What is important to me? It seems that the answer to that question changes everyday. Right now, finishing this blog and doing my other assorted end of the year school work is important. That will, in turn allow me to do other important things, and so on.
The thing to realize about attaching importance to something is not to go overboard. If you attach too much importance to something, when that goal is reached/item breaks/plot line reaches a conclusion you are going to attach more importance to something else. Then you'll just be stuck in a revolving continuum of unimportant important things that you're always getting done, and your life will just be an empty void.
That said, something that is first and foremost in my mind right now, twenty-four seven, is college. I am going there soon. I need money; provided by a job (another important thing right now), and scholarships which are again funded by me doing well in school (which I alluded to in the beginning). This is important so I might find a better job in the future (yet another important thing), which will allow me to pursue my various hobbies (which must be important to me, seeing how much I speak/ type of them), and both of these things might help me attain success, which will eventually ( hopefully) lead to peace of mind. That's a reasonable goal to shoot for, right?
These things are important to me for several reasons. The first is that, well, someday I want to attain peace of mind, maybe with a little bit of accomplishment, and a sense of belonging mixed in. These thing in and of themselves are important to me, because they are instinctual cravings that I can't particularly explain in full. The other things are important, because they will help me achieve these goals. Thusly, you can see that I am caught in the very unhappy continuum I mentioned before. A realization has just occurred. This is important to meas well, because knowledge (and perhaps a smidge of wisdom) will assist greatly on my journey to the (henceforth named) "More Important Things" (peace of mind etc.). I have come to the realization that, perhaps I was wrong. Maybe just because something is cyclical, doesn't mean it will make you unhappy and devoid of meaning. Perhaps a certain amount of cyclicity is necessary to attain the 'More Important Things". My god...I could sell this crap in a book and make a bundle...
At any rate, I hold no illusions that any of this is going to be easy. That won't stop me from trying for it though. After all, It is important. Maybe that is what importance is. The understanding that one must still try for something, even though it will not be easy, or even possible. Deep things to ponder... and if you would like to ponder them with me, my newly published book can help you unravel the mysteries of the universe for only three easy payments of 9.99, sent directly to me in cash or money orders...
-Sholan out
(Calm. Cool. And almost collected.)
Monday, June 14, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The Vermillion Medallion of Bravery
What is courage? Why don't you ask someone who has a ready and most likely flawed explanation for that question, like a soldier, or a fireman? That is not to say that there is any thing wrong with people who take up those career paths, but I was just stating that their textbook definitions of courage might be lacking, and therefore much easier to spew about with a great degree of confidence than any backwards, self-repeating, perfect, catch-all of a definition some useless intellectual like myself might try to come up with. That said, if my definition ends up technically better than a soldier's or a fireman's , that is solely because I have never encountered nor acted upon any feeling like it in my life.
To revisit a topic, I would like to let everyone know that I play a war game called Warhammer 40000. I am in the process of switching armies, and am reexamining my infatuation with it due to its producer's attitude towards its costumers (and the pervasive belief hat we are animals in a Pink Floyd album, and will consume upon demand any manner of ridiculousness) and the fact that I have found a significantly more enjoyable replacement. At any rate Aside from my quibbles with the company, Warhammer is a fine scale to use for defining courage. Thus, most of my definitions will result from my experience with the game on the table top, and various attitudes associated with its playing. I do this because I realize that sitting on my butt from the safety of my own home and writing some all inclusive definition of something I don't really know of is just pretentious. So I'll stick with what I know (the list of things that I know at this point in my life is limited to war games, boardwalk stands, the English language, and diabetes).
So then, courage in the back story of the WH40K (an abbreviation for warhammer 40000) is just rampant, and is strictly limited to gloriously crushing charges and blood drenched glorious last stands. A bit narrow in my opinion, and not at all befitting of my play style (though I know some who embrace the back story as the only way to play), but it is gothic sci-fi/fantasy after all. When I play (unless I am feeling particularly stupid, or simply don't want to play my current opponent) I tend towards the conservative. I don't enjoy losing half as much as winning, and like losing my men even less. After all, I spent hours painstakingly converting and painting them. I don't want them to die. As soon as I switch armies, I'll have an excuse to do this while at the same time reconciling it with the back story for my army (a clever commander with a certain protectiveness for his men). Currently, I assume this aspect of my play style simply reflects the selfish nature of my troops as individuals (right now I play Chaos, but am soon switching to Imperial Guard, who have a more normalized army structure). It also helps that my new army will be so heavy on long range artillery that it won't have to go anywhere near the opponent to win...
At the same time, while I like to play to save as many men as I can, in the end they are only plastic figurines. And one lesson I have learned the hard way is that if you don't take risks some of the time, you're going to lose out all of the time. But taking risks doesn't just mean doing something potentially idiotic. It means doing something unexpected, that could end up being potentially idiotic. Like going after a different unit or objective than your opponent expected, or abandoning base to set up an ambush. Sometimes, it means doing something so absolutely crazy that your opponent will feel like they've just woken up from a come induced four years ago by an angry ex who shot up their wedding. For example, (one of my best games, no matter what my friend may say about it) I once nearly tied a game without firing a single shot. I parked my guys in strategic positions, ad let the mere threat of their firepower nearly deliver me victory. Of course, I lost that game (because it was the first time I had encountered eldar transports and their 24" move-dickerry in an actual game, but I digress). In fact, I was ridiculed for having played that game the way I did. Everyone thought I should have charged up and ripped face, and called me a pansy for not haing the guts to to so, come what may (matter of fact it was a very narrowly won game, and after running some statistics (which my back story playing friends despise along with sense and tactics) I found out that I would have lost much more significantly if I had put myself in a position to attack my opponent. GG Pockets). So now I have my own question, is stupidity courage?
So there you have it, a four hour rant about how I play warhammer and why. Now to tie it in to courage. My definition is not a catch-all, is not based on real under fire experience, and is likely to sound completely hokey and corny, but it is based on something I know, and (hopefully) do rather well. You see, to me, courage is doing whats best for those around you, no matter the cost to yourself, but still retaining the willingness to barter what is important to you (in my case, the 'lives' of my men, and/or a shot at winning) to take a risk that could better theirs or your own position (or insert noun here). It begins with caring and ends with conviction. And above all, it's about staying true to yourself and surprising others with sheer authenticness. And it's a lesson I think I am finally beginning to take to heart...
To revisit a topic, I would like to let everyone know that I play a war game called Warhammer 40000. I am in the process of switching armies, and am reexamining my infatuation with it due to its producer's attitude towards its costumers (and the pervasive belief hat we are animals in a Pink Floyd album, and will consume upon demand any manner of ridiculousness) and the fact that I have found a significantly more enjoyable replacement. At any rate Aside from my quibbles with the company, Warhammer is a fine scale to use for defining courage. Thus, most of my definitions will result from my experience with the game on the table top, and various attitudes associated with its playing. I do this because I realize that sitting on my butt from the safety of my own home and writing some all inclusive definition of something I don't really know of is just pretentious. So I'll stick with what I know (the list of things that I know at this point in my life is limited to war games, boardwalk stands, the English language, and diabetes).
So then, courage in the back story of the WH40K (an abbreviation for warhammer 40000) is just rampant, and is strictly limited to gloriously crushing charges and blood drenched glorious last stands. A bit narrow in my opinion, and not at all befitting of my play style (though I know some who embrace the back story as the only way to play), but it is gothic sci-fi/fantasy after all. When I play (unless I am feeling particularly stupid, or simply don't want to play my current opponent) I tend towards the conservative. I don't enjoy losing half as much as winning, and like losing my men even less. After all, I spent hours painstakingly converting and painting them. I don't want them to die. As soon as I switch armies, I'll have an excuse to do this while at the same time reconciling it with the back story for my army (a clever commander with a certain protectiveness for his men). Currently, I assume this aspect of my play style simply reflects the selfish nature of my troops as individuals (right now I play Chaos, but am soon switching to Imperial Guard, who have a more normalized army structure). It also helps that my new army will be so heavy on long range artillery that it won't have to go anywhere near the opponent to win...
At the same time, while I like to play to save as many men as I can, in the end they are only plastic figurines. And one lesson I have learned the hard way is that if you don't take risks some of the time, you're going to lose out all of the time. But taking risks doesn't just mean doing something potentially idiotic. It means doing something unexpected, that could end up being potentially idiotic. Like going after a different unit or objective than your opponent expected, or abandoning base to set up an ambush. Sometimes, it means doing something so absolutely crazy that your opponent will feel like they've just woken up from a come induced four years ago by an angry ex who shot up their wedding. For example, (one of my best games, no matter what my friend may say about it) I once nearly tied a game without firing a single shot. I parked my guys in strategic positions, ad let the mere threat of their firepower nearly deliver me victory. Of course, I lost that game (because it was the first time I had encountered eldar transports and their 24" move-dickerry in an actual game, but I digress). In fact, I was ridiculed for having played that game the way I did. Everyone thought I should have charged up and ripped face, and called me a pansy for not haing the guts to to so, come what may (matter of fact it was a very narrowly won game, and after running some statistics (which my back story playing friends despise along with sense and tactics) I found out that I would have lost much more significantly if I had put myself in a position to attack my opponent. GG Pockets). So now I have my own question, is stupidity courage?
So there you have it, a four hour rant about how I play warhammer and why. Now to tie it in to courage. My definition is not a catch-all, is not based on real under fire experience, and is likely to sound completely hokey and corny, but it is based on something I know, and (hopefully) do rather well. You see, to me, courage is doing whats best for those around you, no matter the cost to yourself, but still retaining the willingness to barter what is important to you (in my case, the 'lives' of my men, and/or a shot at winning) to take a risk that could better theirs or your own position (or insert noun here). It begins with caring and ends with conviction. And above all, it's about staying true to yourself and surprising others with sheer authenticness. And it's a lesson I think I am finally beginning to take to heart...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
