Lately I’ve been feeling like I need another creative outlet. Haven’t really felt like writing though. Maybe this explains my lack of posts.
Today I went to Michael’s, the craft store, and bought some modeling clay. Started kneading it around and trying to shape it into things. Not really making anything in particular. The lump of clay started to look like a stump and then it became a human head shaped stump.
I wasn’t really paying attention to what I was doing with my hands. Started listening to a podcast and the host made a comment about creativity. He said that to be really creative you need to stop “self observation.” If you are looking at yourself and observing why you are doing what you are, you can’t be your creative best. You just have to create.
Anyway, I found it very profound considering that I was trying to fill a creative void in my life at the time.
This is another of those statements that doesn’t make much sense to me; choose your destiny or change your fate/destiny. If such a thing as fate or a destiny exists, it assumes that your future is decided. Having a destiny means that your future is written for you, if you can change that story, than it wasn’t actually destined was it?
So you either have a destiny, that can’t be changed, or you have free will to determine your future. If you can change or decide your future, there was never a destiny.
Personally, I don’t think anyone has a fate. We all choose the direction of our lives. There is no plan, no one has a plan for us except ourselves, and we realize the plan by the choices we make.
So stop saying that we can choose our fate, is makes no sense.
I always have to chuckle when I hear people complain about low turnout for some election. As if the results would be more meaningful if everyone participated. But would they?
Aside from the fact that virtually all politicians are pathological liars, and never actually do anything they promise, would the outcome really be different if more people voted?
The argument for democracy is that elections reflect “the will of the people”. If such a thing as “the will of the people” exists and an election is a way to determine it, does it really matter if the turnout is closer to 100% or closer to 5%? Elections are really nothing more than unscientific opinion polls. Unscientific because the voters were not chosen at random, but represent only a select group of people that traveled to the polling place and cast a vote. This is about as scientific as an Internet poll.
Opinion polls, where a small sample size is polled, can be determined to be accurate within certain percent based on statistical calculations. Sampling is a valid way to measure things in many fields and should be just as valid when measuring “the will of the people.”
Maybe elections results should be reported to be accurate within + or – some % of the will of the people (WOP). When turnout is low we just say “voters chose X by 5% plus or minus 3% WOP.”
I can safely say that the results of any election you might have participated in, or planned to in the future, would not be any different if you had stayed home. Next time there is an election, write down who you would vote for/against and then stay home. The next day look at the results, they can usually be found online, and see if adding one vote to your guy’s tally would have made a difference. You have a better chance of being run over by a car on your way to of from the polling place than making a difference in any election.