Embarrassing appearances – knocks in your programming

TUESDAY, 16 NOVEMBER 2004

Embarrassing appearances

I felt slightly embarrassed about my appearance today at the school for adults. It was all about my clothing: old, worn-out belt, and a cheap-looking short-sleeved shirt.

This is another issue than can be debated until your belt finally rots off your waist, but it won’t take away a basic truth, namely that if you are embarrassed about how you appear, for whatever superficial reason, it just nips that edge off your confidence. The opposite is also true: if you feel good about your outward appearance, for whatever superficial reason, it just gives you that extra boost in confidence.

In light of these remarkable insights, what should I do? I need to buy myself a new belt tomorrow; I need to check out a few shirts, and I have to reattach the button on my green trousers.

FRIDAY, 26 NOVEMBER 2004

To accept the knocks in your programming, or not

The life experiences that give you psychological knocks form part of your “programming” that determines how you function as an adult. For example, certain experiences in my past resulted in a pathological unwillingness to work for characters who yell orders at me. I know where this reluctance comes from, and I definitely classify it as a knock. It also contributes to the particular programming that determines how “Brand Smit” functions.

Now for the really interesting point: this so-called programming can be changed through therapy.

What does this mean? It means I can go to a psychologist, and after a few months of hard work I will probably be able to accept a good job opportunity in a corporate environment where a moronic higher-up not worthy of my respect can scream at me, and it shouldn’t bother me.

______________________

Never too early for heretical thoughts

FRIDAY, 26 NOVEMBER 2004

08:28

The problem with religion as identity determinant is that it has to remain constant to maintain credibility in the eyes of the people to whom it grants a religious identity. But in order to remain a relevant determinant of identity, the source of religious symbols (religious texts, institutions like “church”) may have to change – in small increments, but still to such an extent that the source today will be fundamentally different from the source of 500 or 1,000 years ago.

What happens then when someone who employs a particular religion for purpose of identity acquires knowledge and a critical understanding of this fundamental shift? One possibility is that such a person would develop a condition that can be called a crisis of faith.

* * *

Since I have just gotten up and haven’t even had breakfast yet, one may be wondering whether it is a bit early for ideas such as the above. My answer is … apparently not – not if one receives the thought, formulation and all, in your final dream before waking up!

The dream played out at a dinner table with people with whom I did urban missionary work more than a decade ago as well as other contemporaries from high school. While we were eating – in the dining room of the early twentieth-century mansion that served as the headquarters of the organisation, there was one hell of a party going on in the garden. As I was about to take another bite of one of the delicious dishes on my plate, the thought struck …

08:39

People with whom I had had close relationships at that time may say that I have betrayed my religious identity. I am of the opinion that I have outgrown my religious identity.

Someone may respond with calm conviction that one cannot outgrow the truth. I will, equally serene, respond: “I am still committed to knowing the truth. And I don’t need an institutionally-defined identity to know the truth or to pursue it.”

———————

[In many cases, leaders of religious movements claim that they are not changing their religion, they are simply reverting to an earlier, purer form. This explanation ensures that the religion retains credibility as identity determinant, and it also justifies the changes they make to the practical expression of adherence to the religion, or even to aspects of theology, for the very purpose of keeping it relevant to people with different religious needs than people 500 or 1,000 years ago.]

______________________

Document 1_181104_2359

THURSDAY, 18 NOVEMBER 2004

The Secretary is tired of making notes, and he’s tired of revising text written months or years ago. The Secretary is physically tired, and he wants to go to bed, even though it’s only 23:38. Twenty-three … thirty-eight?! Appearance and truth. Identity, and men who are not allowed to grow beards because the hair will get stuck in their cellular phones when they discuss business with other people who work in offices. People are emotionally indigent because they never learned how to be on their own. The facts, at 23:40 (colon) I have two hands, ten fingers, a keyboard under my fingers linked to a computer that is connected to an electric current that is embedded in the wall. I press my fingers down on the keys, and the result is an expression of my reality at 23:41. I am aware that I am not the keyboard. Or maybe I am, but I was raised with the idea that I am not a keyboard. (Then again, I was not a keyboard ten years ago. As I understand it, constancy is an essential element in the consciousness of “I”. It can, therefore, be argued that because I was not a keyboard ten years ago I cannot be a keyboard now … although this kind of logic cannot be used if I were not, say, a dentist ten years ago.) I consist of flesh, skin, bones, and blood. I know about the flesh because I once cut myself (accidentally, not as an experiment) and saw that my flesh is similar to that of other animals whose flesh I eat as meat. I know from the same cutting that blood runs under my skin. I’ve never seen my own skeleton, but I’ve heard how people who know about these things, talk about it. I’ve also seen pictures of bones that had belonged to people who may have previously also sat behind keyboards or notebooks, but who have since lost their flesh and skin. If I caress my skin, I feel something hard under the surface. I guess what I’m feeling on such an occasion is indeed my own personal skeleton. Although I’ve also never seen my own brain, I have confidence in the accuracy of the pictures and texts produced by people who have apparently done research on this topic, and who have indisputably proven that (most) people have a brain. I am also aware of the fact that I was smaller at an earlier stage of my life. If I think about it, I can remember that I was as young as three or four at one point in my life, holding my mother’s hand during a carousel ride. I also know that I have had this particular memory in the past. If, on the other hand, I have been old, I cannot remember anything about it. It may also be that what I am referring to as “I” (with the help of the keyboard under my fingers) have previously existed – and by previously I mean before I became this man who is now sitting behind a computer’s keyboard at 23:55, and who knows, or believes, that he was once much smaller, holding his mother’s hand in a dark tunnel during a carousel ride.

The Secretary scratches his neck (which itches only a little bit, but he enjoys the sensation of feeling something, and to know, as a result, that he is alive). He looks at the fingers that cause the pleasant sensation. He sees the neatly clipped nails. He also sees oily stains on his right thumb, and bits of oil under his right hand’s nails. The reason for this – he knows because his brain stored the memories along with all the memories of events of what he calls “yesterday”, and all the days that preceded “yesterday” back to a few years before he had held his mother’s hand during the carousel ride (although he does not remember much of his current life before that particular ride) – has to do with the fact that the old man who has a monopoly on bicycle repairs in the neighbourhood was asleep late this afternoon when the Secretary pushed his friend’s blue bicycle of which the tyre had become flat overnight to the old man’s workshop to pay the latter money to replace the inner tube. The Secretary, after he politely conversed in Chinese with the old man’s impolite wife or daughter at the entrance to their house, then pushed his friend’s bicycle that she had left with him two years ago and which he has now been using for about seven months, back to his apartment, parked the bicycle against the wall under the living room window of the other old man who is always watching TV and who sometimes loudly shuts his living room window when he hears the Secretary returning from town, walked up the stairs, took his keys from the Seven Eleven plastic bag, unlocked the door, kicked his sandals off, and fetched his box with tools in the kitchen in order to change the flat tyre with one he knew he could get from the rear wheel with the broken spokes on his yellow bicycle – which he would have preferred if the spokes were not broken – that was standing in the spare room together with the other possessions his friend had left with him after leaving the country two years ago. In other words, he knows where the seven oil stains come from on four of his right hand’s fingertips. From the bicycle. Which made him happy – that he fixed the bike. The yellow one. His own bike. He took the blue bicycle’s wheel, the yellow bicycle’s inner tube, and also the yellow bicycle’s tire (which he prefers because it’s rougher), put it all together and then he did not put the wheel back on the blue bike as he had initially thought he would, but on the yellow bike – which he then rode to the English conversation class to earn another R169.81. He thought to himself, one should create things, or at least fix things because it is closer to the true nature of a human being. So he thought someone will one day say: “He, the famous Scribbler-down of Ideas and Insights once said …” But then he interrupted himself, and he thought: There are writers, poets, essayists, playwrights, novelists, columnists, but I’m not really one of them. I’m a Notist, or a Notisist … no, a Notist. The he wrote it down in his notebook that is always lying open on the antique cabinet: A Notist. Then he walked into the kitchen, took a cigarette from one of the four packets lying on the sink, lit one, and thought: He, the famous Notist of Ideas and Insights – or, the Secretary! – said it was not part of human nature to do much of the work that people do, but it is also true that eighty percent of the people who fill these labour positions, make life easier for people like him because they do the work they do. He also wondered whether one could say “human nature”. Then he thought that both Charles Manson and Mohandas Gandhi had eyes, and that these eyes served exactly the same purpose. Their eyes did see different things in different countries and at different times, though. It is also true that they decided … or maybe they did not decide because it was not in the first place their choice to be born as Charles Manson or Mohandas Gandhi, but since you still have free will and so on, one can say that they chose to see different things with eyes that nonetheless had exactly the same function and mostly (except perhaps for pigment) the same design. He also thought it was ironic, considering a few things, that Charles Manson’s chosen profession was that of “musician” while Mohandas Gandhi was a “lawyer”. Yet he believes that not only were they both born with the same design in eyes, but also with the same human nature – which according to him determines that a human being’s true role and function are that of Creator, and not Office Worker. On the way back from town, on his yellow bicycle with tightly inflated tires, and the Seven Eleven bag now loaded with a box of Korean fermented cabbage, soup with noodles and two hamburger patties, a plastic glass full of papaya milk and a plastic glass full of green tea, the Secretary continued. He thought, people who perform administrative duties, or any other tedious work that requires no imagination actually make a sacrifice so that the rest of us do not have to agonise over the management of companies and institutions and government agencies. However, if one could automate the repetitive work people do in order to get money for food and clothing but also for other junk they don’t really need but which they buy to feel better about themselves, and let’s say, dismiss fifty percent of this workforce … it will adversely affect the economy, of course. It is certainly true that you end up in twisted alleys if you want to change how things work. If one could then maybe take this workforce of people who do mundane, non-service, non-creative work and re-employ them in positions where they manufacture something, but not in the sense of assembly line labour circa 1925 in a Ford automobile plant … you end up in another alley, namely that it will have a negative impact on their status in the community and their view of themselves. The reason? The dominant culture of the day gives higher ranking to so-called white collar workers performing soul-destroying tasks in offices than to people who produce things with their hands. People should indeed be re-educated! Most people do not understand complex questions about human nature and the true purpose of human life. Most people also don’t question the skewed culture where people are given higher status, and in many cases more money if they don’t have to dirty their hands. The Secretary understands the historical background of this development in the evolution of human beings as labourers, but he cannot understand why more people don’t get seriously upset about this culture! Then again, he can understand this as well because most people reckon if they can provide in their own needs, if they can find a partner with whom they can start a family and if they can continue with what they have been taught is a “good life”, then all is well, and questions about human nature and the true purpose of human life are then largely unnecessary. Or, in case these questions are still deemed valuable, it is nevertheless considered sufficient to uncritically recite statements made about these matters by someone like the local pastor or priest. In addition to these ideas, the Secretary is of the opinion that all men ought to have the right to grow a beard; that they should not be told what to do with their facial hair by their supposedly higher officers in the company, organisation or business where they earn money. And regarding women who complain about beards that get in the way when it comes to kissing or that their men look unkempt with a beard, the Secretary is undoubtedly old-school. “Since when are men willing to give up their ancient right to grow a beard just because their women forbid them, or tell them they look silly? What’s the world coming to?!” the secretary will say. Not that he is angry with women and taking men’s side. Most men annoy him. Well, most women do, too. But women (especially the two who sell tea in the main street) have the unfair ability to manipulate men just by being who they are. Men are weak. Women, too. And if women don’t want to shave their leg hair or their armpits, it is their right. If the Secretary does partner up with a woman one day, he won’t mind her hairy legs or her hairy armpits, as long as she does not complain about his beard when she kisses him. (It is true that the world will most probably go under initially if the Secretary were to be the boss, but it will only be for the first few decades.) He has also come to the understanding that women look for certain things in a man, and if he does not have these things by the age of 25, she will give him the benefit of the doubt in the belief that he will have these things within a few years. However, if a man is already 33 and he still does not have a house and a car and credit cards and check books and expensive shoes, then she reckons this is how it will be for the rest of his life. It matters less now than a year or two ago because although women still drive him crazy, he recovers his sanity much faster nowadays. Women have exceptional anatomy. What he is searching for, however, is an extraordinary woman. And extraordinary women, like extraordinary men, are as rare as an administrative position that requires creativity.

It is now 01:25. The Secretary is exhausted. He wants to go to bed because it’s late, and because he’s falling asleep behind his computer.

DOCUMENT 1_181104_2359

Charles Manson had a beard. Gandhi didn’t. Manson was a musician. Gandhi was a lawyer. Manson killed many people, or at least inspired other people to go on a killing spree. Gandhi inspired millions to do good things. I’m dead tired now.

____________________

The sins of the SOURCE are paid a visit …

TUESDAY, 16 NOVEMBER 2004

People receive the information that gives them an initial indication of who and what they are or who and what they are supposed to be – the building blocks with which identity is constructed – from a SOURCE, or rather several “agents” of a SOURCE.

My question: What if the SOURCE is flawed for a variety of reasons, or if it is spoiled? (What would it mean to call a source spoiled?)

Also, what is the purpose of the SOURCE? Is it not to enable the person to function in a particular place and at a particular time? Then the SOURCE should be evaluated according to this purpose, right?

When is a SOURCE spoiled? How many people’s programming and functioning must be flawed to a large extent because of the SOURCE before the SOURCE can be labelled as fatally spoiled?

If a primary objective of the SOURCE is to enable people to develop a good idea of who and what they are and to make functioning possible, what is the primary purpose of human existence? To establish identity and to function successfully? What is “successful functioning”? Survival? I don’t think so.

I believe if the SOURCE is spoiled, it reduces the likelihood that people will realise their true goals. A SOURCE that is spoiled is like cancer that must be identified and removed from the body to give it a chance to survive.

[In the last paragraph I allowed a reference to “true purpose” to slip through. Is there such a thing? Is it furthermore possible that a “spoiled SOURCE” can still lead to a good life that serves a good purpose, precisely because of the life journey on which a person was thrust by the “spoiled SOURCE”?]

______________________

Truth and vocabulary

SATURDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 2004

Truth and vocabulary (I)

Who are you if who you are in response to your surroundings and who you are in order to function successfully at a particular time and in a particular environment are not the full “story”? What then, in that sense of the word, is your full story? And how much better and more complete would your answer be if you were fluent in a thousand languages?

SUNDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2004

Truth and vocabulary (II)

Fact is, 5000 years ago our ancestors possessed a vocabulary of, say, roughly 5000 words with which to express the experience of their reality, and their awareness-of-self. Their expressions of “truth” were therefore also limited to more or less 5000 words.

These days we enjoy the benefit of say, ten to roughly 60,000 words with which to express the reality or realities that we encounter, as well as our awareness-of-self – more verbs, adverbs, adjectives, phrases, and so forth. Our “truths”, including our religious beliefs can therefore also be worded in more detail and in more subtle nuances.

One does wonder, how would it have affected an individual’s experience of reality if he or she were the speaker of a language that contained a million words, and if he or she knew and could use with ease ten or twenty times more words than the average educated person who walks the streets of a present-day city?

Fact is: “god” is a word. So are “human” and “soul” and “self” and “life” and “death”. What lies behind these words, which cannot (currently) be expressed in words?

[The website, King James Bible Online, indicates that there are almost 15,000 unique words in the Bible. According to Wikipedia The Oxford English Dictionary lists over 250,000 unique words, excluding many technical, scientific and slang terms.]

______________________