Negative words have a superstitious or derogatory history. Etymology is the study of words and their different meanings throughout history, their proverbial root; etymology, for instance, means “true sense of the word.” Take “bad”, for instance, a word that can be best understood colloquially as “not good”, may have in some instances quite the opposite meaning, at least in slang (think of Michael Jackson’s famous song by the same name).
Bad doesn’t have a resemblance in any other language we know of, as seen on www.etymon.com/word/bad, it also is a mirrored palindrome: the same for you to read if you were to write it on a transparent foggy glass as someone on the other end reading it. Say someone tells you to Go to hell! It commands, at least in etymological terms, to an afterlife destination, superstitious to say the least. What's more, it's not that much of an insult. The designated place for damned souls is not found generally found in all religious beliefs; in Judaism, for instance, there's no such place. Hinduism is a midground, regarding Hell as not being a permanent residence for the soul. Perhaps that is where Buddhism's Middle Path comes from; Buddhism stems from Hinduism as does Christianity of Judaism. Siddharta was not a Buddhist and Jesus was not Christian.
The etymology of “bad”, we find, has a derogatory significance, hereby abbreviated: “Possibly from Old English derogatory term bæddel and its diminutive bædling "effeminate man, hermaphrodite, pederast," which probably are related to bædan "to defile.” According to this definition, a "bad" mother can be a good thing, in its true sense of the word.
There may be more positive words in modern languages than negative, but the average individual has a larger use for negative references. Unsurprisingly, most books in human history exhibit a preference for idealistic, aesthetically pleasing prose, in part, because otherwise, these works would not have seen the day of light.
Harsh words elicit a visceral response. After all, for evolutionary reasons, we are better equipped to remember things that may hurt us more than superfluous, ambivalent terminology. Nature did not have in mind our happiness; it contents itself with making us fit for whatever life might throw our way. Imagine a content beast laying around because it now has secured all that there is to have in life. That wouldn't have made much sense, from an evolutionary perspective. We ought to find ourselves, therefore, craving some drama and if there isn't any, well then we ought to make it somehow, it is how our existence makes sense, giving us something worth striving for.
For all of the fancy talk about consciousness, we fail to see that the first thing to go in case the brain needs to get rid of something, say while suffering a hemorrhage or trauma to the head, is logic. You don't need consciousness to breathe, no one needs to remember to keep the heart pumping, for most of our history no one even paid much attention to the brain as being the seat of reason. The most vital mechanisms are kept in place.
Noam Chomsky claims that thinking is something we cannot turn off, but it is possible to drastically bring this "stream" of consciousness, as it is known, closer to a frozen lake status, again, through meditation. It is worth noting that in the case of a "frozen lake", you still find that there are parts underneath it that are pretty much in movement; in fact, even frozen particles are in constant flux. Just the same, if our thought process is put on hold or its noise it's reduced, as it is when we sleep, or when we are abstracted in an idea or vision that requires little to none intellectual process, as in the face of beauty or the moment, our thoughts may somehow be all there, just turned off like a switch, momentarily.
Even in conversations, we find that whatever it is that we talk about is not at all what our mind is absorbed in. It serves us well to take people out of their absorption, by switching things up like you would a light bulb. We may hear from afar someone say, "I'm good", to the phatic question: "How are you?" But if someone were to use a more pernicious, unconventional response, it may have an aversive conditioning effect.
If, instead, someone said: "Same shit!" You may reply, "If you pay close attention, shit is never the same." It doesn't happen often that we challenge the status quo, but it is possible, enough to trigger slight amusement. It is highly unlikely that someone might answer, "I'm not good", even if they're particularly feeling uneasy. What, then, is the likelihood that everyone who answers the same monotonous, phatic "Good, and you?" is actually good? But if that's what it takes, let us do so, for the sake of actually connecting with that other someone. We may not find ourselves in complete assimilation, we will never see eye to eye. When someone you know tells you to have a good day, tell him or her, in a humorous way, 'Don't tell me what to do!"
Negativity, foul words, aren't uncommon. In our childhood, we learn to suppress them, censoring ourselves in order to fit in the social paradigm. Parents often berate their young for listening to vulgar music, speaking your mind too has consequences, therefore children watch themselves in front of austere figures, be it parents or teachers, though in private they may be as obscene as they please.
A tense situation may spike an adrenaline-packed response, calling someone on their crap doesn't necessarily mean you have to feel like crap. Reflecting some of the nastiness we may get from undesirable elements, save us energy the next time around, and you don't have to stoop to their level, with a zero-tolerance policy for nonsense, especially if the action or comment is uncalled for. Nicely call them on their infraction. For some people is best to keep at arm's length. Unless it happens to be someone close to you, you may decide to downplay it: we tend to mistreat those we care for and extend all sorts of courtesies to strangers, when it should be the other way around.
We try to be one person to all when we should deal with the individual in front of us and proceed accordingly, not try to play a one-attitude-fits-all. In doing so, it is not a Machiavellian move; it reserves judgment and see others without the bias that often clouds our judgment.
Switch things up too, and try to be nice to those who least expect it, or need it less, and to be slightly less attentive with those who expect it. What you don't need is to try to be nice or nasty to most because it is "who you are". Keeping the facade of a routine kills, it bores others to death and, what's even worse, it's ineffective. We may attack someone close to us that may not expect more from us but may actually need it. Others will know what to expect of you, push your buttons, see what triggers a reaction. Keep others at length by throwing them off your scent. Lure them in to see their face and don't bother unmasking it.
To change the routine, you need only a kin way of seeing things, and that is an ability we all have. If I were to say, "You have no idea what happened to me today!" And you answer, "What did happen?", you're following my lead. But if, instead, you answer, "No, but I'm sure you won't let me get away before letting me know!", then you're taking the lead. It may not be ideal in a work environment, though many workplaces have incorporated a friendlier atmosphere following the success stories of Apple and Google on the matter. It seems that anyone can emulate another one's recipe for success, just not ensure the same results. At a recent place of work, the client insisted on niceness as a way to stand out but failed to address the poor conditions of workers at the lower end of the corporate spectrum, the workforce often relegated to outside contract companies which constitute in large part the frontline in public relations, and so it was an exercise in futility: it was, still is and will be like building from the ground up without taking into consideration its foundation. It is how well you treat those at the bottom and not just how you suck up to those above. And let's be explicit: it doesn't take a whole lot to make them their day, a chair to seat would've sufficed and not expect them to smile and greet the inflow of people standing on their feet from eight to twelve hours a day. How could you expect to have those poor souls toiling day in and out under deplorable conditions, stand up, don't talk to one another just the public, be friendly just not amongst yourselves, be nice to everyone as we are not nice unto you? Some of these workers have been there for more than ten years, but the vast majority did not last six months.
Books borrow a lot of their symmetrical uniformity to the suppression of negativity. The notion that foul language can elicit undesirable feelings is well-ingrained in the political-correctness of our ways, we do not want to make others feel bad, but it could very well be the opposite: feelings serve as outlets for offensive words or the perception of susceptibility to the slightest infraction. We can tackle both abuse and overreactive subjects, fomenting a kinder environment and the necessity to grow a thicker skin, so as not to walk on the proverbial eggshells. We grew up poking fun of one another, and once in a while there might've been an altercation, but from a hypothetical scale of one to ten matters did not go beyond 4, because potential repercussions were in place; now, the fact that we have our livelihood at stake makes us increasingly tolerate matters insufferably on-end, since showing raw emotion may be seen as inappropriate, lest you be labeled bias towards a particular group. Everyone is biased, and it is a fact that the way we deal with biases makes us generally more so, as illustrated perfectly in a South Park episode where bullies were bullied. We should not rape rapists, as well as we shouldn't kill killers. Nonsensically ironic, those who stand for pro-life tend to be in favor of the death penalty; we are the only developed country that still has the death penalty, and it is hypocritical to think it serves a purpose. It targets the most vulnerable among us and falls under the category of "unusual and cruel punishments", to say the least.
We are taught since early to be quiet, to not voice an opinion, even to shut up. There are penalties for those who speak up against it from the start though the First Amendment clearly states freedom of speech, among others. And that's why there's the 13th Amendment, to make sure that those who have a voice can be silenced with the ironclad of the Law.
It's only for the past few generations that people have been encouraged to express themselves, especially artistically, but it can wreak havoc. Think of any 60's iconic figure that suspiciously died of suicide, overdose, or as victims of senseless crimes like that of John Lennon, JFK, Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hendrix, etc. You don't have to go that far, either: Nirvana's lead singer, Kurt Cobain, Biggie, Tupac, and to a less "deserving" but mind-blowingly so as in the case of Jeffrey Epstein by suicide. Suicide is not something you pick up out of despair, it takes a very sick mind to commit to it, in the vast majority of cases is a ploy for attention-seeking. As Voltaire once noted, everyone complains about life, but very few choose to end it. Take the case of Kalief Browder who after going through an ordeal following his decision of not going to trial and two years out decides to kill himself. His mental deterioration started under circumstances auspice by the criminal system, beatings endured by those at the hands of prisoners and guards as well. It's suspicious that he would kill himself two years after he acquired the recognition of the injustice endured.
We are emotionally indifferent to one another as a way to shelter ourselves from the outside world. It's enough what's going on in our lives to be immune to compassionate views of the outer world. But if we settle the subconscious dust, if we brush the foggy lenses off our breath, allegorically speaking, the path is laser-fixed unwavering, every step commands a new directive, worlds yet-to-be-seen unravel. Nowhere found is a destination that the mind cannot conceive of; no out there detached from what goes on inside.
In passing pass by a homeless person, you look the other way and see your own misery, give a damn by throwing a coin in their pleading cup as we pass by, knowing well that it is not going to solve the issue at hand. Doing it makes us feel good, we take a less than an ideal course, an egotistical detour.
We cannot be crusaders in every cause we come across.
It is a systematic problem, it is there and no one denies it: injustice happens everywhere, every day, any moment of the day. It serves as a reminder that we too can fall, that if it weren't for the acceleration in which the balance of our busy lives is tipped, we would too throw ourselves at the mercy of someone else's feet, tiresome, worrisome in their eyes, but free at last from all our worries. Rats do not need uniforms to survive.
We live sickly, it is no wonder we get sick, and the sick get taken advantage of. Anything and everything is an opportunity to profit from the misery of others. Most of us live two paychecks away from the street.
Negative feelings, emotions, are regularly suppressed since early in our inception, but they do boil and rise like cool waters to steam. We are taught to keep to ourselves, distrust our neighbors, and toil away at our unpleasantness. Hypocrisy is a social lubricant, but only madmen shout in despair. We lead lives of quiet desperation, with the "quiet" part stricken out.
And though we may grow suspect of someone who elicits a higher state of being, coming across as too positive can be seen as inauthentic; you can be targetted for being good, though goodness is what they advertise underhandedly. That is, we may hear that you should not drink too much alcohol but cannot turn on a televised series where said neurotoxin is not thrown in the mix, say in a time of crisis, to lighten the mood or to get to know a stranger. For what is more ideal of society to praise than a bunch of strangers rubbing shoulders in a confined space, drinking a neurotoxic elixir of the first kind at bedtime? The casual viewer may think to themselves, what am I doing in bed now when there are tons of beautiful strangers out there somewhere drinking themselves silly and mingling? Or, you could see it as the start of the root of a problem: how many people have you met where alcohol was not involved?
Cigarette commercials were banned long ago, but it doesn't stop the industry from advertising in movies. A lot of people may think that my standards are a bit high, but I'll be sure to correct them in that if I had to choose between legally acquirable items such as alcohol and cigarettes, and not-as-legal or harder-to-find-and- therefore-regulate weed, the latter would be the saner choice. It is not about making alcohol and cigarettes illegal; it's about giving people the freedom to choose a far less toxic substance such as cannabis. In fact, cannabis has been studied and medicinally used throughout human history for more than 3,000 years. And yet it does not enjoy the same benefits of alcohol, though the two have a similarly lengthy history.
I was 27 years old when I first smoked pot and had already read books on the subject, most notably Marihuana: The Forbidden Medicine, a serious contender on the subject. But also, to a lesser seminal extent The Benefits of Marihuana. Though the attitude towards cannabis has been changing for the past fifty years, it is still far from mainstream.
I micro-used it, as if it were a psychedelic, in tiny hits at a time of apples used as pipes, just to take the edge off. Roughly speaking, the amount that a regular user may smoke in a week, last me a month. It is the same with cigarettes, even when I smoked regularly, I never smoked more than a few cigarettes a day, I'd quit for months on-end and pick up a cigarette only if I were drinking alcohol which I nowadays do only when I'm on vacation. The older I get, the less often I am inclined to do so, and knowing that these substances work in unison, it is easy to ditch them altogether. Their use is chronic and more widespread in the Bronx, where cigarettes are commonly sold as "loosies", fifty cents each.
Of the three, marijuana is the least toxic, and yet the only one still illegal to use. No other drugs, legal or not, has had such a positive track record in human history. We may claim to know little of it, but you only need to read Marihuana: The Forbidden Medicine to find that not only there's extensive medical literature on the subject in history for the past three thousand years, studies were also funded by the government to prove its lethality, but these backfired and since then said studies were repudiated and rollbacked.
In my own experience, cannabis has been a positive influence, alongside adopting a plant-based diet, exercise, meditation, yoga, and intermittent fasting. I used it recreationally, on and off. It's easy to discontinue using it. I like to keep strict standards and prove to myself that there's nothing inessential I cannot do without.
Drug tests are designed to catch marihuana users. Because of the low level of toxicity, the body doesn't eliminate it right away, as it does with more toxic narcotics. Alcohol is out of our system in less than 24 hours, but its aftermath can be felt for days. And it can be easily bought anywhere, as it should be. Let people make their own minds about it. Cigarettes, too. We shouldn't regulate people's drinking habits, including smoking of any kind.
In Portugal, a few years ago, all drugs were decriminalized. It has made all the difference. Criminalizing people for habits that fall under psychiatric categories, in this time and age, is unconscionable. It is the same with people with mental ailments. But criminalization is good business. Private jails are thriving. With 655 inmates out of every 100,000 of population, the U.S. is by far the leading industrialized nation in incarceration.
The bedrock foundation of all influences, hands down, has been literature which at one point in our history was, too, contraband. It happened long before I learned to speak English, in my native land, Colombia, at around 7 years of age. It is the most pervasive and recurring addiction in my experience, leading to the "bad" habit of writing which I cannot kick-off.
Books transformed me. They are the most formidable anti-aging habit, the least harmful substance, transformative substance ever devised. It started when mom finally succumbed to pressure and decided to buy an encyclopedia. Halfway through it she realized her mistake and decided against completing the buy, paid for in installments. But it was too late.
I intuited without expressing it out loud knowing more than mom by the age of nine. Mom would resent my every suggestion: save money now, buy an encyclopedia as opposed to more dumb electronics and furniture, let's bring the neglected sister who had been left to be raised by a paternal aunt in a cold land far away from her immediate family. Hierarchies are dumb; politics, foolish.
Nothing is more freeing than minding your own business, but letting the world know that it's not their business, might be too much. So, we follow the crowd, in more instances. Writers may have been less inclined to express themselves with uncertainty: doubt and indecision are not fertile terrains for significant growth. Circumstances may not be ideal, but what other than a great mascarade is society, as the German philosopher Schopenhauer once said.
Neutrality seems key in these matters. In Buddhism, it is spoken of as the Middle Path. We may try to edge on the bright side, but in and of itself positivity demands a great deal out of us. Being nonchalant, aloof can therefore serve as an ideal ambivalent. As stated earlier, bad can be interchangeable and not just idealistically speaking: the part of the brain that deals with ecstasy serves as well as the bedrock of raw emotions, even pain. In experiencing an orgasm, we deal with pure ecstasy and pain; hence, we make faces as if we were hurting. What's more, when love affairs end, it is not uncommon for a strong feeling of apathy to replace the strong feeling of love. When drugs wear off, pain ensues.
Similarly, in intimacy, lovers adopt polarities, one leads and the other follows. It isn't uncommon for heated verbal exchanges to end up in bed, resolving differences, appeasing one another, leaving a clean slate as if nothing had ever happened. Foul language, normally unpleasant at the dinner table, is a turn-on during sex: measured roughness is welcomed, and dirty talk, unheard of at the dinner table, comes off as an aphrodisiac.
In mythology, good and evil have a strong relationship as well. We encounter the devil as God's favorite angel, before starting a rebellion in heaven and being cast out as a consequence. Take the word "disgusting", it means nothing more than a strong dislike.
Culturally, we experience that some things that we thought were generally good growing up, adults differed strongly and forbid us from. In school, most students were "miserable", and most people in adulthood find themselves "unhappy" at work. "Misery" means, "unhappy", by the way; it also signals "distress." Think of "disease", which can be in itself explanatory: "Not at ease." In all its physical manifestations, sickness is an attempt by the body to return to homeostasis, its natural state. Whatever signals pain, if we are to astutely listen in on, can be easily deciphered: "Here, pay attention" it seems to say: "This right is wrong, there must be something we can do about it." We get sick because we live sickly.
And illness is nothing more than a call to bring us down to size, to show us the way back to our own frail, vulnerable humanity. What happens when we are sick? What are the most common symptoms? Do we feel festive? No, instead we feel like laying down, resting; we lose the appetite as the body's healing mechanism since eating feeds off the infection, the disease that we may have. It requires great energy digestion, so the sick body foregoes it.
We may then infer that wellness owes a debt of gratitude to restorative processes.
No comments:
Post a Comment