Religion & Philosophy
In the early 1990’s a film was released to eventually gain a cult following, especially amongst detached, disaffected teenagers of the time.
That movie was ‘Pump Up The Volume’, the story of a teenager trapped in the banality, mediocrity and monotony of life in suburban USA, rebelling against his parents, school and ‘the system’ . This was all done under the alias of ‘Happy Harry Hard-on’, a pirate DJ and, as we see throughout the course of the film, more the protagonists true persona than the meek, misunderstood teen we see in public.
The premise of the story was simple enough, but it’s timing unfortunate, catching the end of the ham-radio pirate DJ wave of uncensored free speech and shock jocks. It also arrived at the same time as the first common vestiges of the internet… now the vehicle for most amateur reporting, dissemination of (mis)information and ‘free speech’.
And now it’s Australia’s turn to fall under the boot of censorship.
One of the recurring themes in western literature is that of the creation rebelling against the creator.
Probably the most famous of these would be Mary Shelleys ‘Frankenstein’, but it is by no means alone… and nor was it the first. And it got me to thinking about where this all started.
A series of events has transpired that leaves me questioning how I view the world and whether or not I see it for what it is… or if I view it through a set of rose coloured coke bottle lenses.
As the saying goes, “Pride goeth before a fall” and over the years I’ve always prided myself on being an objective person. However, objectivity doesn’t always serve ones best interests, especially in matters of the heart. It tends to leave you dispassionate and detached, and this is hardly conducive to an emotional involvement. In point of fact, the common tag that others label a person like that is ‘cold’.
Ironically, I’m objective enough to see how valid that point of view is, even though in my case I disagree with it.
Lately, I’ve been somewhat disconnected and detached from the world. The interesting thing about being in this situation is that it gives you clarity in observing the world around you… a real sense of KNOWING.
Unfortunately it has the side effect of requiring a lot of effort to feign the social niceties when you lack the will, desire or inclination to factor other peoples feelings into your words and actions. And it’s not so much a lack of empathy, you tend to recognize how others feel and stuff… you just lack the motivation and drive to care.
It is, in many ways, worse than truly having no empathy… because eventually your emotions catch up and hit you like a 2×4 to the back of the head.
And so here I find myself, looking at my life and trying to balance objectivity with emotion in a way that minimizes the collateral damage.
If only I could get to minimum safe distance.
How do you go about proving something?
Well, in the case of something that has happened, it’s simple… evidence. Direct observation, secondary factors that only exist in the presence of a specific event, surveillance, intelligence and any number of factors.
Essentially, to prove something, we look for that big ticket “slam dunk” item that irrefutably determines, one way or another, the truth of a situation.
But what if that item, that piece of evidence, doesn’t exist? What if the evidence is purely circumstantial?
What if we are trying to prove that something didn’t happen?
This one’s a short one… since it’s late, I gotta be up early, and to be perfectly frank… the brain clutch keeps slipping as I try get out of first and into second.
Anyway… I was kicking back last night watching Supernatural, and when seeing how much these characters go through, for little or no thanks, I found myself asking “How much can one person lose before they snap?”. Read the rest of this entry »