stopping to think

Okay. Okay okay. So there's a lot of stuff going on in my life right now--end of the semester for one--but I think maybe what's more important to address is what's going on outside my own protective bubble. Today there was a bombing at the Boston marathon. Three were killed and well over a hundred were injured.

I can't even imagine what would motivate something like this.

When I first saw this on Facebook I can't say that I was surprised. Not because I expected an event specifically like what happened, today, or in Boston, but just because it seems like horrible things happen all the time. Just think. Colorado movie theater shooting, Newtown, and others that I can't remember (or maybe didn't even hear about at the time). But does that lessen how terrible these events are? I would hope not, but yet I think often it does.

I am the first to admit that I get caught up, quite easily, in my life and all of my own needs. At college I think it's especially easy to do that, and with my busy class schedule, I hardly have time to do the things that I want to do, let alone to do other things that I should do but haven't prioritized. Like reading the news. That would definitely be a good thing to do. But back to the Boston marathon bombing. When I first saw it on Facebook (of course) I essentially disregarded it. And that's what bothers me. I didn't even think about it, even to think about my friends who are living in Boston.

Shouldn't I be able to recognize when something big has happened? Do several people have to tell me about it in order for my mind to recognize that this is something important that I should be aware of? It's tough because there is always stuff going on in life; the question is whether or not we allow ourselves to become too busy to stop and reflect.

I am the first to admit that I take way too much for granted: of course my family loves me, because they always have. Of course I can go without eating veggies, because I'm strong without them. Of course I can walk home when it's late and dark, because who'd rape me? Of course I can go to a third world country all by myself, because who's to stop me? Of course there's a life after death, because it wouldn't make any sense otherwise. I take my health, my education, my opportunities, my family, my faith, and so much more for granted but it's realizations like these and life itself pressing forward that makes me realize that what I have right now will not last forever, and also that other people often are not as fortunate as me.

I actually was thinking about this earlier when I was reading up on Nepal. The average per capita income last year was $625, which was higher than it has been in the past. Six hundred and twenty five dollars. Yes, it is a whole different world over there but I simply cannot even imagine living on that little. I barely even work and I make more than that in three months. So often it's easy to get caught up in the intense political fire that is prevalent in America and forget all of the really great things that we have here.

Dang these kids are cute.

It also makes me think that perhaps I'm not spending my money in the right ways. Who am I to throw around thousands of dollars on travelling the world when it would take other people many, many years to just earn that much money, let alone actually save it up? Sometimes my classes make me overconfident, making me think that I actually know something of some importance, when in reality some of the most important things are ones that book learning can't teach me, and to which the answers to can never be found.

Anyway, just some food for thought.

to be a hero

Man, it's been a while since I've been posted. I just get so caught up in my routines sometimes that I guess I forget to think about things outside of the upcoming test, or the paper or homework that's due the next day. I also sometimes forget how to give myself a break: to just sit down and read a book, or to write a post without being rushed. But really it's my fault; I heaped all this work upon me which causes almost everything else to fade into the background.

Anyway, last Wednesday I went the art exhibit "We Could Be Heroes" at the BYU MOA (yes, BYU does love acronyms). Although in my art history class I've been having a tough time trying to understand what an art work is trying to communicate, this art exhibit along with some of the comments which were made really got me thinking. Even if you're not an art person (like me), I would definitely recommend going to an art museum (even if it's not the MOA) and taking the time to go through one exhibit really slowly, trying to understand what the artist is trying to say and how it's applicable to you. After all, isn't that the purpose of art?

Okay. So about them heroes....

Yoram Wolberger

I think as people we have a tendency to look at the accomplishments of people and generalize those accomplishments in order to say something conclusive about that person. We take those accomplishments to be a microcosm of the person as a whole, even though we know that that is simply not true. Let me explain. As a totally random example, take the baseball player above. How many young boys (and girls) aspire to be like him? How many grown adults crowd around a TV screen because of a baseball player? But are aspirations formed to become like baseball players (or Steve Jobs, or Taylor Swift, or whoever it may be) because of who they are, or because of what they've done and the seeming impossibility of it?

Take a minute and look at the photographs and painting below:

Elzbieta Jablonska

Dulce Carmen Pinzon Barbosa: "Superman"

Jason Yarmosky: "High Rollers"

What my question would be is: Who exactly can be a hero? At least to me it seems to be a pretty tough call, because no matter how extraordinary someone seems to be in one aspect of their lives there always is some aspect in which they fall short of "superhero" status; although of course even superheroes have their flaws. I might suggest that there are two general types of heroes, one based on accomplishments and the other based on character. You'll get people like the Robber Barons of industry who were certainly extraordinary in what they did for American capitalism but were no means the most morally upright people. And then there's the people that are role models: parents, teachers, siblings, etc. who are extraordinary for their patience, their resolve in the face of difficulty, their integrity, and so forth but aren't necessarily well-known, and their accomplishments, while note-worthy, are not exactly that significant in the big scheme of things. Does there exist such a hero both in character and accomplishments? Perhaps. But I certainly can't think of any off the top of my head.

So, what kind of hero do you want to be? And is it worth it to have the accomplishments if we lose moral character? I think if you asked most people if they would be like Steve Jobs if they could, most people would say yes, at least at first. But although Steve Jobs is extraordinary in what he was able to do with his company, he certainly was not a morally good man. No one even wanted to work with him. To make a pop culture reference, Peeta told Katniss before the games started that the one thing that he was afraid of that the games would take away from him who he was. Maybe that's what happens when people become heroes of accomplishment. I guess really then, it's a question of what's most important to us. Is it about who we become, or where we end up?

Which begs another question, why do we have heroes? I know that I certainly don't want to be a hero; I would hate to have that kind of responsibility, knowing that my actions will directly influence the decisions of others. But yet we look to imperfect people to be our role models and create superheroes in our culture. Is the presence of heroes in our culture beneficial? Or, perhaps I might argue that it's harmful to compare ourselves to some type of end goal which we desire for ourselves without examining the in-between steps.

Jonathan Hobin: "Dear Leader"
He's supposed to be a representation of Kim Jung Il. At what
point do the games, comic books, and childhood aspirations
become reality? Where's the line between innocence and who
we ultimately become?

Anyway. Not to overwhelm you with thoughts, but I'm on a roll here. What about all of the violence that's portrayed in conjunction with superheroes? I personally think that the emphasis on violence comes because as people we want to see that our hero is one of action, not just of words, and the easiest way to show that is through violence. Without the action and the violence how are we to know that they are who they say they are, and not just all talk? The poster on the wall in the museum for the monsters section of the exhibit said, "heroes are heroes because they fight our monsters" (paraphrasing). So, would superheroes be such if it were not for the violence?

There's really so many unanswered questions here, and I think the only real conclusion that can be made is that, well, there are so many gray areas. So many squiggly lines that poorly define what makes a person great, or what it really means to be a hero. I don't know that I would be able to define what it means to become a hero, or that if I could there would be anyone--fictional or otherwise--who would be able to satisfy the assuredly unrealistic qualifications.

But, perhaps, in someone's eyes you too can be a hero. Although maybe not quite like Captain America. Or the Hulk. Or Wonder Woman. Or any of the rest of them.

ten thousand

Initially, ten thousand probably seems like a lot. At least to me it does. But is it?

Ten thousand molecules are insignificant almost all cases, unless you're talking about the number of poison molecules in the air. Then you might be out of luck. The *average* person takes ten thousand breaths in just over eight hours. Ten thousand dollars at most universities might get you housing and food for a semester, and that's if you're lucky. 

But 10,000 hours? That's a lot. 10,000 hours of jail time would be well over a year. Assuming eight hours of sleep a night, it would take you almost three and a half years to accumulate 10,000 hours of sleep time. Even for babies, who spend over half the day sleeping, it would take well over two years. But 10,000 hours is the amount of time that you need to spend on a to gain mastery, or so says Malcolm Gladwell, author of Outliers. You might be surprised, because I'm reading a book that's not physics related. Yes, I do do that occasionally.

I really, really like Outliers and I don't think I'm crazy for thinking so (like you might think I am for enjoying books about physics). If you're not entirely opposed to reading nonfiction, I would definitely recommend Outliers. I have some qualifications for what makes a good book:

1. It has to have application to real life, even if it isn't necessarily realistic. Which is why I generally don't like romances because they're all so... unlikely. 
2. Said book makes me think/change my perspective about a certain topic.
3. Well-written. Good books make me want to keep reading. 

Outliers will make you think differently about what it means to be successful. I promise.

As a side note, here's one of my weekend accomplishments:

Om nom nom.

definitions

Something that I have decided is that the difference between children and adults is definitions. That's because children see the world with endless possibility: cake, flowers, toes... they can be whatever is convenient. The purpose of different items is left for the user to define. So cake can be eaten, yes, but it can be more. It can be hair conditioner (that takes hard work to wash out). It can be something to throw. It can be something to squeeze, touch, and smear everywhere.

With time, cake (and everything else) looses that capacity. Definitions are given, and it is expected that those definitions will be followed with the utmost precision. Cake is not seen as a projectile or as the newest hand lotion. It's seen as the product of a lot of hard work and effort. It's viewed as a delicious desert to be eaten. And cake is defined that way because from experience people know that's the way that is not only socially acceptable, but also the most enjoyable. Because as fun as it is to throw cake around, the consequences of doing so are not as enjoyable as a stomach full of cake.

Want some cake? Because I think there will
be leftovers...

But I think the definitions that separate children from adults go beyond function. I mean, Max already knew at the age of one that the cup was to drink out of, and throwing it on the floor meant no more drink. Not only is the vocabulary of an adult much more expansive than a child's vocabulary, but it also has more depth. With experience abstract ideas such as love, suffering, beauty, etc., gain meaning and different nuanced connotations. Words that used to be synonyms--beautiful and pretty, look and see, enjoy and appreciate--no longer are the same. Those words take on new meaning, and a new perspective is gained. 

Words with such strict, narrow meanings may seem limiting when babies don't even have to worry about words--or what they mean. But yet, these definitions can open new doors, allow for new possibilities. This structure invites a new sort of freedom that children don't have. The best jazz musicians know that without a knowledge of the structure of music, good improvisation would be impossible to obtain. Writers and story tellers all know that words--and their definitions--are essential to making people want to listen/read. And some of the happiest people will agree that their happiness is in part dependent upon the structure that exists in their lives.

As much as I love definitions, sometimes I wish that they could just be thrown out the window. And sometimes I do throw them out the window. Because who's to say that my blanket can't be used as an awesome cape while I pretend that I'm an airplane? And who's to say that the breath coming out of my mouth on a cold day is really just condensing water, not really awesome magic fairy dust or dragon fire? Even with age our minds are not lost: we still have the capacity to think however we want no matter what. 

Which is fantastic. I am a nonconformist of the mind. My thoughts are like no other. Don't know if that's a good thing though.

on happiness

So it's almost two in the morning on Thanksgiving day, and I'm sitting here at my kitchen table, completely alone, listening to Piano Guys (used to be listening to Christmas music but then everything started repeating...) on Pandora and working on my stats project. Wow, you say. Go to bed, and don't do homework anymore on Thanksgiving. Great advice, I appreciate it. Really.

But I'm not really that tired, and if I don't do some homework right now it's all going to pile up and the rest of my week is going to be miserable. Besides, I don't really consider it to be the next day until after I go to bed. Today (technically yesterday now) I slept in until two anyway, so it's not like I really need to go to bed right away. But look what I made! The cookies are chocolate with mint chips, and then Thanksgiving rolls, which are my favorite part of Thanksgiving dinner!

I am so culinary.

Even though I wish I could be home this Thanksgiving with my family and all my NJ friends, I have lot to be thankful for, as I'm sure you do as well. I've been thinking about being thankful, and being happy, for the past couple of days, and I've decided that the two are essentially the same. You can't be thankful for something while experiencing negative emotions like anger or envy. And if you're happy, then you ought to be thankful at least for the fact that you have a reason to be happy

Lately I've been watching a lot of Ted talks. I'm sure you've heard of them, and probably seen a couple too. They're better than the usual stuff that I watch on Netflix. Anyway, I got listening to a bunch of ones that talk about happiness, and here are some interesting points that were made:

1. The more choices you have, the more difficult it is to create your own happiness.
2. Happiness is an emotion of choice, not of circumstance. (Only 10% of your happiness can be determined from your external circumstances, the other 90% is determined by you.)
3. People are happier when they focus on the present (the task at hand) instead of letting their minds wander.
4. Happiness is more accurately is defined as a state of well-being; it is not just a fleeting emotion.

Ways to be happier:

1. Think of what you're grateful for.
2. Journal.
3. Exercise.
4. Meditate.
5. Perform random acts of kindness. (If you want to buy your happiness, here's how)

Notice that success isn't in that list; one of the people said the reason why success doesn't make us happy like we expect it to is because when we do achieve our goals, we redefine our definition of success, so we're continually striving to be better, never reaching "success"--or happiness. (For example, if you say you want good grades, all A's and B's, then once you get those grades you might readjust and say those aren't good enough. I want just A's. And so forth.) 

I hope that you finds lots of reasons to be thankful--and happy--this Thanksgiving.