Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Entertain the Entertainer.

What do people actually do in their spare time. I draw. Basically. I sit and draw all day, hence I don't have the time to do other things. Like. Have a social life. I was talking to Buxton and he's like "Why don't you watch HIMYM" to which I reply, "Because I don't have time."

Redundancy check.

Unless the task is productive, say, you're learning to do something skilful, or creating something, like food for instance, then that I would deem appropriate, but I don't get watching television series and I'm going to say reading, despite most people instantly disagreeing from this point onwards, but all it seems so unproductive. Unless it's in between, like your spare time's spare time. That's understandable. But if all they do is sit around watching and reading purely for the sake of 'taking up time' for their life's events to advance, then why? How much more could you be achieving if you actually did stuff like learn to play an instrument, increase your culinary skills or even make money somehow.
May all this because prosperity is ingrained into the Chinese part of my brain, but I don't even feel like I have ENOUGH time despite my devoting pretty much all of it to drawing. Then you get all these people who claim they have nothing to do, but only this because they're incapable of coherently differentiating time 'using' from time 'wasting'.

This point of view follows in to how drugs and alcohol are useless because all they do is remove the acknowledgeable state of mind, hence preventing people from moving forward in their lives. Even if it's for a day, what's the point? If your definition of 'fun' derives from being completely useless to the rest of humanity temporarily, then good for you. We might as well replace you with a loped off penis, and it would probably do a more productive job in its decomposing to feed the bacteria and flies overhead.

I may have touched on this before with my altruism rant last month, but again:
Nothing matters. If you were to kill a million people, nothing physical would change. Eventually, they'd seep back into the ground and disappear forever. The only thing that would actually change is the human perception of the event. The partner of one of the dead would mourn perhaps, does that change anything? It doesn't, but it's the only thing that people can be guaranteed that is actually changeable because they experience it first hand. If there were no human or animal or even living organism to acknowledge the existence of the Earth, then how could it exist. If you were to give a conscious though an image of Earth from space, they would perceive it as that and nothing more, and nothing less. Even if they planet was to turn into a diamond shape, it would go unknowingly so because that consciousness will only ever see Earth as a sphere.

Then again, I could have just summed all of that up with "Tree in the forest falls, if no one is around to hear it, did it fall at all?"


Deevan said...


ishraq said...

If I comment on this blog and noone reads it, have I made the comment at all?

Yes I have, that's just stupid.

ishraq said...

Basically what I'm saying is that the reality of many things transcend human (or other beings') perception of those things. One of the main purposes of science is to acknowledge and remedy the untrustworthiness of human perception.

Kuoke said...

It does exist because you as a conscious entity have created it and in doing so you have acknowledged its being.

Even if science were to prove some 'theories' and ideas, what would it matter if there was no one there to acknowledge it? If there was some sort of rock that allowed you to travel through time, what does it matter how it does so using science if no one is there to use it in the first place.