The shapes and shadows form the usual faces on the walls. They're always the same. They never judge, they simply regard in silence.
The faces seem somehow different tonight, however. They are cold and unwelcoming. But don't get me wrong, they never judge, they simply regard in silence.
Mad men hear voices. I only hear my own. It offers no comfort. It only offers judgement and tormented yells.
Sometimes I wish the faces would answer me. They're ever so silent.
I am my own worst enemy yet I am also my most welcomed company. Misery loves it, or so I've heard. I've heard plenty. I've heard way too much, yet I can never hear enough.
My inner ear must be going deaf while my inner child lives on forever screaming for attention.
I wish he would just shut the fuck up.
Maybe then the faces might offer some consolation? I don't assume they enjoy the ramblings of an attention whore child.
Children hate being regarded in silence.
I'm sure there are a few children who enjoy silence. Indeed, they perpetuate it.
At first we call them well-behaved. Angels, even. Then we start to worry because we all know there are no such things as angels and demons. Not in an ethereal state, anyway.
It's like we can never really decide what we want. Do we want to worry about a silent child, or do we feel comfortable scolding a rowdy one?
I really do wish the faces made up their minds. They are becoming rather irksome, albeit silent.
Can silence be a solution? What about all that's left unsaid? Then again, what about all we wish we hadn't said?
What's the worse kind of regret? That of regretting an action of the lack of it?
Perhaps we should just be content with the faces. Maybe they too have regrets.
Do they regret their silence? Or do they regret the fact that their silent regard has been driving me mad since I was a child?
I hate the faces. I wish they were alive so I could wish death upon them.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Ramble on a scrap of paper. Part 2
Everyone writes about love for the sake of writing about it. Love tends to be a subject which inspires some sort of reaction. Whether the reaction includes flushed cheeks or a groan of cynical rejection is arbitrary.
Artists - of whose group I do not wish to be included in - feed off attention. If one is to assume that we are all artistic, then this attention-seeking is also to be attributed to every single one of us, no?
If so then what about the quiet ones? If good guys always finish last, could it be that they genuinely don't give a fuck?
This is without assuming that an artist can never be an introvert, or rather that an artist does not require love.
I believe I have just found a paradox within my rambling.
If an artist does it for attention and approval, which in turn feeds and clothes him, then how can one explain introverted artists?
I believe the answer lies somewhere within the dichotomy of the artist as a normal person, and the person communicating via their chosen medium of expression.
These two distinct personalities can always make AND break anybody simultaneously.
Think of all the drug abuse and inanities that artists are known for throughout history.
The personality of the artist could be trying to take over from the introverted personality which the person exhibited before he found his craft.
Now the person is entirely unhappy and the only way to reconcile the two is to try to numb the feeling of the gaping metaphoric wound caused by the rift.
When someone tells me about wanting to be some sort of artist, I have two distinct reactions which tend to fight to get out at the same time.
1) "That's great! Follow your heart and see where it leads you!"
2) "Run."
I figure those are my two - or rather, two of my - personalities. On one hand I want the person to success. Who knows, maybe the next Hendrix is just around the corner.
The other reaction comes from my years of struggle for minuscule success and even this marginal victory is negligible.
Bottom line, art is work. Love is pain. Work and pain are all we have to look forward to is we are to have marginal success.
It's worth it.
Artists - of whose group I do not wish to be included in - feed off attention. If one is to assume that we are all artistic, then this attention-seeking is also to be attributed to every single one of us, no?
If so then what about the quiet ones? If good guys always finish last, could it be that they genuinely don't give a fuck?
This is without assuming that an artist can never be an introvert, or rather that an artist does not require love.
I believe I have just found a paradox within my rambling.
If an artist does it for attention and approval, which in turn feeds and clothes him, then how can one explain introverted artists?
I believe the answer lies somewhere within the dichotomy of the artist as a normal person, and the person communicating via their chosen medium of expression.
These two distinct personalities can always make AND break anybody simultaneously.
Think of all the drug abuse and inanities that artists are known for throughout history.
The personality of the artist could be trying to take over from the introverted personality which the person exhibited before he found his craft.
Now the person is entirely unhappy and the only way to reconcile the two is to try to numb the feeling of the gaping metaphoric wound caused by the rift.
When someone tells me about wanting to be some sort of artist, I have two distinct reactions which tend to fight to get out at the same time.
1) "That's great! Follow your heart and see where it leads you!"
2) "Run."
I figure those are my two - or rather, two of my - personalities. On one hand I want the person to success. Who knows, maybe the next Hendrix is just around the corner.
The other reaction comes from my years of struggle for minuscule success and even this marginal victory is negligible.
Bottom line, art is work. Love is pain. Work and pain are all we have to look forward to is we are to have marginal success.
It's worth it.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
The Lucky
The first to be picked, yet the last to be smoked.
It is lucky because it is initially spared the fire.
In the end it is lucky because after seeing all the others burn, it doesn't want to be left behind.
Perhaps it is lucky because it is the final cigarette I will smoke. Until the next one.
Perhaps it will be the one to ultimately lead to my lucky breath.
In the end, it is lucky for the brand. Once it finishes, I have to buy another packet.
Thus the cycle returns to its starting point.
[I have decided to start posting even the random rambling writings I occasionally produce and keep to myself. I have plenty of those, you see?]
It is lucky because it is initially spared the fire.
In the end it is lucky because after seeing all the others burn, it doesn't want to be left behind.
Perhaps it is lucky because it is the final cigarette I will smoke. Until the next one.
Perhaps it will be the one to ultimately lead to my lucky breath.
In the end, it is lucky for the brand. Once it finishes, I have to buy another packet.
Thus the cycle returns to its starting point.
[I have decided to start posting even the random rambling writings I occasionally produce and keep to myself. I have plenty of those, you see?]
Sunday, December 8, 2013
I'm not back, but I try.
Two phrases have popped into my mind this morning while conversing with a good friend and nursing one of those hangovers which makes your whole body tremble as you try to nurse what's left of your pride from the night before and its aftermath.
1) "We are all victims of circumstance"
This to me makes a lot of sense and puts people into two categories. The first being people who seem to be shat on by life in general because they simply fall flat against the wall which circumstance represents. These people seem to lack the lucidity needed to make their own lives work. It's unfortunate but very real and, in fact, most people fall into this category. It's worrying to me that we have some such a long way as a race but only because of the few people who fall in the second category, hence why we are still so far behind.
The other group of people, the rare ones, the ones I envy greatly, are the ones who look circumstance dead in the eyes and take control of it. Those people who we tend to see in the films who have an epiphany and then make their lives their own. I have yet to learn how to do this. Maybe one day.
2) "Luck is there for people to rely on when they lose hope"
If you know me well enough, or even if you have read a couple posts here, you will know that I am cynical about many things. One of them being luck. I hate the idea of luck, I think it's nonsense. I imagine that the reason why I believe it is nonsense is because I wish so desperately that it were real. Then I could blame all my fuck ups on bad luck instead of knowing that they are my fault.
Kind of like how humanity always needs hope so they create false hope just to convince themselves there is still some after they've really given up. Luck is a waste of time. It's false. It kills you in the end.
On that note I would like to thank the handful of people who still visit this page. I haven't actually been on it for the last 5 or so months but it seems that I still get regular visitors hence this post. I still write, I just don't publish anything. I am too defeatist nowadays. Circumstance dictates that this is a waste of time, but then again writing has always been on the borderline between public art and personal escapism.
Good afternoon, the interwebz
Maybe I will write soon, or maybe I will wait another few months, who knows.
1) "We are all victims of circumstance"
This to me makes a lot of sense and puts people into two categories. The first being people who seem to be shat on by life in general because they simply fall flat against the wall which circumstance represents. These people seem to lack the lucidity needed to make their own lives work. It's unfortunate but very real and, in fact, most people fall into this category. It's worrying to me that we have some such a long way as a race but only because of the few people who fall in the second category, hence why we are still so far behind.
The other group of people, the rare ones, the ones I envy greatly, are the ones who look circumstance dead in the eyes and take control of it. Those people who we tend to see in the films who have an epiphany and then make their lives their own. I have yet to learn how to do this. Maybe one day.
2) "Luck is there for people to rely on when they lose hope"
If you know me well enough, or even if you have read a couple posts here, you will know that I am cynical about many things. One of them being luck. I hate the idea of luck, I think it's nonsense. I imagine that the reason why I believe it is nonsense is because I wish so desperately that it were real. Then I could blame all my fuck ups on bad luck instead of knowing that they are my fault.
Kind of like how humanity always needs hope so they create false hope just to convince themselves there is still some after they've really given up. Luck is a waste of time. It's false. It kills you in the end.
On that note I would like to thank the handful of people who still visit this page. I haven't actually been on it for the last 5 or so months but it seems that I still get regular visitors hence this post. I still write, I just don't publish anything. I am too defeatist nowadays. Circumstance dictates that this is a waste of time, but then again writing has always been on the borderline between public art and personal escapism.
Good afternoon, the interwebz
Maybe I will write soon, or maybe I will wait another few months, who knows.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Clarification. (Read: Cynicism)
As predicted, my last post was read and received in a plethora of ways. This is the reason why I write, the comments and discussion caused. So without further ado, let me finally write a proper reply rather than leaving a dangling conversation hanging in the form of a shoddy comments thread from my side.
It seems that my maxim of "live and let live" left a lot to be desired as it was taken to mean something a little different to what it was supposed to mean but, as the quoted subtitle and URL of this blog point out, everything is subject to interpretation. Allow me to attempt to clarify my position further.
I was accused of being too relativistic, meaning basically everyone has their opinions so you can't judge them and let everyone have them, etc. This isn't exactly what I meant. After a few days of deliberation and a further conversation I had with another friend of mine, I can now finally gather my thoughts.
I dislike the idea of relativism greatly. Especially the kind of relativism rampant within the current "liberal" wave of thinking. I refuse the notion of relativism because it basically leaves no room for actual opinionated discussion, instead it just lends itself to instant and constant disagreement which can never actually be disputed or argued which will, in turn, lead to no reasoned conclusion ever being reached.
I like to think that my position on religion is actually a cynical one rather than a relativistic one. Yes, I am all for everyone having their own beliefs and opinions as long as they don't offend anyone else. However, I am cynical about most opinions. That means that whatever you believe in, I will accept and respect while bearing in mind that it might just be based heavily on bullshit.
On the other hand, rather than claiming that my own views and opinions are the right ones, I know that since I came up with them myself and I am human, most of my own opinions might and probably are heavily based on bullshit too. I am cynical to the point of doubting my own ideas, basically.
My ideas are prone to change, as everyone who knows me well enough can tell you with great confidence. I am uncertain about everything and I am prone to changing the very way I think if an argument to the contrary is good enough. Yes, I'm stubborn, but still, if my arguments are completely destroyed, then I can never say, "Fuck it, I'm right anyway." I will also never, ever, for the love of all that you believe in, resort to "It's just my opinion" because that's when you know that the only thing between you and defeat is stubborn disinclination to accept it.
Hopefully this will clear the relativism argument, which leaves me one more thing to address. In my last post I said that I noticed I wasn't really committed to my belief when I was 15. This does not mean that I took a moral stance at 15 and stuck to it. Far from it! I am still trying to figure out the meaning of life and I am still trying to figure out what is morally right and wrong to this day. What happened when I was 15 was mere realisation that I was full of shit when I said I believed in the Catholic faith because, in reality, I didn't.
If somewhere along the lines I find myself leaning towards a particular faith, I would be inclined to take back my stance against organised religion and become devout to it, it just so happens that, so far, I have never been convinced that religion is not human and flawed. The conclusion being, I'd rather rely on my own human flaws than be expected to believe in things which I think are based on other human flaws.
Feel free to comment and discuss things as per usual, I do genuinely enjoy your reactions.
Good afternoon, the interwebz
It seems that my maxim of "live and let live" left a lot to be desired as it was taken to mean something a little different to what it was supposed to mean but, as the quoted subtitle and URL of this blog point out, everything is subject to interpretation. Allow me to attempt to clarify my position further.
I was accused of being too relativistic, meaning basically everyone has their opinions so you can't judge them and let everyone have them, etc. This isn't exactly what I meant. After a few days of deliberation and a further conversation I had with another friend of mine, I can now finally gather my thoughts.
I dislike the idea of relativism greatly. Especially the kind of relativism rampant within the current "liberal" wave of thinking. I refuse the notion of relativism because it basically leaves no room for actual opinionated discussion, instead it just lends itself to instant and constant disagreement which can never actually be disputed or argued which will, in turn, lead to no reasoned conclusion ever being reached.
I like to think that my position on religion is actually a cynical one rather than a relativistic one. Yes, I am all for everyone having their own beliefs and opinions as long as they don't offend anyone else. However, I am cynical about most opinions. That means that whatever you believe in, I will accept and respect while bearing in mind that it might just be based heavily on bullshit.
On the other hand, rather than claiming that my own views and opinions are the right ones, I know that since I came up with them myself and I am human, most of my own opinions might and probably are heavily based on bullshit too. I am cynical to the point of doubting my own ideas, basically.
My ideas are prone to change, as everyone who knows me well enough can tell you with great confidence. I am uncertain about everything and I am prone to changing the very way I think if an argument to the contrary is good enough. Yes, I'm stubborn, but still, if my arguments are completely destroyed, then I can never say, "Fuck it, I'm right anyway." I will also never, ever, for the love of all that you believe in, resort to "It's just my opinion" because that's when you know that the only thing between you and defeat is stubborn disinclination to accept it.
Hopefully this will clear the relativism argument, which leaves me one more thing to address. In my last post I said that I noticed I wasn't really committed to my belief when I was 15. This does not mean that I took a moral stance at 15 and stuck to it. Far from it! I am still trying to figure out the meaning of life and I am still trying to figure out what is morally right and wrong to this day. What happened when I was 15 was mere realisation that I was full of shit when I said I believed in the Catholic faith because, in reality, I didn't.
If somewhere along the lines I find myself leaning towards a particular faith, I would be inclined to take back my stance against organised religion and become devout to it, it just so happens that, so far, I have never been convinced that religion is not human and flawed. The conclusion being, I'd rather rely on my own human flaws than be expected to believe in things which I think are based on other human flaws.
Feel free to comment and discuss things as per usual, I do genuinely enjoy your reactions.
Good afternoon, the interwebz
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
The theological argument.
Just been inspired by a brief discussion with a friend of mine about religious beliefs and what not. Now I'm sure most of you either know or have deduced that I have renounced my faith and have been going through a journey or spiritual and ethical self-discovery for the last 6 or so years.
Why am I not still a Catholic? I was brought up, like the vast majority of people on this island as a Roman Catholic. I practised the faith and I believed in it until I was about 15 years of age when I realised that I was actually practising it out of habit rather than pious belief. This is the problem that about 80% of Catholics in Malta still have to recognise, the fact that they actually don't practise their faith, they merely exist within the framework of it without paying attention to what they're actually doing. This annoyed me at that age, and it annoys me no less now.
I believe that religion, from it's very conception, has been created by man to aid in his search for a purpose. If anything, it gives man hope. I am in no way going to disrespect a person for genuinely having faith, if anything, well done for being able to commit to it because I couldn't. As far as I'm concerned, live and let live. As long as you don't cram the fact that I'm going to hell (or whatever cosmic punishment your religion speaks of), then I won't go flailing around calling your beliefs 'horse shit'. I promise.
I am unable to invest myself in any particular faith because, as far as I'm concerned, the big religions have been distorted by generation of the other of blatant human influence. I believe that humans are fundamentally flawed and I'd rather live my life with the burden of my own flaws than claiming that theories changed by years and years of other people's flaws are true.
In essence, any ideal has the potential to be beautiful. I think that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, even Communism, are essentially beautiful ideas. It the way that they've been presented by humans and their images and notions distorted by years of translation and editing that has basically fucked up the lot of them.
I want to agree with Nietzsche and say that "God is dead: of his pity for man hath God died", but I don't think the idea of God is actually dead. It can never be dead as long as man looks for a purpose in life and as long as a higher power can be described as the cause for all we have. Unfortunately, I tend to believe that if there was a higher power, than describing it in human terms is derogatory because it will be beyond our mortal comprehension in any case.
In a nutshell, I do not believe in any organised religion because even if they had an original divine creation, they are now merely human interpretations of the original ideal. Sort of like Plato's thoughts on art being a weak copy of a feeble copy of the ideal. That, in Platonic terms, is religion to me. I will keep living by my own moral compass created by years of thinking, reading and living within a civilised (barely) society and if, after I die, I find out there is a higher power and how I've lived is not good enough for it, then so be it.
Good afternoon, the interwebz.
Why am I not still a Catholic? I was brought up, like the vast majority of people on this island as a Roman Catholic. I practised the faith and I believed in it until I was about 15 years of age when I realised that I was actually practising it out of habit rather than pious belief. This is the problem that about 80% of Catholics in Malta still have to recognise, the fact that they actually don't practise their faith, they merely exist within the framework of it without paying attention to what they're actually doing. This annoyed me at that age, and it annoys me no less now.
I believe that religion, from it's very conception, has been created by man to aid in his search for a purpose. If anything, it gives man hope. I am in no way going to disrespect a person for genuinely having faith, if anything, well done for being able to commit to it because I couldn't. As far as I'm concerned, live and let live. As long as you don't cram the fact that I'm going to hell (or whatever cosmic punishment your religion speaks of), then I won't go flailing around calling your beliefs 'horse shit'. I promise.
I am unable to invest myself in any particular faith because, as far as I'm concerned, the big religions have been distorted by generation of the other of blatant human influence. I believe that humans are fundamentally flawed and I'd rather live my life with the burden of my own flaws than claiming that theories changed by years and years of other people's flaws are true.
In essence, any ideal has the potential to be beautiful. I think that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, even Communism, are essentially beautiful ideas. It the way that they've been presented by humans and their images and notions distorted by years of translation and editing that has basically fucked up the lot of them.
I want to agree with Nietzsche and say that "God is dead: of his pity for man hath God died", but I don't think the idea of God is actually dead. It can never be dead as long as man looks for a purpose in life and as long as a higher power can be described as the cause for all we have. Unfortunately, I tend to believe that if there was a higher power, than describing it in human terms is derogatory because it will be beyond our mortal comprehension in any case.
In a nutshell, I do not believe in any organised religion because even if they had an original divine creation, they are now merely human interpretations of the original ideal. Sort of like Plato's thoughts on art being a weak copy of a feeble copy of the ideal. That, in Platonic terms, is religion to me. I will keep living by my own moral compass created by years of thinking, reading and living within a civilised (barely) society and if, after I die, I find out there is a higher power and how I've lived is not good enough for it, then so be it.
Good afternoon, the interwebz.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
"Write about your dog!" + rant about debate and religion.
While lamenting to a friend about not having updated this blog for a very long time, he just suggests in his usual lacklustre fashion to write about my dog. So rather than responding that I'd like to write about something while maintaining some sort of dignity instead of writing an essay-type post which harks back to when I was five years of age, I said, "ok."
So, my dog. She's cute, white, fluffy and old.
Right, that's enough of that.
This is just an excuse to update this little website because I genuinely feel like a disappointment. Not only because of not updating the blog, mind you, but that's one of the reasons. I've been lacking so much motivation recently. It's like the world has conspired against me in this weird inter-dimensional scheme to make my life a living hell. However, it's quite selfish of me to think that the universe actually cares about my puny existence. It's also silly of me to consider the universe as a sentient entity rather than just a vast amount of space. If I did, I might as well go back to faith rather than reason and nobody wants that now, do they?
Speaking of reason and lack thereof, why can't Maltese television debates ever stick to them? I was watching a show about nudist beaches in Malta which had promising argumentation on the show itself but then the idiots who actually bother to care about what they're seeing started calling in. Oh. My. Sweet. Jesus.
Out of the five people calling; two of them mentioned Adam and Eve as key examples of why we shouldn't be nude because when they realised they were nude, they wanted to cover up for feeling shame. Another one had her own logic where she implied that we're already shunned by the rest of the world for dressing like whores so clearly having nudist beaches will actually turn us into whores. Another one was in favour simply because there are nudist beaches in other European countries. The final one which annoyed me the most said that they were mentioning a lot of morals and ideals without mentioning the root moral compass for Maltese people, the Church. What does the church think about nudist beaches and how can we adhere to dogma?
This irks me because I don't consider a system of faith and its physical establishment (clubhouse) to be considered the morality of the Maltese people. I for one consider myself a Maltese person who merely regards the church as being something there rather than being something which I am a clear part of. I like to think I have my own moral compass, as broken as it seems to be most of the time, and I live in a way which I see morally fitting to today's age as long as I am happy and I don't harm too many people along the line. It's impossible not to hurt a few, unfortunately.
Anyway I've gotten some shit off my chest. I'm guessing this blog is going to go back to the basics where I rant and vent my frustrations before I have the structured and planned things to write like I used to do a while back. Fuck structure, who needs it?
Good afternoon, the interwebz.
So, my dog. She's cute, white, fluffy and old.
Right, that's enough of that.
This is just an excuse to update this little website because I genuinely feel like a disappointment. Not only because of not updating the blog, mind you, but that's one of the reasons. I've been lacking so much motivation recently. It's like the world has conspired against me in this weird inter-dimensional scheme to make my life a living hell. However, it's quite selfish of me to think that the universe actually cares about my puny existence. It's also silly of me to consider the universe as a sentient entity rather than just a vast amount of space. If I did, I might as well go back to faith rather than reason and nobody wants that now, do they?
Speaking of reason and lack thereof, why can't Maltese television debates ever stick to them? I was watching a show about nudist beaches in Malta which had promising argumentation on the show itself but then the idiots who actually bother to care about what they're seeing started calling in. Oh. My. Sweet. Jesus.
Out of the five people calling; two of them mentioned Adam and Eve as key examples of why we shouldn't be nude because when they realised they were nude, they wanted to cover up for feeling shame. Another one had her own logic where she implied that we're already shunned by the rest of the world for dressing like whores so clearly having nudist beaches will actually turn us into whores. Another one was in favour simply because there are nudist beaches in other European countries. The final one which annoyed me the most said that they were mentioning a lot of morals and ideals without mentioning the root moral compass for Maltese people, the Church. What does the church think about nudist beaches and how can we adhere to dogma?
This irks me because I don't consider a system of faith and its physical establishment (clubhouse) to be considered the morality of the Maltese people. I for one consider myself a Maltese person who merely regards the church as being something there rather than being something which I am a clear part of. I like to think I have my own moral compass, as broken as it seems to be most of the time, and I live in a way which I see morally fitting to today's age as long as I am happy and I don't harm too many people along the line. It's impossible not to hurt a few, unfortunately.
Anyway I've gotten some shit off my chest. I'm guessing this blog is going to go back to the basics where I rant and vent my frustrations before I have the structured and planned things to write like I used to do a while back. Fuck structure, who needs it?
Good afternoon, the interwebz.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)