The Desk.

Concerns about my motivation have come up recently from several of you, so I feel I should explain exactly why I do whatever it is I do. First you have to understand that I don't actually do anything, but rather I just talk about it. Much like the Catholic church, I am able to manipulate your perception of the truth only because you let me. We all have a good laugh when I write at someone else's expense because everybody knows nothing I write really has anything to do with anything, and it's just a lot of fun, until of course my pen turns to you, then you seem to forget. This is the only reason I'm able to continue, though, because if you all finally realized the truth, you wouldn't react the way you do and we wouldn't have fun. You see, that's what this is, this is fun, life is a game. Even now, as I reveal to you all what you should already know, you won't believe me. But the question still remains why. What do I stand to gain from this manipulation that I don't get just watching Seinfeld? The answer is nothing. I don't do it for me. Being a minimalist, a man of principle, and a man who truly doesn't give damn, I am not concerned about me. You should try it once, just stop giving a damn about yourself and look at the madness around you. If I cared about me I'd probably try to be a nice guy and make you all like me and try to get something out of you. But as it stands I do all this just for you. Don't you see I'm doing you a service? Yes, I'm an ass, most guys are, but most of them won't let you know that until they've already done their damage. I'm here to show you how we all really are. The difference is I'm honest about it. You may not appreciate me now, but look around. Listen to these girls talk about their jerk boyfriends and jerk exboyfriends and jerk flings and jerk every other guy they know, and just watch it unfold before you that Watson was right. I'm trying to save you that trouble by just showing you the truth in the only way I know how. Because I can say all I want about how relationships and courtship and all this doesn't make any damn sense and nobody listens to me. And that's when people get hurt. So I have to manipulate the truth and the situation in order to get you to see what really goes on. So when the jerk happens to you, whenever that is, you'll know that Watson was right. Watson was right about everything.

An addendum to the last, and a general statement of fact.

Sometimes the truth surpasses all need for anything else; sometimes the truth is irrelevant and unrelated to what's really important.

Here's an update on a previous post you'll all recognize, but I've changed who goes with each number and letter, as to recreate the original anonymity and fun of figuring out who each one is.

I need 1 more than I would willingly admit to ever having needed anyone before, as I have gone to great lengths to avoid dealing with 2, and she's about the only one I have for what I need to do. A's one of the funniest, though. He's got it bad for 2 but won't admit it because he's involved with 5 (yes, I skipped 3 and 4, I've got my reasons, I'll get back to that bit.), but I see it when he sees me with 2. What's really weird is that 5 wants a peice of B, but that doormat gets walked on by 2, 6,me, everybody really, like I've never seen, but not nearly to the extent that he does by 7. 7 will likely stab the others in a fit of jealous rage, despite the fact none of them have the interest in B like 5 has. And of course 6 has all that business with C that nobody really wants to hear about but can't stop talking about. I swear C's got at least three of them in the palm of his hand.

Anyway, back to the sequence. 3 hasn't changed at all except in having grown increasingly creepy, and I've made it my business to make this fact widely known, as to protect those who still willingly come into social contact with 3. 4 is of particular concern in this, as she seems to be the only one left unaware of the full extent of creepy in 3. But 4 has other qualities with which I am concerned, namely her fear. Yes, the fear must be conquered, then 4 will be free of herself. 8 I don't get, but that bit was funny, with the flip-flop that happened there, or that she claims happeed there. You can't do that, I know everything. D has become more interesting, having spent an increasing amount of alone time with 9, which, as 2 described, would be cute, but kind of creepy if you thought about it too much. E seems to be running the gamot, hosting both 3 and 10 on different occasions, as well as holding most of our intertainment activities in his charge. 11's gotten weirder since F stopped whatever that was, I was never sure, but he still hangs around, just not with her. He helps me educate B. And of course G's the same old same old, but we're on our way to getting that dealt with and eliminated. But I'm excited about a couple of new projects. Like whenever we go to 5's place, I chill with 12, and 12 chills with me, while I still incite the talk of me and 2. Another is 13, who I just recently met, but have the fortune of her having heard the stories of me. I put it in 2's as well as 4's charge to bring her to me, but something's making me think she too may be putting it in their charge to bring her here.

So then, a much bigger scale than the last, so that means more people involved and more fun. Have at it, you lot.

Robert Bellah's neo-evolutionary theory on the academic study of religion developed in response to Malinowski's functionalist criticism of Tylor and the Social Darwinists' developmental approach is fundamentally flawed. His system of religious classification attempts to account for the development and change in religion and society over time, as in Tylor's original approach, while adjusting for the flaws in Tylor pointed out by Malinowski such as its inaccuracy and inherent ethnocentrism. This is good; it is the job of thinkers to revise and correct each other and develop new ways of thinking such that we can understand the world.

I just don't like what Bellah did specifically to classify and explain the phenomenon of religion. He attempts to define religion in terms of four catagories: primal, archaic, classical, and modern. His first problem is in the terminology itself, wherein his loaded titles imply much of the same ethnocentrism he tried to eliminate, and the use of time-frame specific terms like modern and archaic is not effective when attempting to define such a timeless and universal phenomenon as religion. That can be easily revised by simply changing the terms, but his system is flawed much more deeply. His approach seems to be from the perspective of someone studying the history of religious practice rather than the concept of religion itself. In this sense his catagories are fine, and indeed useful in exploring religious history and history in general, but they are too specific to existing religious traditions that they do not allow for the explaination of the many possible ways of thinking and experiencing the world through what we define as religion. It is as if he took the several religions and types of religious schools with which he was familiar and created his little boxes to suit those, rather than defining first the idea of what a religion can be, and attempting to catagorize and use existing religions as evidence for that concept.

I much prefer Malinowski's functional approach, in which he defines religion, science, and other, more primitive worldviews like the practice of magic and superstition based on their function in a society. He explains that these can and have to coexist, rather than take the place of each other as a society advances and develops, as it was explained by Tylor and Bellah. Each has a function and a purpose in the lives of the people, and serves to answer certain questions and problems that another cannot, in the same society. Malinowski was not concerned with the origins and developmental evolution of religion over time as the others were, and focused simply on individual religious practices to determine the broader purpose and indeed meaning of religion itself.

Another in the favorite style, but in personal address.

Friend, I talk a lot of crap on the desk and aloud about almost everybody I know, sometimes in legitimate criticism, more often in jest, but I don't recall myself or anyone else having anything but praise for you. So I see no reason for you to allow the ensuing act that has been proposed. If you value my humble opinion, which you surely don't, you can't let them do this to you. You're above it. Am I the only one who sees that? As a man of discerning taste, I'd like to think that I'm not the only one who sees what I do when I look at you. You said something last night that I never want to hear from you again. Because it's not true. You are worth every fair thought and more. I want you to see how much you bring to this house, and the last thing I want is to take that away. But that's what they're trying to do to you, every one of them. I want you to see that I've never forced you into anything you didn't openly agree to, and that it's because you have a sense of propriety that I respect. You have a power and a presence that is impossible to ignore, but more than that you have something few people here possess: class. Now I want you to own it. You've got the beauty and the strength of character to make this yours if you rise to it. You don't need them and you don't need their help, in fact I think they would destroy you. So I want you to take a good look, and if you can't tell me why you're above and beyond their pettiness, then I'll tell you. And I'll do it until you admit that I'm right. And if your roommate didn't scare the hell out of me I might be through there more often, but you know my door is always open if you feel like hearing the truth.

Based on my experience, people born in New Jersey never advance past Piaget's Pre-operational stage of cognitive development. This stage is experienced between the ages of two and seven years in normal children, or the entire lifespan of a New Jersey native, and is characterized by the lack of concrete logical thinking. They are able to understand symbols and language, and develop a vivid imagination, but don't have the capacity to understand the application of logic. Their language skills are diminished, and they can speak in intelligible, but not grammatically correct strings of words. They can use predicates, nominatives, and direct objects, but articles, adverbs, and other more complicated sentence stuctures are lost on them. They also don't have the capacity for delayed gratification, that is to say that they don't understand when something will happen if it isn't happening now. So they can't plan ahead or understand the logic of getting work done now to have the future without that work to do. But I think the most significant characteristic of this stage of development or the person from Jersey is the appearance of egocentric thinking. Erikson's series of psychosocial stages of development places people in this age group in the "autonomy vs. doubt" conflict. They are beginning to develop a sense of self as a seperate intity from their caregiver, and this makes them very egocentric, but still dependent on the caregiver. They don't understand that other people also have needs, and only consider themselves and their needs when making decisions. They expect to do whatever they want, and now, and they expect to have their caregiver or whoever else to cater to that expectation. This behavior isn't a bad thing, in fact it's quite normal in everyone's development, and it stems simply from the toddler's or the Jersey native's limited mental development.

Now I bet you're wondering what any of this has to do specifically with people from Jersey. My only response is "Have you met anybody from Jersey?" If you have I'm sure you'll see the similarities between your friend from Jersey and a two year old.

There's a difference between a disregard for public opinion and ignorance of it. It is acceptable and indeed positive to act contrarily or at least differently from the accepted "norm." This is the catalyst for social change, reform, or just amusement, and is done with full knowledge that you're doing something abnormal. People of status can make powerful statements by stepping outside of the box because it makes people think. Indeed many people of status got there because they didn't care what everybody else thought. But when the same act is done out of ignorance of what is normal rather than the ability to transcend it, then it's just wrong. The primary difference is that the people who act strangely knowingly don't have to be strange; they can function normally when called upon, and can adapt their behavior to suit the accepted etiquette of a given circumstance. Those who are ignorant cannot because they just don't know what is normal or how to do it, despite the fact that they see the rest of us do it all the time. They often can't learn from social mistakes, or read other people's behavior towards them or each other and take their cue from that, as normal children do when they are learning how they are supposed to behave. Most significantly, though, is that they are not aware that their behavior isn't normal. This inability to function normally or adapt to various social situations is a halmark of mental illness and lack of proper socialization and upbringing. Children in any society are taught that society's accepted range of normal behaviors, and to reach a certain age and maintain the inability to stay within or even comprehend said normality should tell you that that person is not right. Simply put, it is impossible to reach this age and not know how to act unless there's something seriously wrong with you.

And yes, this is about you, and yes, I am calling you out. So start proving me wrong or you're getting cut off. Of course because this is about you, and what I've said about ignorance does apply to you, you're obviously not going to figure out this is about you. So you're just getting cut off. No discussion.

It seems I have been challenged, and I must now address Pascal's Wager. The wager, if you are unfamiliar with it, is between an atheist and a theist, regarding what they each stand to lose should they be proven wrong. The theist declares himself the winner, stating that he stands to lose nothing if it should turn out there is no god, where the atheist stands to spend eternity in Hell. The problem of course, is that apparently no atheist was around to proofread for Mr. Pascal. Indeed your life may be satisfactory, and you may spend it in pleasant idealism, and if you're wrong about god, you have lost nothing. Except the truth. And freedom. Go ahead and think whatever you want; I've got something better. While you're wasting away concerning yourself with whether you have enough brownie points to appease your god, I'll be living. Christianity is especially concerned with the afterlife, even moreso than many other theistic belief systems, and so I find it very negative. I'm a positive person, and I prefer the idea that we ought to concer ourselves with life. Death is death and it happens, but what really matters is life. It's a quest and an adventure and when I get to the end, I will have rather spent it living. I might figure it all out by that time, and if I do at least I'll know I'm right, and not have closed the door too early on the quest for truth. To borrow from Thoreau, "I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, and not when I came to die, discover that I had not lived."

Between being back in the dorm with all the fun and taking history, anthropology, developmental psych, and religion, you can expect a lot more updates and a lot better updates. That said, let's get this party started with the kind of update everybody loves who knows the context.

Since the boy moved into the office it's become the place to be for both my groups and his. I was kicked out of his a while back but now they're working their way in here and it's hard to avoid unless I just leave, which looks bad. But mostly there's been one in here that I was never able to stand. She too, was never a fan of mine. I don't know about her (but I got the feeling), but I always made it a point to avoid her. She knows this, I know this, but it's never been discussed. Now she comes in here with the loud one to watch TV and play with the boy. She's the type that can't stop talking about things she doesn't want to talk about, but usually she doesn't do that in here, which is nice. She has for several days not been deathly ill, which is unusual, and I've actually had what would resemble a civil conversation with her on several occasions. I did what I always do when I'm trying to make somebody not hate me - bite my lip and pretend to have something in common with the simpleton. It seems our mutual parody at the expense of the boy was the only way. Anything else I might say is off limits; only if I'm making fun of the boy can I talk to her. Of course, that's the only reason I would ever have to talk her, as I don't want to hear anything else from her either. So I've killed several birds here - found a way to communicate with a new and richer subject, got on my way to having her not hate, got on my way to not hating her, and of course found a receptive outlet for making fun of someone. The only way this might turn ugly is if she starts thinking I'm her friend, which I don't forsee. I think she'll agree that the optimal stopping point for this relationship is that of well-wishers, in that we won't wish each other any specific harm.

2004: A Top Ten
(because I don't know a better way to do this)

10. The Music
I needed my tunes this year, just to get past my mother's nagging and all the stress. I listened to a lot of music and established a distinct musical identity for myself based on good music, rather than what MTV wants me to think is good music.

9. The Kids
I took charge of the children this year in scouts and established a name for myself as an educator and entertainer, two of the most imprtant things to be in my intended profession.

8. The Website
Made the Office, as you know, and it really helped me see who I am. When I decided to make a website and was looking for a topic, only one thing came to mind. That one thing means I've got an identity, I've got a "thing," I'm finally that guy, instead of just a guy. Thanks to my new website, I was able to open the door to self-realization.

7. Graduation
Finally got the hell out of that damn florescent prison, and that's enough to make the whole four years worth it.

6. Improv
WestFo Prov was where I finally found my place in high school, after trying wrestling, cross-country, track, soccer, science club....... Anyway, Improv, not Theatre at large, defined my high school career. I was only there a short time but they soon made me their cheif, and now I'm climbing the ranks and am in line to inherit the throne of Improv at UNCW as well.

5. The Game
I've been laughing at the rest of you all my life, but this was the year I took action, and made other people's personal lives truly hilarious. Indeed 2004 brought the comedy back to romance.

4. Eagle
This represents everything I've worked for all my life, and not having achieved this distinction would not have been tolerated. I've lived Eagle for years, but none moreso than in 2004.

3. The Blog
Started the blog this year and it naturally follows every step of the way through the year. Although I stayed away from chronological accounts of my actual life, the blog really does represent what I did this year, and I finally got educated regarding politics thanks to people with whom I disagree.

2. Philmont
Philmont is it, that's all there is to it. Didn't get a job, didn't work at Broadstone again, no, I dropped everything just to walk through the desert all summer. Because it's Philmont.

1. College
This is the one thing this year that was truly something new. Starting college is ultimately what really defined the year, and I'm pretty sure I done it pretty good, both socially and academically.