Aesop

Memes are people; humans aren't

hide

Read Next

Fuck you I won't do what you tell me!

There's been a lot of talk about the idea of doing a practical career vs doing one you're passionate about. Beyond the point that the kind of career considered "practical" in our parent's day doesn't really exist any more, I think that perhaps I can rephrase this as something that draws a more important distinction.

I think that the practical vs passionate choice is a false one. All that practical means, or should mean, is that you can make a living off of it-if you want to get all ethical, you could add "without hurting other people" to that. Unfortunately, quite a lot of people cram a lot of other considerations in there when deciding what does or should count as a practical/respectable/whatever, and most of those don't have anything to do with how useful the job is to apes, or how beneficial it is to the ape/meme-creature performing the job, they're all about the meme-creatures causing the apes to criticize it.

It is a definite fact that people perform jobs they're passionate about better than ones they aren't. If they're sufficiently apathetic about it, they might even produce negative value at it-see the characters in Dilbert. But a passionate person will make a huge difference at whatever they're doing. The problem is that apes don't tend to be passionate about the things the meme-creatures running society want them to be. While meme-creatures can stir up passions, they also often cannot. Our animal passions rule us as often as not.

Here's an example of something that apes are big into but a lot of meme-creatures are opposed to: consensual, harmless, frequent, frivolous sex. Man apes love having sex. Meme-creatures often try to exploit this, but seem to have a strange tendency to oppose it. Maybe it's because they don't reproduce sexually? Anyways, this results in a lot of societal pressures against people making money in ways that directly involve sex. This means that there is a huge, barely tapped market there!

My partner is a sex worker. Now it's fortunate that the horrid meme-creature known as Monogamy never got its hooks into either of us, which means that its terrible weapon Jealousy the Envy-Blade, Breaker of Relationships, passes through me like the aethereal nothingness that it is, leaving me wrapped in the warm glow of my Breastplate of Compersion, That Which Heals When Hurt. This means we're open to explore those means of making money. Both of us have worked in pornography, making decent wages. But she's now working directly as an escort, which, given that she is an incredibly sexy, intelligent, and particularly business savvy lady, is making her quite a bit more. She tells me it is uncouth to discuss money explicitly, but I will say that this is earning much more money working far fewer hours than any of the "legitimate" jobs that either of us have worked.

On the physical world

On Frogoyodoe

Ever since I read Albert Camus’ “The Stranger” I’ve been consumed by the idea of the impact of the physical world on the human being. Said in this manner, I know it can be confusing because I myself am not sure how to articulate this thought. The best way, I think, to explain it is through the distinction of the two selves I believe exist in every human. The first is the primal side. This means the purely animal self; the one that is privy to physical whims. The side that worries about food, shelter, water, and sex. The other half is that which we idealize to be. We like to believe that we are superior to other species, that our enlarged brains give us a certain something that transcends this physical world and allows us to be emotional and thinking creatures; it is an idea that human beings have surpassed homo sapiens. I don’t really consider myself as a contributor to this human delusion of grandeur. I think we are still animals. We’re just sacks of meat trying to comprehend our place in a universe that is so immense that we are insignificant to most everyone but ourselves. From this conclusion, it can be surmised that as animals we react to our environment in a way that is beneficial to our survival. Obviously if you are thirsty and are at home, you can just get water; however, the conflict with which I occupy myself, occurs when the human being side and the homo sapiens side are forced to fight for relevance. The example that I see in “The Stranger” is when the main character is at his mother’s funeral. He is sad and wants to grieve for his recently deceased mother, but he wants to leave and go home because he is hot and uncomfortable. Here, the physical reality superscedes the emotional. If you ask some people, they would say that he truly does not wish to grieve for his mother and that he actually is using the physical discomfort as an excuse to escape these foreign feelings, and some would go so far as to say that this discomfort is a physical manifestation of his emotional discomfort. I could see where this comes from, and I can actually see this point of view. The other side, I can also understand. This side is that he is actually just uncomfortable. It is hot and humid, he is dehydrated and tired and just wants to go home, there is nothing more to it. He does want to grieve but his physical discomfort is too large to overcome and this does not signify any less love for his mother. I wish I had some type of strong conviction as to which one of these is correct

Rendering New Theme...