Echo

She wants to talk about my work situation and my needing to understand office politics.

I tell her that I understand some politics…during a meeting, I made sure to give props to and compliment an executive who helped me design a marketing ad. She went SILENT and then said really gravely, oh, no…
pause….You have not even realized how deep, are people’s minds and hearts.

Obviously, I have no idea what she’s talking about. She says, I’m not sure if I’ll be able to teach this…okay, I will try to give you a lesson, and if you can understand it, good, but if you can’t, then put it out of your mind forever to save yourself from mental misery.

I am going to tell you a story. Your aunt had two professors that she really liked. One day, she went up to one professor and in discussion, mentioned how much she liked the other professor. The professor didn’t say anything. The next day, he approached her and reprimanded her. “Ni Shao Jen, when you complimented your other professor in front of me yesterday, were you telling me I am a lousy professor?” My aunt was stunned.

My mom goes on to explain that when you compliment one person, another person will have his feathers ruffled.

Other snippits of the conversation (I was on this site when she called so I just typed as she talked)…

Politics is about NEVER BEING DEFEATED. You can never let them see any kind of weakness. You have to support yourself. Everything you say, whether it was wrong or right, you have to be behind it. And with every issue, some people will be on your side, some will be on another side. You have to gather up those who would be on your side. You can not go into battle by yourself. Gather those who will stand behind you. You are losing in this conversation because you keep asking me what the boss thinks of you. You need to be talking about what you think of him. And who cares if he thinks you’re stupid. You think HE’S stupid! It’s about winning, Julia. (sorry to step in here, but may I just mention that I never said anything about my boss calling me stupid??…)

People perceiveyou as a non-political person. Do you think that’s a good thing or a bad thing. I said a good thing. She said, a good thing…hmmm. Do you understand that the top people in the world are political??? Do you finally understand what I’ve been trying to teach you for 25 years? You need to start learning how to watch people’s body language so you can know their motives and conquer them! Political people have more challenges. That’s how they made their way to the top. Now do you see that being political is a good thing? [to some lady] Excuse me, where’s the Marriott? [Lady: brrrrmrmrmrmrm] Okay, gotta go. Luv ya! Bye!

Currently in my CD Rotation:
1. Howie Day – Australia
2. Blur – Think Tank
3. Morcheeba – Charango
4. Radiohead – OK Computer
5. Dave Seaman – Back to Mine

Call me weird, but I just did a comparative lyrical analysis on the recorded version of this song and on a version recorded at a performance before the recorded version was made.

Ghost
by Howie Day

Lately I’ve been thinking
Lately I’ve been dreaming with you
I’m so resistant to this type of thinking
Oh, now it’s shining through
I was alone for the last time
Before my night’s vacation with you
Alive from the first
Now I’m denied by the ghost of you

You take yourself a photograph and laugh at me
Please

I know there’s little use in crying
It’s more wide awake and dying then I’m used to
I thought we’d walk these streets together
Now I’m hoping that I’ll never have to meet you
Step aside from all this anger
And somewhere in between I can feel you
Ask me should we try again
I’m thinking no
Y’know, it’s not what I believe in
It’s not what I believe in

You take yourself a photograph and laugh at me
Please
You make yourself a photograph and laugh at me
Please

No I, wanna taste you, love
No I…no I
No I, just wanna taste you, love

Standing in your shoes
I turn and now
You’re standing bare in my doorway
I only wish that I had been prepared
I’m gonna have to go along with your way
Just take the plastic camera out
It’s the pants you borrowed in the driveway
Alive from the first
Now I’m denied by the ghost of you

Make yourself a photograph and laugh at me
Please
You make yourself a photograph and laugh at me
Please

No I, wanna taste of love
No I…

I was alive from the first
Now I’m denied by the ghost of you

Ghost (Live Version)
->if you’ve never heard it, download it. In some ways, it sucks, but in other ways, it’s fucking awesome.

Lately I’ve been thinking
Lately I’ve been dreaming of you
I’m so resistant to this type of thinking
Somehow it’s shining through
I was alone for the last time
Before my night’s vacation with you
Alive from the first
Now I’m denied by the ghost of you

You make yourself a photograph and laugh at me
Please

I know there’s little use in crying
I no wide awake and dying than I’m used to
I thought we’d walk these streets together
Now I’m hoping that I’ll never have to meet you
Step aside from all this anger
And somewhere in between I can feel you
Askin’ should we try again
I’m thinking no
Y’know, it’s not what I believe in
It’s not what I believe in

Make yourself a photograph and laugh at me
Please
Make yourself a photograph and laugh at me
I’m standing in your doorway

Oh how you tasted love
No, how you’ve tasted love

Standing in your shoes
I turn and now
You’re standing bare in my doorway
I only wish that I had been prepared
I’m gonna have to go along with your way
Take the plastic camera out
It’s the pants you borrowed in the driveway
Sit around around and think about just why
nothing’s left to say
nothing’s left to say

Make yourself a photograph and laugh at me
Please
make yourself a photograph and laugh at me
I’m standing in your doorway
I’m standing in your doorway

No, you tasted love
No, you tasted love

My Analysis:

I freakin’ LOVE the artist’s process. I like to see drafts of people’s work and be able to see the changes they’ve made and the direction they go and how this art goes from raw into, hopefully, a precise snapshot of an emotion (created by the artist’s personal circumstances), or sometimes, an exiled interpretation of an experience the artist is trying to detach from himself by giving it less emotional power.

I think recorded versions of songs often lose that “something” because the artist’s focus is challenged in the recording situation. Music is about capturing the exact emotion that is attached to the artist’s private circumstances and expressing it. It’s channeling. It’s the same process that goes on in interpersonal therapy, in intimate moments between people, in religious, spiritual ceremonies, etc. And that’s an inner journey that’s very hard to take repeatedly in such a monotonous and intrusive process, so that while some takes that are ultimately accepted as the recorded version may be technically excellent, the “capture” of the emotional essence (soul) of the song may be missing. That’s why some producers are very good and others are not–it’s about recognizing if the soul of the song has been captured.

That said, there’s a power missing from the recorded version of this song. It’s not that it doesn’t have a soul; it feels like a soul that has been muted by a numbing outer shell.

The artist tries too hard to be technically sound that you can hear in the way he sings that he’s not really feeling what he’s singing…what this song is really about…it’s essence. This song is about a break-up. Probably one in which the connection was extremely powerful but for some reason, someone couldn’t stay in the relationship but wouldn’t exactly let the artist go, keeping him in emotional limbo. But what this song is really about, is that inner struggle within the artist…he wants to be able to tell a part of himself that clings to her that she doesn’t care about him (in fact, hurts the part of himself that wants to believe in her by imagining her mocking him) and therefore, she’s not worth it. Do you hear the bravado he sings “it’s not what I believe in” about trying again? It’s bullshit. It’s the artist trying to front. You get to that verse about him standing in her shoes…he’s fucking PISSED. He’s totally fronting, and the rest of the song is equivalent to, “FUCK YOU! I’m better off than you. And one day when you want me back and I’m in your shoes, you’ll know you fucked up.” So that version of the song, the artist’s state is…he’s miserable, is stuck in a limbo where he doesn’t want to go but she’s let him go but not really let him go (stringing him along. Bitch). But he’s trying to put his foot down and say he’s really fuckin’ walked this time. So he starts off hurt but suddenly the anger comes in and he’s mad. But would he take her back? Is he really walking? Well, he’s just about tantruming for there to be another round where he can have that choice. He probably obsessively fantasizes about that moment. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have written this song. My guess would be that he wants it set up so there’s a situation where she initiates an encounter with him and a truthful moment is created. She wants him back and he can either toss all the anger and hurt that’s been built up at her (the fiery destructive scenario), or if she can make a strong enough case for herself, he’ll take her back. But I think he doubts that she will have grown up enough to make a strong case for herself. He’s so afraid that she’s going to disappoint him. Because it would mean that his idealism and this idea of such an intimate but all-consuming connection are farce. So this whole thing should be more about him dealing with himself and wondering why it’s so important that this girl accepts him or rejects him, and why he has placed so much symbolic burden on her, knowing that there’s a very good chance that she’ll fail. Did I just psychoanalyze Howie Day? Damn, girl. You are weird.

You can map out an artist’s process through his creative output. With written words, you can only capt
ure so much. With music, there’s somewhat more dimension to the conveyance of the emotion. But face to face, it’s the the most amazing thing, to be in the presence of someone in that raw process. If you listen very carefully to people when they talk, you can actually know exactly their current state and mental processes by the way they formulate their thoughts and by listening to their selection of linguistic emphases. It’s like they’re playing a musical instrument or a code that spells out their soul, and if you have a good ear for music, you can listen to it and be able to know in your mind, the exact procession of notes just played. So some people have an ear for music, and I have an ear for the music that people create when they express themselves. My forte is in regards to the minor notes…I am most in tune to the pain in others. The stronger the emotion or inner conflict (or the closer to the surface it is), the more prevalent it is when the person expresses himself (imagine intensity like volume…the stronger the person feels something, the louder the volume to your perception). It’s really cool if you can catch it…it’s like riding a wave…you’ll know when you’ve got it and are on the same frequency. Everything just feels CONNECTED. It’s kind of like those 3D digital pictures, where it’s all squiggly lines and stuff, but it’s actually a 3-dimensionsal dinosaur or something. You have to do to your mind, what you do to your eyes when you look at those. And then you’ll suddenly find yourself able to catch a lot of a person’s insides, what’s important to them, what is scary to them, where they come from, where they are now and what they want and fear from the future, just from hearing them talk. Even though some people are very crafty at hiding these things by constantly saying things that erratically contradict then parallel their true meanings or feared repressed meanings (kind of the way a running back gets around defenders. Or how anti-tracking equipment bounces a signal around…a lot of backtracking, rushing and lateral moves). The smarter the person, the more complex the defense system that’s hiding internal cues. It can be very frustrating. If you instinctually don’t trust someone, it’s because you’ve subconsciously picked up on someone doing this and you’ll feel that he is hiding something. So for a reason you can’t put your finger on, you won’t trust him.

It hit me a few minutes ago… I. Hate. Cheaters. I mean, it seems like a stupid, obvious statement, but I’ve been thinking…the worst thing about cheaters is the way they can look you in the eye and act like by feeling sooooo badly over what they’ve done, that you shouldn’t blame them. But seriously, that martyr act is disgusting. Sometimes they even expect you to feel sorry for them, that what they went through, the torment and guilt over what they have done, was horrendous and really deserving of sympathy and open arms and forgiveness. And even comforting. Never mind that YOU are the person who was wronged. This is the difference between someone who is a habitual cheater and one who is not. Someone who is not will deal with the act and its ramifications on the relationship and his partner. They deal with what is at hand, because what is playing out is a breach of trust and all of its consequences. On the other hand, the habitual cheater has a problem…he has inner conflict about relationships and unfortunately, he plays them out in the most destructive manner possible. These people are dangerous both to themselves and the people close to them. The habitual cheater is playing out an emotional cycle that is actually a very painful game. It is not so much about the sex or the thrill, but about the sado-masochism of hurting something that means a lot to that person. It has nothing to do with the partner; it all has to do with himself. Again, unfortunately, their partners have to play a role in this destructive game and need to be hurt in order for this cycle to play out. Therefore, unless you are also looking to play out the complementary destructive cycle (wanting to get rejected), you should avoid these guys. (Hint to spotting them: These are the guys who, when they know they’ve done something small wrong that they know you’re going to be mildly unhappy with but that they secretly think is ridiculous, will pull a martyr act and come off like they are obviously being so much harder on themselves than you could possibly be, and by you being angry, upset or anything but gentle, you would be hurting them even more than they really deserve. What they are really doing is testing your boundaries. Stand your ground; and when that sad little boy act is replaced by a irrational tantruming baby who thinks you’re the biggest bitch for not letting him have his way, you’ll know that you’re dealing with someone who is not looking to be in a relationship, but basically looking for someone’s permission and agreement to take part in enacting a very destructive cycle. And if you agree to stay in it, it’s also your fault too, because you would have walked if a part of you hadn’t subconsciously agreed to stay and take part in it)

I’ve always said, it’s all about relationships. How one object can’t exist or be identified/created without the presence of another object and what that relationship is with this other object. Therefore, neither the chicken nor the egg came first. In order for either to exist, there must be two things which have a relationship, such as a rooster and a chicken, or a chicken to be present to provide the circumstances which allow the egg to hatch. First of all, the cycle is not defined. If the egg came first, a chicken would hatch. In this scenario, the egg came first. If a chicken came first, it would not even HAVE an egg without the presence of a rooster. So a chicken cannot come first because then there would be no egg. Unless, the chicken that first existed was pregnant with the egg, but again, that would mean that the two co-existed and it was their relationship that allowed for a cycle. If we’re assuming that this is an infinite cycle in which chicken begat egg begat chicken begat egg or vice versa with these two items being creationist metaphors, again, the chicken cannot have an egg without a rooster, but an egg cannot be hatched without a chicken. Both items are integral in each other’s survival. A becomes B. B creates A. A Becomes B. B creates A. But B can not create A without an outside force, meaning the rooster (C). Therefore, it can’t be B creates A. A becomes B. B cannot create A because it needs C to create A. B+C=A. With this formula, a cycle can only go one step, or can’t even go one step at all. (1. A exists first, then becomes B, B can’t create A 2. B exists first but can’t even create A). Problems…assuming we accept that only B + C = A. But only A+B=C or B. So immediately, both possibilities, need some sort of relationship in order for there to be a cycle created. A needs B to become B (or C), meaning the egg needs a chicken to keep it warm and allow it to hatch into a chicken or a rooster, or a chicken needs the presence of a rooster in order to create an egg (B needs C to create A).That cycle being a metaphor for creation. It’s useless to think what force placed either one into existence first. We may as well be useless thinking about the fact that the relationship had to be in place in order for either to exist. As parodoxical as that may seem, the relationship between two objects exists before those two objects can exist. The relationship must exist IN ORDER for those two objects to exist. It is not about one object leading to another. That’s a linear process that can not encompass the idea of existence. The relationship must first exist that allows the creation of objects. That idea should be the basis for understanding certain scientific laws. We try to compartmentalize everything into linear cause/effect relationships but don’t think outside of the box.

Does anyone know the science behind why they test people with analogies on the SAT? What type of perception they believed that would be measuring? Because even math is relationships (the relationships between numbers. Numbers were really only created to serve as symbols. Isn’t it incredible how abstract mathematics is the art of “reading into” these symbols as symbols (negating their nature by affirming their nature) by analyzing and dissecting them in a way to understand the SAME EXACT thing all the philosophers and spiritualists have been seeking to understand? The answer is both so basic and so complex. Like I’ve always said, at some point, polar opposites equal the same thing. Something possesses both a negative and a positive value. Not just two sides of a coin, but exist as the exact same thing. What is infinitely large (a specific point) will be equal to what is infinitely small (another specific point). At some point, they must CO-EXIST and have qualities of both opposites. Because, at what point can you say, “This is the BIGGEST thing in the world?” At what point can you say, “This is the SMALLEST thing in the world?” Because it’s impossible to measure. And we keep finding examples of things that are bigger or things that are smaller (discovering planets, then solar systems, etc., or finding cells, molecules, quarks, etc….forgive me, I don’t know my science terms very well). Gradations going in opposite directions between two whole integers (representing states) will also be infinite. So it comes down to, INFINITY=the point in which polar opposites equal the exact same thing. Maybe it doesn’t even have to be a point. It can also be a state, or even dimension/plane of existence. (haha, I’ve been preaching about this since college! About a dimension where everything in existence exists at 1 precise point.). There. I finally defined it for myself after having this idea rattle around in my head for years. I hope that means that tonight I can sleep.

We’re all just trying to put it together…the ideas of how things relate to each other.

Something I really like is how I have friends or know people who are so different. People who spend time with me will meet all kinds of different people, with different histories and different perceptions of the world and different projections of reality. Even to define them in archetypes as the artists, the writers, the professionals, the people who are a little bit off, the people whose life stories are entire dramas of tragedy and pain, And in seeing all these differences sometimes gives you renewed faith in humanity. There’s somethi
ng really beautiful about the different slices of the world, the different sides of people, just how unique every single person or group soul is, yet how universal our experience of the world is. Again, this is the same paradox at work. We are each unique (quantified by a decreasing order when measuring extent in which one is apart from the mass) and we are each universal (quantified by an increasing order when measuring extent in which one is a part of the mass). We incorporate both sets of values within us, two polar opposites that go in opposite directions when measuring extent, yet exist because we are a value that is both positive and negative. Each human being is the precise point of where these principles meet. We are the value of infinity, and that is the plane of existence that we live in, the dimension in which we exist exhibiting itself as the exact balance of opposites. It’s the perfect tension. Where black equals white, large equals small, positive equals negative. People need to understand that it is contradiction and paradox that creates the fabric of our existence. Stop searching for unity and consistency! It will only come with the realization of this paradox about us, which in itself, illustrates this paradox.