(no subject)
the first thirty pages or so of the silmarillion is probably some of the most beautiful fiction i've ever read in my life. totally epic and intense and amazing, and as christian and i discussed in our usual bro-down of LOTR and black metal, nations should just adopt tolkien's creation myth as their own. i mean, religion is generally pretty ridiculous, so why not take it one step farther?
speaking of religion though, ramy and i had a good talk a while ago, where he basically said, 'i can't really fault people who go to church anymore, because it gives them some form of a community, which is more than the rest of us have,' which is something i found pretty neat. i'm not one to criticize religion by any means, and in fact find it pretty interesting and in some respects, important, but i just thought he said it well. i've been debating going to church lately, at least when i'm home, not out of any spritual conviction, but just because reverend bill, who used to come into borders often, is one of my favorite people ever, and i can't imagine his church service being anything but a blast.
i really like how i completely simplified religious beiefs into a question of my own pleasure. i rule at that.
i've been learning a lot in my urban planning reading this week. i've come to a dilemna though, because a lot of what the authors suggest is revitalizing city centers and creating higher density living, as opposed to the car-driven individualism of the inner and outer suburbs, and while this sounds really good to me, it seems as though if i support that viewpoint i'm basically supporting gentrification. i suppose this will all become clear at some point in the future, and i guess there must be a possibility of revitalzing old neighborhoods while maintaining their old cultures and designs, but still allowing for some degree of economic prosperity.
using the term 'economic prosperity' makes me the worst anarchist ever.
i feel like i should get involved in activism again, but i think i'm going to skip out on both college kid and punk rock activism. both just seem weird to me these days, and while i should probably illustrate that assumption better before i offend people, i think my thoughts on the matter are way too convoluted. one day, i'll figure out whats going on with my thoughts on activism/anarchism/blah blah blah, but for now, i'll be content to say that right now, my thoughts on activism and radical activity are shifting from a starry-eyed embrace of all things radical, to a desire for a much more constructive and independent understanding of subjects, independent of ideology or dogma.
this is one of the reasons why activism based out of what is inherenty a social community, punk rock, is problematic, and i've been wondering if its possible to get beyond that major flaw. i'd like to be involved in activism with people that i have similar interests with, and who are able to break beyond the archaic definitions of 'activism' and are able to embrace a fully revolutionized daily life, but it seems increasingly difficult in the wake of all the hyperbole and ego and dogma that surrounds punk rock activism. i wish it would be possible to channel the positivity and emotion of activism that arises out of punk, but combine it with really intense effort to look at situations critically, and not just blindy acknowledge dogma, even if that dogma is supposedly anti-dogmatic, in the case of crimethinc or other examples of punk-based radicalism.
and yes, i've been talking a lot of shit, but i promise i'm not getting jaded yet. all you kids that are actually out doing stuff, and not just complaining like i do, have my full respect, and i fully hope that one day we can all fight together, whether its in the streets or wherever.
i think this is probably the longest, seemingly most bitter, and pretentious journal entry i've ever written. go me!
speaking of religion though, ramy and i had a good talk a while ago, where he basically said, 'i can't really fault people who go to church anymore, because it gives them some form of a community, which is more than the rest of us have,' which is something i found pretty neat. i'm not one to criticize religion by any means, and in fact find it pretty interesting and in some respects, important, but i just thought he said it well. i've been debating going to church lately, at least when i'm home, not out of any spritual conviction, but just because reverend bill, who used to come into borders often, is one of my favorite people ever, and i can't imagine his church service being anything but a blast.
i really like how i completely simplified religious beiefs into a question of my own pleasure. i rule at that.
i've been learning a lot in my urban planning reading this week. i've come to a dilemna though, because a lot of what the authors suggest is revitalizing city centers and creating higher density living, as opposed to the car-driven individualism of the inner and outer suburbs, and while this sounds really good to me, it seems as though if i support that viewpoint i'm basically supporting gentrification. i suppose this will all become clear at some point in the future, and i guess there must be a possibility of revitalzing old neighborhoods while maintaining their old cultures and designs, but still allowing for some degree of economic prosperity.
using the term 'economic prosperity' makes me the worst anarchist ever.
i feel like i should get involved in activism again, but i think i'm going to skip out on both college kid and punk rock activism. both just seem weird to me these days, and while i should probably illustrate that assumption better before i offend people, i think my thoughts on the matter are way too convoluted. one day, i'll figure out whats going on with my thoughts on activism/anarchism/blah blah blah, but for now, i'll be content to say that right now, my thoughts on activism and radical activity are shifting from a starry-eyed embrace of all things radical, to a desire for a much more constructive and independent understanding of subjects, independent of ideology or dogma.
this is one of the reasons why activism based out of what is inherenty a social community, punk rock, is problematic, and i've been wondering if its possible to get beyond that major flaw. i'd like to be involved in activism with people that i have similar interests with, and who are able to break beyond the archaic definitions of 'activism' and are able to embrace a fully revolutionized daily life, but it seems increasingly difficult in the wake of all the hyperbole and ego and dogma that surrounds punk rock activism. i wish it would be possible to channel the positivity and emotion of activism that arises out of punk, but combine it with really intense effort to look at situations critically, and not just blindy acknowledge dogma, even if that dogma is supposedly anti-dogmatic, in the case of crimethinc or other examples of punk-based radicalism.
and yes, i've been talking a lot of shit, but i promise i'm not getting jaded yet. all you kids that are actually out doing stuff, and not just complaining like i do, have my full respect, and i fully hope that one day we can all fight together, whether its in the streets or wherever.
i think this is probably the longest, seemingly most bitter, and pretentious journal entry i've ever written. go me!