That person will be surprised and actually pay for the person behind them. This continues for hours.

The secret to happiness.

Random acts of happiness, compliments, they're both great to do and see. To be honest, when I hear or see such things it gives me a little more faith in humanity. Take a risk and compliment a complete stranger. The worst is they shrug it off. The best is you make their day. It's not rocket surgery.

Never stop questioning.

Talking about Happiness

One of our more interesting assignments in class was to try and discuss happiness with complete strangers, just to see what happens. I was presented with a unique opportunity last Friday at a nursing home and thought, "Who better to know about how we find happiness in life than old people? (my mind apparently isn't very "politically correct"). But in all seriousness, it makes sense. Asking about it wasn't all that hard surprisingly. Nobody was completely shocked or off put, but gave me an answer after we shared a bit of dialogue. So here's really briefly what I learned from different individuals.

#1 Woman: "Happiness is what you make of it, you just have to look hard enough for it."

#2 Woman: "You know it when you find it." (First woman agreed)

#3 Woman: "It's in your heart dear."

#4 Woman: "You work with what you're given and be thankful for your health." (she was recovering from a car accident and would soon walk again)

These are women I more or less approached at their tables and after a short "what're you up to?"-esque dialogue popped the question to. The next woman was really interesting because she actually called me to her table to help her with the English spelling in a letter to her son in New Zealand. I got her life story about coming to Canada from Iraq after being a teacher there. Unfortunately, though her English was quite good, however I lost a word or two. She really was a lovely woman. So when I finally asked her, she opened by saying that she has lost her home, her husband, friends and hasn't seen the son in New Zealand for 9 years. So when it came to getting happiness she said,

Iraqi Woman: "You have to make your own happiness." She said that a lot of the people there were happy because they were surrounded by people in a similar state. They had friends here and friends are important to happiness. (Which we touched on in class)

The last group I spent a great deal of time with were WWII veterans, so I thought it would be interesting to see what made these men happy after seeing such atrocities in the world. These were men who buried their brothers in arms and (in the case of #2), were even talking on the radio with them when their planes exploded... just... wow.

#1: "Fun" (plain and simple)

#2: "There being just enough fuel in your plane for one last passover to land safely. Moments where good things happen."

#3: "Three pristine, untouched, high quality joints." (when he realized I was serious he said) "Happiness is a mental state. It's just about putting yourself into that state. We sometimes look at each day with depression, but when you actually look back on the calender month you'll find that you actually have more happy days than sad days. All you have to do is realize it."

#4: "Happiness is what happens in small, fleeting moments." (He was an incredibly quiet man, who had clearly been through a lot of pain. Though I wished I could have asked a bit more before being interrupted, I'm surprised I got as much as I did and wouldn't have wanted to push him on it.)

It's hard to analyze all of the comments at once, but it is cool how there appears to be some repeated ideas of happiness and how to find it.

1) Just being happy by doing what's in your heart.
2) Working with the hand you're dealt and being thankful. Create happiness.
3) Small events, temporary where good things happen.

You can usually find it somewhere on every beach.

Interestingly, it seemed the simpler it was for someone to find happiness (based on their definition) the happier they appeared. When you just had to do what's in your heart or could manufacture it people were happier. Those that made happiness seem totally out of their control (a lot of the war veterans) appeared more solemn as a result.

A part of me wonders if the reason these people may seem happier compared to others is just because they've experienced so much and, as a result, have merely accepted things the way they are. I feel for people my age, where the future is still a series of blank chapters, it might not be so easy to accept. Anything can happen right now in our lives and there's a lot more stress on what that future may be opposed to the people who have already lived the majority of their lives.

But maybe some of these life veterans really do have a point. Perhaps life is only as complicated as people make it out to be. Yes there are things that are out of our control, but if we always strive to do what makes us happy and right in our hearts, I feel we're much less likely to end up in unhappy situations. And even when life throws you a curve ball out of nowhere, we shouldn't wallow in sorrow or complain. We should roll with the punches and accept things as they are.

If the entire purpose of our life is to strive for happiness, then suddenly life becomes much more simple when it's just within your grasp. It's easy to say, and in the grand scheme of things even true, but then why does life seem so complicated at times? Is it really just a matter of simplifying things? What happens if you don't know what you want? Perhaps part of what makes life complicated is just overthinking things constantly. If you want to try simplifying, give your mind a break and act instead. You might not know what happens, but if you just do what feels right you might eventually find what makes you happy. Just an idea.

Never stop questioning.