fuckphilosophy.com

Here is another (Part 1here) inherent drawback to pedestrianism (more below on the problem with terminology). Dudes have flashy-ass cars that change color, and rims that appear to spin backwards and everyone looks at them and says: ‘That is a crazy-ass lookin’ car, and inside that must be the driver‘. Some people skateboard, and so they are often seen on skateboards, or carrying skateboards, and people look at them and say: ‘Oh look, a skateboarder‘. Some people ride a push-bike/bicycle and they are all accessorized and fancy, so fancy that you can tell just from their dress and accessories that they are a rider or a bicyclist or whatever. They get to hang out on the street standing on their bikes chatting because they are all riders. So what if you are a walker? The problem with being a walker is that you are indistinct from a driver who is walking to his/her car. Once they get in their car: ‘Ah, I knew he was something: a driver‘. If you are a walker and standing on your feet on the sidewalk chatting without a bike or a skateboard or something, people would just think that you had nothing to do. Do you see what I’m getting at?

How do you distinguish a walker (stupid term)? The problem with being a walker is that you are indistinct from a driver who is walking to his/her car. There is no such concept analogous to a driver, or a skater, or whatever. Once the dude gets in his car: ‘Ah, I knew he was something: a driver‘. Or what if you are walking super fast with marching arms or jogging or whatever; you know what they are. They’re only doing that because they’ve been driving and sitting all day. But if you are a walker and walking or hanging around on your feet on the sidewalk, chatting, smelling the butterflies, without a bike or a skateboard or something, people would just think that you had nothing to do. Hence the negative connotations with the term ‘pedestrian’ (see my previous post about the problems with this term). Do you see what I’m getting at?

One of the problems I would like to address here is terminology. The word ‘pedestrian’ doesn’t even capture the concept I’m envisaging. Drivers are pedestrians when they are walking back and forth from their cars. I guess skateboarders are even kinda pedestrians. But then ‘walker’ doesn’t really capture it either, because the concept I have in mind isn’t limited to only walking. The concept I am trying to define is one who walks, takes buses, trains, subways, and isn’t averse to biking, but not as cliquey hipster thing, just as another means of transportation. Anyways, here is my candidate term that best captures this concept: an ambler. To amble is to “to go at a slow, easy pace; stroll; saunter” (dictionary.com). I’ll get there by some manner or means/route/etc. I’m not just going to hop in my car and plow through town honking and cutting off people and then fall out all over the place. An ambler. ‘Amble’ is at least better than ‘rambler’, or ‘drifter’. And what about ‘loiterer’? What the fuck?! You see what I mean – all these words for going slow by foot, or standing on feet have these loser connotations.

The problem I will address next time is: how to distinguish yourself (from all those silly-ass drivers and riders) as an ambler.

I haven’t done the etymological research, but somehow ‘pedestrian’ came to be synonymous with: banal, commonplace, dull, ordinary, unexciting, etc. If you want to see a photo that really demonstrates what abuse this is, here is the photo from the wikipedia page for ‘pedestrian’. And what about ‘paedophile’? Even if they don’t share a common root, you can see what I’m getting at. This injustice has gone unsung for long enough.

The roots of the word have to do with feet and going by foot and the like. This makes sense because that is what the word means. So next time you speak of someone having a “pedestrian lifestyle”, just think of what you are really saying: their life has something to do with feet. Doesn’t sound so cool and literate now, does it?

(to be continued)

In explaining ideas, why can’t people be more clear? Why can’t they just start from the key to the whole system of ideas? After which the whole rest of the picture would just fall into place. There are so many damn obstacles to learning, and that is one of the biggest. On very rare occasions I have come across a book/teacher who made clear sense to me. I don’t mean to speak negatively of people, since it might be my fault, but I get really frustrated trying to understand something that I later find out wasn’t so complicated, and that for some reason I found myself way-off and had basically to try to forget it all in order to continue.

I don’t know where to direct my frustration. Maybe I need to get some ritalin or something. It isn’t that all ideas are hard to understand, it is just some, and I usually blame myself, but I’m starting to think that it isn’t necessarily my fault. This really is misdirected anger, but nonetheless it is a fact that it isn’t always easy to absorb the material.

About all of this philosophy that I study I have this same idea: it isn’t so damned complicated. All of it could be explained clearly and simply. At the same time, it is often these simplifications of people’s ideas that end up confusing people. I don’t really know what the problem is. I remember learning about quantum theory and relativity and all these silly-ass illustrations of quantum/relativistic phenomena really confusing the hell out of me. Just tell me how the equations behave/ just tell me about the experimental data, and let me try to imagine it. So, that is a counter example to my gripes – sometimes these illustrations can just confuse you.

I have these fantasies of a system of information that would be made as efficient and clear as anyone might possibly want. Something possibly like wikipedia, but laid out like this: each topic/idea having a single sentence summary (maybe even keyword/term before that), then possibly a paragraph summary, then a short article, then a longer article, then possibly links to the primary texts. They could be rated too as to how clear they are, and monitored accordingly. I’m thinking particularly of philosophy here, but some kind of encyclopedia/dictionary/library. I’m thinking of clarity and efficiency of comprehension. Linked-up, pop-up bubble definitions, streamlined and intuitively laid out. Not all this fucking-around trying to figure it out. Even some esoteric occult wisdom, just give me the main idea and I’ll be good. I really think it is a problem that it is so damn hard to understand things sometimes; I don’t think they have to be.

Afraid to get ‘out-of-your-head’, retreat back to your fortress of convictions (armor), go ahead and reinforce yourself, mirror walls reflecting your image infinitely.