All You've Got To Do Is Not Be A Stranger

A friend here at Ursinus, Alonzo, just left my room after talking for almost three hours since eleven O'clock. We see each other occasionally and say hello, and recently when I see him around he asks why he never sees me (as some people do, because I'm always holing myself up in my dorm doing school work) and he says it half jokingly but half serious. I could tell it seemed like he sort of wanted to talk and I'd been hoping we'd get a chance to hang out soon. Tonight happened to be that time.

I was being semi productive in my dorm doing a bio lab worksheet when there was a faint knock on my door, but I knew it wasn't anyone I normally talk to that comes to my room because I never get a faint, light knock like this. I actually wasn't entirely sure if someone had knocked until I happened to see, from my bed, the peephole on my door darken with someone standing in front of it. I said "come on in" and it happened to be Alonzo. We'd never really talked much before so I was sort of surprised he just came to my dorm. One of the first things he said was to bring up how he never sees me, which kind of amused me. He came by with some school stuff and to see what I was up to, and we momentarily talked about a question on the bio worksheet but then began to just, talk. I mostly listened, which I was happy to do because I enjoy hearing about other people and their stories and wanted to actually get to know him. He's from Guyana, lived there for twelve years and has an accent, which I think sounds pretty cool. Although, I think most accents sound more interesting than the more plain American accents (or so it seems plain to me, as someone born and raised in American). We talked about relationships briefly, and I especially liked how he said he was still sort of getting used to the atmosphere here and thinking differently (which I think most of us are). What he meant, and explained, was that he is getting used to thinking for himself in a way other than how he was told to think growing up. I loved that point because I feel like this is somehting most of us here (and likely at all colleges) are getting used to doing, and some people don't break away from how they were raised to think and don't begin to think critically for themselves. But, I asked for examples. One example, that I think can be a big thing depending where you grow up or how you are raised, is when he mentioned being in touch with your own sexuality and just being yourself. Exploring yourself, acting more freely. One of the benefits to a more liberal atmosphere is that there is less judgement and we can act freely and explore as well as express ourselves. This is certainly true for me as well. We didn't go deep into how he specifically was raised and told to think in terms of this point, but it did make me think of how since we are little, to different degrees, we are taught to be almost shameful of sexuality and that it can be a negative thing and sometimes even taboo. It is, of course, perfectly natural though and there is no reason to suppress sexuality. Sexuality and being a sensuous person (although being sensuous is certainly not restricted to sex) is one of the most natural and thrilling aspects of life. It is extremely pleasurable and something that should be valued. We can learn a lot about ourselves through our sexuality in terms of basic realizations such as what we do and do not prefer, things such as whether we have desires such as being a dominant or submissive person (which may be a result of our personality) or even coming accepting our more hidden sexual desires. We can express ourselves in an entirely different light as well as enjoy life and experience it in a way very different than most other aspects from which we derive joy, pleasure, inspiration or even spirituality.

We talked about drugs as well, how we had both only experienced weed (and greatly enjoy it), and also talked about how I plan on trying psychedelic mushrooms and/or possibly in the future, LSD. He's been curious about LSD too and thinks he wants to try it at some point. We went int that somewhat in depth and when the topic of psychedelics like that being dangerous, I began to explain what I had learned from researching them, although I'm not going to take up time to explain what more we talked about with how the drugs work.

I asked him about Guyana and if he missed it, to which he said he did a little sometimes, but he does not get very attached to a lot of things. I also am the same way in some respects, and when he brought up how sometimes he worries about the fact that certain things don't affect him, I talked about how I used to worry about the same exact thing. He brought up the death of a close family member that hadn't affected him so much, and the closest example I had was when my older brother and I were home alone and my mom woke me up with a call saying he was on the bathroom floor unable to breathe (he managed to call her). I went in and he was nearly suffocating, and while on the phone with my parents they called an ambulance, I sat him up and tried to get him to be able to take in air, and then drug him into the hall where it was cooler and not steamy from the shower. He could barely breathe and I kept pushing him up and keeping him awake and breathing as he kept trying to slump over until the paramedics got there. The entire time, I was absolutely calm and not worried in the slightest. I am, however, used to him being injured and in serious situations (he was also indirectly struck by lighting while swimming and had a gun to his chest in Reading, PA one night) so that may have been part of it. But I had also worried about my own detachment form the situation. We talked about that topic for a bit, and had good conversation on it.

We spent time talking about school work too and how he loves to write, which I think is fantastic. He'd love to be a writer and likes writing fiction as well as poetry. It was obvious he does truly love writing and would like to be a writer, and Alonzo is obviously a smart and thoughtful person who has a lot of ideas that he could use for writing material. It was just great getting to know someone else and talking for hours like this, making a new friend.

What stuck to me was right as he was leaving, I think hinting at us not talking before and me not being as socially outgoing sometimes because of school work, he said "All you've got to do is not be a stranger." Out of nowhere he came to my room, knocked, and we talked for a couple hours straight. These are moments that really make me happy and appreciate people. I really took that away from our talk tonight. All you've got to do is not be a stranger.

Ignorance and evidence rejection

In my hall's bathroom there were two paper-sized posters put up. The one had pictures of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, Ben Carson, Donald Trump, and one other person who I forget, with respective quotes all essentially saying the same thing: The minimum wage should be raised. Although, Clinton and Sanders' quotes were more specific (15/hr). The other had a picture (which I can't seem to get from my phone to this blog) explaining that when adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage of $7.25 is lower than it was in 1968, that in 2013 there were 3.3 million people in the U.S. being paid minimum wage ($15,000/year), and "While whites comprise the majority of the minimum wage workforce (77%), nearly 5% of African-Americans earn the minimum wage or less- that's higher than any other race or ethnicity." The poster also showed which states have their own minimum wage higher than $7.25. the sources cited at the bottom of the posted by their URL links were PBS.org and pewresearch.org. Two reputable organizations.
My friend, the same one who made the comment about public schools, asked, in a tone of voice that insinuated he thought they were absurd, if I had seen the posters. I said they were in all of the bathrooms I have seen and he said he was taking them down, and that they wouldn't be in his bathroom and called the statistics and the message stupid liberal hippie bullshit. That is not an exact quote, but those words were present in the remark he used. I simply said "I assume that you have evidence to support that those statistics are false then, since you don't believe them." His response started with "no I don't have any evidence and I don't need any" (red flag for his argument) then went on to rant that they (whoever "they" are) pull statistics that are false out of nowhere and we don't know if they are true because you can find evidence to support whatever you want. Obviously he was already lacking any logic in his argument, and I told him that no, you can't find evidence for whatever you want- he tried to cut me off and say that you could- and I cut him back off to keep on with my point, saying that you can fabricate false "evidence" but you can not get actual evidence to support whatever you want. That is counter-intuitive. He began saying again, obviously annoyed (I've been priding myself on keeping pretty calm in a lot of confrontations) and grasping for straws to support his opinion, that "they" just go off and pull up whatever statistics they want to support what they think and that it is hippie bullshit, and said quite a few other remarks which, in all honesty, I forget. I cut him off then, and calmly but assertively stated: no, that is not what happened and you are being extremely ignorant of evidence. The pew research center (I hadn't noticed PBS as the second source before this) is a very reputable source and not a source of fabricated information. You are literally looking at objective evidence and out of no reason, other than it contradicting your preexisting beliefs, are stating that is MUST be false without any reason to support that claim. You are not looking at evidence objectively and then coming to a conclusion based off of the information presented, but are outright denying evidence because it refutes what you already believe (what that specific opinion was I'm not sure, but only know that it apparently found fault with the study results). I finished by saying it was illogical and he had no basis for an argument. A brief moment of silence, since he realized there was not a way for him to argue his point, and then tried to play it off and soften the mood by making a random statement, which was something along the lines of "but man, all I'm saying is..the Jews." I stood there for a second, realizing if I pretended it was randomly funny it would be like saying there were no hard feelings and him being wrong wasn't a big deal, and just let the silence sit for a couple seconds before walking out.
I'm aware that retelling the story may paint myself in a bit of a conceited light, and I tried to tell it in a way that this was not so, but I would lie if I said I wasn't confident in my argument and my handling of a lot of situations. This event was on my mind afterwards though and it did irritate me. What we argued over wasn't a huge deal, but the stubbornness and argument from ignorance dumbfounded. Literally denying evidence because it goes against an opinion you already have which is, itself, based on no logic and only close-mindedness. This, the underlying point behind why I felt the need to write about this in the first place, is what is important. I see this type of thinking around me quite a lot, both in my college as well as in my home town. Although it is arguably easy to fall into this mode of thinking, where we make judgments and arguments based off of no actual evidence, but rather off of preexisting beliefs and justifying our points with broad statements which, if looked at critically, give no supporting evidence themselves. It is a pure lack of reason, and it is hard to ignore the fact that such modes of thinking are commonplace throughout the world.

What is the meaning of life? Surely by now the question itself no longer has meaning. Well, it really doesn't have any more meaning than life itself does. A better way to form that, albeit still no more credible of a question, would be "what is the meaning of human life", since that is really what people are asking. We are an extremely self-centered species and believe everything that happens to us, especially individually, is somehow significant. To ask what the meaning of life is only serves to waste breath. To ask for the "meaning" of life insinuates a predetermined meaning, or purpose, or destination for life that was laid out prior to or at the moment of its beginning. It also assumes not only that we are somehow significantly important but that a supernatural being must exist in order to bestow such "meaning" onto human existence.

 To ask the meaning or purpose behind such a thing as the existence of life is a dead-end, nonintellectual question. We can ask what led to life arising on Earth, however, and how life evolved from its primordial form into the current species extant on the planet today as well as ask questions about our own specific evolutionary lineage. These are feasible questions, A meaning, though? There simply is no reason to believe there is one. I also fail to see how this is disappointing, unless a person chooses to stop there and fall into a depressed view of life because of it. To assume a meaning to life is to assume a creator who has created a preexisting plan for life as a whole and, if religious, a plan for us individually. This is not nearly as freeing or inspiring as reality because this assumption means that there is a plan for you: a predetermined destination that you will end up at. Does this not imply a lack of free will? Just because there is not a greater being who somehow determined the purpose of our existence does not however mean our lives don't have meaning. We know that our lives have meaning in relation to one another and the world, but that meaning does not need to be bestowed unto us by a supernatural sky daddy. We give our own lives meaning, and we decide each morning what we want to live for.

 I was asked during a late-night conversation in my dorm room how, as someone who does not believe any god/s exist, I find meaning in my life. My initial reply was a question: "How does religion give your life meaning?" Then after a pause of silence, I explained my genuine view on the topic. I told my friend that I wake up every single morning and decide what my life's meaning is and will to be. I decide what I want to be, how I want to impact the world and others around me, and how I am going to make myself happy. I wake up and I give my own life meaning, just as you do. It is extremely simple, really, yet also very inspiring I think. We have only one life to live, and rather than deny that and comfort myself with stories of an after life, I accept the reality and use it as motivation to live my life in the way I want to. I don't remember what I was doing in the moment when I had actually stopped denying I had no belief in an afterlife and not only recognized the fact of our simple existence, but accepted it. However, I will never forget the feeling of the moment, which is recreated every time I take the time to think and remind myself that there is nothing after this. It was bliss, and my life has not been the same since then. I have not made any drastic changes as you might be imagining (I haven't gone sky diving or hiked the Appalachian Trail or anything particularly "exciting"), but my outlook on the world was changed and the inspiration I feel from the natural world and the universe was increased tremendously. The way I determine which decision to make has changed. My view of my own future is different and I recognize that I don't want to live a life were I just aspire to meet modern societal standards of what is "successful" but rather want to live a happy life. I will learn and feed my curiosity, love, teach, and appreciate.
I realized a lot of what motivates me to learn biology and other sciences is not to prepare me for any type of career but simply to fuel appreciation. To fuel my curiosity. I learn to learn and I love it. I haven't the slightest idea what I wish to be when I am older, during the years between university and becoming a teacher that is. I just want to learn and the more I learn, the greater the bewilderment I feel when letting my gaze remain fixated on the veins of a leaf, or the ant hiking up its underside, or the spider methodically spinning its web. Appreciation is a big part of what fuels my desire to learn. I want to learn in order to appreciate more deeply. 

Prologue of the Blog

I have a journal which I should take the time to write in more often (Ha! Time...) But I've wanted to start a blog to share thoughts and experiences. It is also faster to type ideas than write.

Biology is my major here at Ursinus College, where I am a Freshman, and I love the school despite the overwhelming workload. To think freely is something of great value to me, as is passion and love. Not simply a romantic love for significant others or even love of close relatives, but love of life and everything that makes it up. I'm currently starting this at 2:50 in the morning when I have a biology exam at 8:00 A.M. so this may be slightly stream of conscious and not all connected. After studying until 2:00 tonight and 3:00 last night (or morning, rather) I am confident for tomorrow and so with the help of my good friend caffeine, I think I will be okay. 

I think a lot about the things I hear people say. I notice ignorance is extremely abundant everywhere, to varying degrees. Of course, we are all ignorant of many things, but acting on that ignorance and making assumptions or forming opinions based on stereotypes for which there is no actual evidence, or even on personal experience (which is still not always a good thing to make assumptions based off of) is where I see fault. Just today I was talking to a friend about how I have known for a long time I will become a teacher when I am older. He said I shouldn't go try to get a job right out of undergrad school though because I will get stuck at a public school teaching those kinds of crappy kids (his words). I asked what he was talking about, giving him a chance to explain his obviously false assumption on public schools (coming from a private Catholic school in California himself). He said that the kids in public schools always come to school high or have sex in the bathrooms and just don't care, and listed one other reason although I forget what it was. Now, of course, this is in no way reason to stereotype that he is representative of all people from privileged backgrounds and private schools. So, after he said this I said to him that "You have an extremely unrealistic, stereotypical view of public schools that is in no way accurate." He then tried to cite two friends who are form public schools who complained about people coming into school high or having sex in the school, etc. So his opinion was one based off of no actual evidence, just complaints of what is likely a minority of students in a specific high school. What he was told also likely only reinforced his preexisting assumption about public schools, because he did not appear surprised by this and presented it as if it was representative of all public schools. Obviously this could not be further from the truth. I would like to go into this further but I am getting tired. Simple points: If what he heard was true, which I would not doubt, because things like that do in fact happen in most schools regardless, it would likely have happened in a small selective group of people. Obviously he was only told of one or two stories of "bad" students and took it too represent the whole school Also, if the entire school, for the sake of argument, did in fact run rampant with drugs and sex in the school, how would that be representative of any other school other than that one specifically? I could cite just as many stories of my own friends from private catholic schools hooking up in the school, coming to class drunk or high, doing inconsiderate pranks or vandalism toward the school, etc. Can I then make the same assumption about private schools? Or can I use him as a representation of the schools as a place for close-minded privileged kids who think they are above a public school? Public schools are also no better or worse than private ones. Why not similarly point to a school with a glittering reputation and use it to represent all public or private school? Perhaps it is because you do not know much of anything about public or private schools outside of your very confined, subjective view of them. The point is not necessarily about the difference between schools but only that this is an example of the type of arguments from ignorance that I detest. 

Fun fact, star fish don't have blood. they use pumped sea water to move things through their body. How fantastic is that?