MySpace


Fitz



Last Updated: 11/18/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
Status: Single
Age: 30
Sign: Pisces

City: SPOKANE
State: Washington
Country: US
Signup Date: 4/19/2005

Who Gives Kudos:


Tuesday, April 28, 2009 
This consideration begins with a thought posited by a famous mathematician, don’t ask me which one at the moment I can’t remember, the meat of it goes something like this; if you take any single combination of elements, a specific license plate in the original example, that is observed in passing, what is the likelihood of that particular arrangement appearing? Typically the answer is extraordinarily small. The more complicated the occurrence the less mathematically probably that outcome will occur. Which leads me to the observation that most of our days are filled with extremely complicated sequences of events that, due to the consistency with which they are accomplished, are given virtually no thought as we pass form moment to moment and event to event.
    The point, I suppose, is that if you rolled a pair of dice once and it came up twelve you might be a little surprised yet if you rolled the same set thirty six times the expectation would be to see that combination at least once. Any observed moment is like that one throw but the rarity of it gets lost in the fog of what we expect. Through this lens the improbable becomes the mundane and the beauty that exists in all these moments we observe, everyday, is lost.
    Like most things these days I’m afraid this piece feels too forced to find the mark for which I was aiming. Perhaps it is a product of the abruptness with which I have experienced the world of late that leads me to this chain of reasoning. Perhaps it is simply one of those rudimentary ideas I should have understood long ago. Likely it is a combination of both, but regardless of why this thought keeps occurring to me. It seems often that what we perceive to be the most mundane of elements, whose frailty we fail to see, become the ones whose beauty we are left to experience only as memories. Lest I stray too far into the realm of clichés my point is that beauty, at least in part, is a product of scarcity. By this reasoning and considering the very small likelihood of any moment occurring just the way we experience it, every moment has a kind of value. Banality is a thing that exists only in the cynical mind.


adendum:
         Having read this several more times I've realized that it is predominently a recrimination directed at my own observable possition of late with a thought that perhaps it would give someone else a moments pause as well.

Previous Post: Through a child's eyes | Back to Blog List | Next Post: Frustration
.

 
Hello, cynical mind here. Sure, each moment is precious and unique to an extent, and beauty is in part a product of scarcity. So the more rare the event the more value we give it, nay? But by influencing the probabilities we create a sameness in the happenings of our daily lives that can lead to a mundane existence and a sense of banality. The workplace is the most obvious example, and generally where most of us experience this disconnect from grandeur.

The happenings of Day A, if too similar to Day B, lose significance even though each has it's own unique set of values and circumstances. More so if Days C-Z follow suit. But doesn't this also allow a basis for comparison to determine what is indeed a rare moment? But it also means that some moments are less rare, and by our definition, less beautiful. We live in a world where the beauty of the unique is seen as abnormality, chance as insecurity, and seeking enlightenment is terrorism.

In organizing the chaos we seek banality.

 
 
Posted by . on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 12:50 AM
[Reply to this
Fitz

 
heh, leave it to you to argue the importance of a droll existence. indeed, the hole here is that the inspired creates the scale by which we can them measure the fantastic. it is, I suppose, a question of focus, so much of these things exists in how you choose to frame it internally. equally it was my intention to poke at that which we take for granted precisely because it is banal, for very little about life really is.

 
 
Posted by Fitz on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 1:04 AM
[Reply to this
Zampanò

 
You concluded that beauty was the product of scarcity. I might be the owner of the worlds largest diamond, or fortune, or mansion, or yacht, but I will not find any of these things as impressive as I approach the end of my life, having seen them and lived with them, not unless they change in significance, or I find some novel meaning in them along the way. This dynamic has nothing to do with scarcity or abundance, and everything to do with the inherent entropy of subjectively experienced "meaning". Why, how and when we let things degrade from sacred to profane is a longstanding issue of philosophical and spiritual contention. To be fair, banality exists to more than JUST the cynical mind (if might be so cynical as to suggest that).

 
 
Posted by Zampanò on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 11:16 AM
[Reply to this
Fitz

 
haha indeed my friend you may. by scarcity I did not simply mean a commodity, true at some point the subjective value of all material things changes, at least for most people. but take, for example, the flowering apple blossoms that we have for only perhaps the next week. they are a thing rare and beautiful, scarce and valuable and have nothing to do with monetary considerations. this was part of my point actually, we view things like diamonds and mansions as valuable things because they are difficult to attain within the constructs of our society yet there are things every day that we pass without thought which are just as rare and often far more beautiful for that if we but shift our view just enough to see them.

 
 
Posted by Fitz on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 2:02 PM
[Reply to this
.

 
I think the difference here is that material things attain their value from blood and suffering where as a given moment cannot be attained in any form other than memory so it's value is incorporeal. Material goods can be traded, sold or stolen; memory can only be shared. Why notice any particular moment, why hold it in memory? I agree with Zampono, we assign a meaning whose value is based on our perception. If we see a moment as rare or meaningful the more we treasure it. If we feel it to be common or trivial we disregard it. So the issue at hand is what unseen forces influence our perception to say that one moment has more value another? Is it all based on personal experience or do we allow cultural experience a greater say? By raising our expectations of what each moment could hold, have we allowed our society to numb our senses to the subtleties of life?
 
 
Posted by . on Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 5:22 PM
[Reply to this
Previous Post: Through a child's eyes | Back to Blog List | Next Post: Frustration