The Difference Between “Artist” and “Entertainer”

I am not trying to compare these two types, or to detract from what either of them does, or say that someone is "just" an entertainer, even though many times someone may say as much. That one is not as "intellectual", or on as "high a plane" as the other; it isn't that artists are better, or entertainers are "sell-outs" who have no morals left. An artist does what she does because she has to, it is for herself, her own joy/enrichment that she makes her art; many have expressed that they are driven to do what they do, something compels them to, irregardless of whether it is lucrative or not-I imagine this is where the "starving artist" stereotype comes from. It all stems from a complex of urges that we all share: the basic drives to connect, express, understand, and be understood. In the artist, however, it is amplified in some way and brought to the center-the spotlight, if you will-so that it is a more integral part of the character of the person. It may consume the individual, leaving little room for anything else, which most people may think I mean. Yet this also applies to the person with a consuming hobby, and it is this person who toils in obscurity and without reward that I think of. Those who, even after a long day's work will be "out in the work-shed" grinding away at some project. On the other hand, an entertainer does what he does because he wants to bring happiness or joy to other people, and feels better for having made you feel better. A strong empathy is needed, and an ability to connect, this is the basis for entertainment. Although some buffoons seem only to want to be celebrated for entertaining people, the true value of being entertained can be appreciated by anyone, and I'm sure goes back nearly as far as artistry. It is the hallmark of a society which has overcome the basic subsistence problem and thus has time for recreation that art and entertainment exist. One (or both) may seem more peripheral, unnecessary, or nonessential, but life encompasses all types, and self-expression is only one avenue; we can certainly also value that which is done for the enjoyment of others. It is in some way two sides of the same coin, one directed inward and one directed outward. Artistry is self-expression for the sake of yourself, and Entertainment is self-expression for the sake of others.

A Generation of Serial Killers

The idea that we are all of our society-that we belong to or are part of a larger group-our "community", keeps us rooted, connected, so we cannot separate from that group. This is a good thing to keep in mind, especially when we begin to think of “others”. When we create that distance from ourselves, “they” become less important. If “they” no longer have the same impact for us, if “they” are just blocking us from our goals, then we can disregard "them"-in fact “they” cease to be human and simply become obstacles to overcome. From there, it is a short leap to "them" being wholly unimportant and without value to us, so who cares if we kill a few of "them"? For most people it takes a lot of conditioning and pressure to produce the divide between an "us/loyalty" and a "them/hatred". The reversal of that kind of thinking is also a lengthy and difficult process, one that is being fought over around the world. Whereas with a "psychopath" this is simply the way things are, that the only us is "me" and everyone else doesn't matter because there is no caring connection. The connection between us at that point is reduced to only what I need/want and what others can provide, and because no one cares to give them to me these things have to be taken . To distance/remove ourselves from our community, by not maintaining the communication needed-we stop thinking in terms of "us", and shift to thinking it's “me against them”. There is no wonder as to why this creates conflict, how violence stems from this thinking; we have deliberately contorted the situation to produce these effects. Instead we should understand that connection is important for all of us, to be connected to others, to feel as though we belong and others care about us and our needs. In return it is important to care about others' needs and wants. None of us can do it alone, we are not that way, it is essential to our psyche that we have contact and friends to care about and for us. We all need each other, without all the others there is no me. Finally, in truth, there is no "them", it is a basic misunderstanding to think of people that way. There is just "us", all of us here together, that is just the way it is, and it is for the best.

Public Education v Private Profit

The purpose of universal public education is to allow all citizens (indeed, all humans if it were truly "universal") the methods and ability-not the opportunity-the ability to obtain and understand information. The idea being that these fully-educated, informed people can then agree on some Truth, which in turn drives the society further along the road of civilization. To begin, there has to be a basis for the consumption of information, a common pool of knowledge to work from. If the underpinnings of this information are not presented then the information has no value, no substance. If you don't know why 2 - 3 = -1, then you won't understand the charge of electrons and you'll have no hope of knowing how important phospholipids are. Further, if we don't all know the same information, it would be as though we did not speak the same language. Which, in effect, really happens: we are at odds-with one talking about this thing, while the other may be saying something completely different-all because we "understand" the subject differently. I use quotation marks around this word because it is outside of simple point-of-view, where we interpret the information in our own way. I refer to actually disagreeing on what the facts are, to each having access to different and/or incomplete information, whereby we can hardly be said to know or understand what we are talking about. Language is something to be discussed at a later time, but some of the same concepts do apply here. Thirdly, and this is vital: not to limit what can be known, but to allow the free-flow of conversation and ideas between individuals. Concurrently, I have to say that as with language and words, in knowing there are no such thing as "bad" facts. There should be no cap or constraint on what we learn or are exposed to, even. There should be neither censorship nor secrecy where public knowledge is concerned. The keeping of information from the populace by its government is wrong, this is self-evident as every time the knowledge is released however-many years later, it would have resulted in a better outcome had the full story been known. If people would have been informed about certain decisions made by the U.S. government with regard to the "Cuban Missile Crisis" and Bay of Pigs fiasco, for example. While ignorance is certainly comfortable for some, it is never blissful, and what you do not know can certainly hurt, and even kill you. Next, we are not allowed to learn or know, it is a necessity that we get information, indeed it is a right, just the same as Life and Liberty. Knowledge is part of the "Pursuit of Happiness" (or "Property", as Hobbes would have it), for how can one be happy unless the concept is understood or one can truly understand how to go about being happy? Again, that means we have to get access to all available knowledge; we need the tools, those concepts, to learn about every subject so we can understand our world and ourselves to the fullest. While it is sad that people no longer appreciate knowledge for its own sake as they once did, this attitude is actually a side effect to information being so readily available. This does not, however, change the nature of information, whereas its treatment by governments, corporations, and institutions does alter the makeup of information. If it is ignored by individuals, knowledge is still there, like a book just waiting to be opened; if these agencies want to ignore it, however, they can delete, change the appearance of, or limit access to data. This means that even if the population cries out for it, we may not get the facts, instead we are allowed only limited glimpses, if any at all. This is justified by different means: calling them state or trade secrets, or military or tactical intelligence, labeling the data as dangerous and potentially harmful, claiming it is "of no interest" or beyond the "lay-persons'" understanding, distraction or misdirection, and any number of others. Instead interest in (certain kinds of) knowledge is drummed up by advertising and packaging it in some guise that is appealing within the system of capitalism. So we are told that knowledge is, in essence, a safeguard against being fooled or taken advantage of. Incidentally, this is just another indication of how important it really is, to say that it can keep you safer, don't you think? Information becomes a tool, a shield, a theft deterrent, an investment in self-protection. In closing, I would say knowledge is perverted when it becomes a commodity, it is made to look like another petty thing to be bought and sold. It never is however; rather, information is something to be shared not hoarded, free and not constrained, open to all and any but never kept for one alone. And why is this? Why am I writing all of this, telling you that it is important? Why have I devoted so much space herein to the subject? Because this is for the betterment of the entire society, and indeed, the world. As each individual is improved, all of us-as a whole species, more than the sum of its parts-are better off. This is the function of educating our children, of creating a "school system": to encourage that expansion of knowledge and not force people to endure retracing and reiterating fallacies that are already known, but to create a populace which can build upon what is known and factual, and then dive into the unknown.

Get it Done

It is a drive of people to have things done, it seems; out of the way, so that they can be crossed off "the list". Unfortunately, this includes other people as well; there is even that expression, "to write someone off." Once you've made up your mind and have given the person a fair chance and evaluated their merits, what's the use in changing your opinion; why allow all that hard work to be undone by new information? You don't want to have to do that, it is already "done". That's one down, and only 29 million, 426 thousand, and 62 more things to go, right? There is no time to be constantly thinking about what is going on around you, you have more important things to do. Those who get caught up in this are blinding themselves to the truth that there is nothing that is ever 'done' or that will never again need to be re-evaluated. Such a thing does not exist in my experience, and that of many others who speak of these things. Life is a process, one that evolves constantly; the best we can do is accept that. We all need to deal with life on its own terms, and do the best we can by it. Just because we think we understand something one day does not mean it will stay that way forever. Our understanding of the world around us is constantly being revised. We learn new information and make new theories all the time. That is the nature of knowledge and our lives. There is no last anything until we die, and even then there is a lot of debate.

The Terrible Truth About Lying

I have a lot to say on this subject, but I'll try and keep it interesting and of reasonable length; we can always come back to it and discuss it further later. First: as with anger, lying is based in fear. One does not lie if there is nothing to be afraid of by telling the truth, and one does not go through life lying because it is easier. If I were unafraid of saying something to someone on some level, why would I feel the need to make up a lie? Why go through all the trouble of concocting some tale except to placate my conscience or someone's sense of propriety? Telling the truth is easy, it's basically just reporting what happened. The only reason to lie is because one thinks it is better personally, either to advance in status or keep out of trouble. Instead of letting the boss know it was another person, you take credit for something successful. Trying to tell your spouse, "that affair didn't mean anything to me!" because you don't want to lose the security of having them around. Secondly, since no one controls anyone else, lies are one way of getting others to do what you want. If you know (or just suspect) that I won't help you with something you want, you lie to me to make it seem right or proper to help you. You actually trade your own reputation for that item, because when you are found out people around you are less likely to believe you. Instead of being honest and accepting the consequences, even if it's something simple like missing out on a few dollars or being grounded, you change things to your advantage. Last, and most important-even if least addressed: lying always, always, begins within you. When you lie, you always lie to yourself first and worst; you cannot lie effectively to another if you don't believe what you are saying. This means that you have gone through the process of convincing yourself of the lie, you have to accept that piece of unreality to persuade others of it. In doing so, you decrease your own hold on reality, you convince yourself a little bit more of your own importance and correctness. None of which is true; your own needs are not paramount, nor of spectacular concern for the rest of us, only yourself. By lying you make it clear that you place yourself before others, that you don't value the opinions and feelings of your fellow humans. It takes courage and conviction to tell the truth when it's really important, when lives are effected. It's important to talk about what is lacking in a marriage, even if it's difficult to admit being angry, or sorry. Really brave individuals accept rejection, understand the importance of respect, and handle failure well. It is okay to admit to being wrong, because it's okay to be wrong.