The more I read stuff and observe stuff, the more I feel that zeitgeist is a lie, an over-simplification like gender. Something we cling to for its clarity as it makes the world appear logical and coherent, but which is really narrow-minded and limiting. Half the population sometimes does not live accordingly. I think that’s significant.
I can’t say I identify as an anti-consumerist at this point, but I’ve had such leanings for several years and I see them growing stronger. Sometimes it is a little bit frightening. I don’t actually want to become the spoilsport activist who goes around loudly disapproving of things that other people enjoy or are not educated enough not to enjoy. If I were to go down that route, I’d like it to be my personal thing, like religion is personal to a lot of people, except the fundamentalists and those that desire to convert everyone.
Its roots are probably in my slightly animistic thinking, love of nature and general sentimentality. I like items to be special, have a story to tell. People who mindlessly consume do seem to lose the ability to enjoy simple things. They would need even greater luxury or greater quantities to feel an item is special. I kind of want to preserve my joy over simple things, so I wouldn’t want to numb my senses with overconsumption to mindless levels.
This modern trend of very expensive weddings and engagement rings, for example, is completely incomprehensible to me. I’m not going to criticise it either because I just don’t understand it. It clearly matters to many people to have things in their wedding that cost a lot but why it matters so much is a bit of….I wouldn’t want to draw the obvious conclusion. There are very few people like me who’d be okay with a 1 euro ring too if it had personal significance. I said I was a sentimentalist, I did.
So I’d like to think that my consumption levels are not very high compared to the averages of today. They are not admirably low either, though. I like pretty things a lot and pretty clothes, so my closet is not minimalist and is never going to be. However, I do find it very satisfying when whatever items I’ve bought get a good amount of use. I feel good throwing away shoes that have become unuseable because the signs of wear are really bad. I do not feel good throwing away perfectly good quality items, though. Those I take to recycling or second hand store collection points. Sometimes I turn some items into sewing projects too. And generally tend to try to find alternative uses for things if I can think of them.
I would not mind living in a world where clothes were so expensive that you could only afford a few, like it was the case in the 19th century.
I am spoilt and like having a lot of choice at this point, but I could live like this too if I made up my mind to it and set it as a goal, and I admire people who do already, unless they are annoying fundamentalists who think everyone who cannot live like them is a worthless human being.
I’m truly frustrated with the amount of fake materials used in nearly every industry. I would really love to buy high-quality ethically-made natural-material based products. I think very many people would love to. For some the cost may be a stumbling block, but an even greater stumbling block is the lack of such products and how hard it is to find them on the market. If one goes down that route, it becomes your entire life to seek out such products. And that is a point for pause and reflection on one’s priorities.
Basically, to buy high quality, you need to become very, very informed. With clothing it is a little bit easier because there aren’t too many things to look for – just avoid fake materials, like polyester, and seek for brands that manufacture their clothing sustainably, do not use toxic chemicals and so forth. However, the massive problem with such brands for me is that I simply do not like their designs. I’ve looked sometimes, but have not found anything that I would want to buy. Not to mention that brands like that are not available in department stores and if you live in a small country, like me, you would need to order such clothes abroad.
If these brands made more stylish/interesting/feminine/cute clothing and would become more widely available, I’d be a sure customer, but as is the case now, I shop in the same stores everyone else does and hope for the best. What I would never buy are H&M jeans though. The smell of those things is vile. If an item fails even the smell test, then it is very bad indeed. Samsung fridges also smell vile and some washing machines and kettles. I actually bought my current fridge because it was one of the few that didn’t stink to high heaven.
Is this a normal situation?! Couldn’t we just double the prices of everything, give up the attitude that everyone needs 50 items of clothing and all modern tech, AND actually go back to offering high quality again, so shopping isn’t about picking the least offensive item.
I’m moving from the easier to the more complex in terms of how informed you need to be – next step is food. Awareness of chemicals and unnecessary additives is increasing, but it is definitely tiresome that a person has to turn shopping into a battle of intelligence against producers that try to sell you crap. Anyhow, at this point, I’ve not managed to learn everything yet. Some years ago, I didn’t know that palm oil was bad, for example. It looks natural enough on a label compared to E620. There are plenty of things I don’t know now either. And even if I know what is good quality, how am I supposed to access it when no store stocks French fries without palm oil? (Not buying them is not an option all the time because I cannot cook everything from scratch, and yes, I’ve tried many times, I’m just horrible at cooking vegetables). Also, how can I be sure when buying from a local farmer (who is not a personal acquaintance) that they haven’t soaked their fruit and vegetables in chemicals either? If I want to avoid plastic, how can I be sure that in transporting fruit and vegetables to a packaging-free store, massive amounts of plastic have not been used which only got removed in the store? All in all, I have kind of given up trying because clean food is very hard to access, choice is very limited and there is rarely certainty. It only seems possible to eat clean, high-quality food if you grow it yourself. Until I can do that, I just choose the less bad alternatives from whatever is available.
My pathetic attempt to grow things myself on the balcony
Cosmetics industry requires an education in chemistry to manage to make informed choices. Organic labels help, but are not always sufficient indicators of quality. There is a lot of greenwashing going on, with brands advertising themselves as pure and natural, but having SLS as the second ingredient. If you learn that silicones (things ending with -cone, like dimethicone), parabens and sulphates (particularly sodium laureth sulphate) are bad, you’ve passed grade 1 in orienteering in cosmetics, but it is only the beginning.
It is very much a matter of priorities and convenience too. A lot of the products marketed to us are not really necessary, why would a person need separate moisturisers for their feet and hands, for example? And everyone knows how cellulite got turned into a cosmetic problem so that people could be marketed anti-cellulite treatments. It is actually possible to get all your cosmetics from nature, from the fridge, but since we’ve grown up with getting them out of plastic bottles, it is very hard to rethink it and these things may not work for everyone.
Once again, I’m not there at all myself either. I don’t buy supermarket stuff, I generally buy organic, but that’s as far as I’ve currently gone. My hair is very difficult, so after years of trying with absolutely everything, from medical and organic shampoos to egg and yoghurt, I’m currently using a shampoo with SLS as the second ingredient. It’s a medical shampoo and there isn’t any alternative to it for me, as much as I’d rather like to use something a lot milder.
I think this is the case for very many people in their attempts to turn more ‘natural’, to prioritize quality and sustainability. First, it is so very hard to get that informed to even know what is good. Secondly, when you do know a bit, finding products that meet all your preferred criteria, without causing a massive drop in quality of life, is like finding the holy grail. The compromises one has to make are too great for very many people. I honestly don’t know what I’d end up eating at all if I tried to go one month fully organic/plastic-free. I could probably manage to improve considerably in the clothes & household items & cosmetics department, but not food.
The thing I can see myself improving in is actual attitude to consumption, which is what I began this long essay with. I have become increasingly more disinclined to buy stuff I do not absolutely need and frequently try to think of creative alternatives. Because what we think we “need” is often social pressure and skilful marketing. Spotting that and realizing you don’t actually need it can be like a fun game. But giving up frozen fries and all sweets containing palm oil is just too hard for lack of alternatives and would make life a misery for me. Perhaps there will come a time when it will not feel so, who knows.
When I hear consumerist people talking about my kind of life choices, they often use the same argument – that such a life would be misery if you could not have all that stuff and comfort of modernity. I do not view myself as lacking though. I truly don’t care and feel pleased with myself for having a mind of my own about what I “need”.
With “things” I do see potential for social change. It is probably utopian but I think an attitude change could work: if the cheapest dress cost 300 EUR in Western countries, people would pick it carefully and treasure it more, instead of buying a pile of 10-euro dresses. Same goes for every other item. There would be less need to produce that much because people can only afford few. There would be less waste and everything would be better quality because that would be prioritized again. Perhaps with the environmental crisis we are facing, such measures could be introduced: i.e. very strict quality requirements that would drive up prices. But with overpopulation, the food problem cannot really be solved in any way. Food has to be cheap so people can afford it and it is not possible to produce quality food on such scale, as sad as that may be. Making locally sourced food more easily available in supermarkets is possible, though. It’s depressing how they keep selling foreign mass-produced apples when we are having an apple season and there is an excess of them in all gardens….
Reading legal documents is sometimes worse than any postmodernist work of doom and gloom and general lack of meaningfulness.
Marriage turns into an economic contract and child custody laws make the child into a property of the parents. The child’s life is thus neatly split between two parents, because the right of both parents to see their child equally is superior to the child’s right to a stable, settled environment. But it’s not really that. I could envision a teenager who may even enjoy the change of scene. It’s the tone of these things. The extreme regulation, the splitting of hairs to achieve equality.
I encountered an opinion that for an intellectually stimulating and rich life one requires money. The reasoning being that otherwise you cannot go to the theatre, travel, go to concerts and participate in various courses.
LOL. Stupid wannabe educated middle class narrow-mindedness at its best.
This should be a useful post, a good post. After a long silence, one should do that, I suppose, write something meaningful and pithy. But I’m instead going to write something very dull.
I thought this morning, as I was checking out different phone companies to switch to a cheaper contract, that maybe I should get myself a new phone with the new contract too. A budget smartphone instead of my old regular phone so that people would stop rolling their eyes when they see me take out my phone. I’m not totally immune to that. Also, the thing I’m missing is not being able to transfer photos to other devices more easily and having a chat programme, so I can do away with regular text messages with people who also use the same IM service.
Since I wouldn’t be using most of the gadgets that come with it, the cheapest models seemed to be the thing to go for. I don’t even care for high picture quality. Adequate would do. And if the device gets so little use for all its extras, paying a lot seems foolish.
I picked out two models that seemed okay, but the moment I checked their battery life, I went off the idea completely. Having to charge them every day seems extremely tedious. Particularly if I’d hardly be using the apps and things that take up all the battery. My old phone lasts 5-7 days without being charged and I suppose one could get used to it lasting a day, but given what I would get in return for this increase in discomfort, it doesn’t balance out. For half the price it might make sense.
So I’ll stick to my old phone until it stops working and continue annoying and surprising people with not having a smartphone. The discomforts that come with it are not daily, but occasional at least.
Sometimes, truth hits you in the face with a frying pan. And everything you are and were becomes a lie.
I have no wish to disseminate more lies by writing about myself. I don’t like this self.
Let’s see how long my rebellion against falseness lasts. I’d give it two weeks.
Of course, I’d like it to be more. I’d like a rebirth as a purer and truer version of myself.
Other than that, my rose is blossoming.
Today is a hopeless one, so I decided to take a sick day in, read a book in bed and try a new comedy starring my current favourite actor. Writing on the blog also fits nicely into a day like this, so here I am.
While reading someone else’s blog, I noticed the blogger criticising one man, who was defending traditional family values publicly, but not being able to keep his own family together. This sort of criticism is often used to discredit what a person is saying. Even the most intelligent people employ it unthinkingly.
But if one thinks a bit.
Consider the people that practice harmful behaviours and preach it. Apologists of paedophilia and zoophilia, for example. Western society being heavily geared towards moral relativism, it is unsurprising that people dare to justify even such behaviours or that criminals may garner sympathy for having had a “difficult childhood”.
The main thing is, however, do we want to have apologists for behaviours that cannot be considered particularly ‘healthy’? Should people really be preaching what they practise? Or should the people whose families did fall apart, who can’t quite avoid cheating or be monogamous, who can’t quite quit drinking or eat healthy, should those people really begin to preach cheating as a justified necessity, drinking as beneficial to one’s creativity, and being fat from overeating as a new lifestyle choice? I think I’d much rather people didn’t preach their weaknesses, but joined the ranks of the “hypocrites” who preach what they fail to practise but believe in as a value. Who try to encourage others and society to be better than they are (even if this is not a concious aim, but more of an attempt to save face?).
I suppose this dislike for people who don’t live according to their ideals comes from the fact that some of them sound moralistic. And no one likes a moralistic attitude – “You think you are better than us, eh? Look at your own relationship!” “My friend’s daughter’s grandmother saw you eating a burger in McDonald’s! Your healthy eating business is a fraud!” etc. Or maybe it’s simply the easiest way of discrediting someone’s opinion.
Personally, I cannot imagine turning my worst weaknesses into things I’d advocate. If I were an apologist, then an apologist of well-intentioned hypocrisy for the benefit of society, our values and healthier lifestyles. We really don’t need to have paedophilia normalized. The people that cannot help it should at least publicly denounce it, not try to paint it in a positive light. I can understand why they do it – they want a positive self-image, but well. If you are a terrible person, you should deal with the consequences.
Having said all that, I, like anyone else, much prefer a person who actually manages to live up to the ideals he or she preaches. Yet I don’t see why we should automatically discredit someone’s opinion if they fail to live up to what they publicly support. People are not ideal, people are often weak, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have some standards and ideals to aspire to. Speech over and out.
I saw an ad for the job of a translator, translating technical and legal documents.
The requirements – and yes, requirements – included having a positive attitude to life.
I don’t think pessimists would make for any worse translators. The only place where they would not be great is the service sector.
So who do I complain to about this sort of personality-based discrimination? It has nothing to do with a person’s actual skills and ability to translate.
Why, what with all manner of discrimination types being discussed to death, has practically no one pointed out the extreme discrimination that goes on in the job market? Why is it okay to discriminate based on some qualities and not others?
I think my personality is incompatible with Northern work culture. And not just in terms of my own dislike of deadlines, speedy deliveries, high efficiency and other contributors to stressful environments, no, I also seem to hold others to my own “low” standards.
My bathroom renovation team did 14-hour days and were very set on getting things done properly and fast. I let them know several times that I have all the time in the world, there is no rush, and they are free to do it at any speed they like. They didn’t of course change their ways and did their 14-hour days regardless.
My dressmaker (I’m having a coat custom-made) apologised for not making it to our appointment because her child was ill. I wished the child to get well soon and was all relaxed. I do need that coat soon-ish, but I’m not the least upset by the delay. I’ve been going around with the old one – with a slightly torn pocket – for half the winter. A week here or there doesn’t change anything. The torn pocket is a bit embarrassing, but it gets dark early. And people can think me impoverished if they like. I can take that.
I was familiar with my own dislike of rigid schedules and deadlines, but it has been somewhat of a new realisation that I treat others as I want to be treated too. Here, my laissez-faire attitude can raise eyebrows and confuse people who are used to more regulated and defined schedules and demanding customers. I’m not lax on quality, absolutely the opposite, but everything else, yes. If the situation permits.
I’ve heard that this sort of disregard and avoidance of inflexible deadlines is characteristic of the artistic types in general. And people in the South. Of course, the downside is that one never gets anything done. That everything takes forever and it’s impossible to do business if people turn up at meetings an hour later and have only half the things done. If something really has to be done speedily, I do pull myself together and would get frustrated if others loitered, but if there is no real urgency, no one waiting, only the urgency we have created ourselves, why not take things slow? What’s the point of setting artificial deadlines if it really makes no difference? I do personally need some structure, or the not getting anything done can happen, but I like my structure to resemble a window frame rather than a cage. Borders, but not prison bars.
I’ve often wondered why some clients in translating order their translations by Friday evening. What are they going to do with it on Friday evening? They could just let us do it by Monday morning and might get better quality. But translating, the way it is usually done, is a messed up field. Speed and fake efficiency is generally preferred over quality. Foreign clients sometimes create translation memories and term bases to raise efficiency. They expect strict adherence to these things, but without understanding the language and context, a lot of time is wasted arguing with such clients that the word in the term base is absolutely inappropriate in a particular sentence. The main problem is that customers can’t generally tell the quality is rubbish, and so, translators can stay in business providing low-quality translations since 2007.
I imagine the same thing is happening in a lot of fields where speed and quantity of output is more important than quality. Lip service is paid to quality, but it is rare for a company or an individual to be able to provide quantity and speed without it impacting quality. It can be done, and because it can be done, it forces everyone on the market to attempt it, but I’m not optimistic about it working out long-term, if at all. For jobs requiring mental effort, high concentration is not even possible for 8 or more hours without breaks. I’ve done 14-hour days in translating. It’s exhausting. It can be done, but I wouldn’t sign a warranty for my work under such circumstances. Sadly, salaries are paid on quantity, not quality, so there isn’t a choice sometimes.
Hmm. To rant or not to rant? I’m itching to rant, but to illustrate it, I’d need to take a picture. And the uploading takes time, and light is bad. Well, maybe I’ll add the photo later.
I bought boots a few years ago. I couldn’t find a perfect pair, so these were a replacement pair until I would spot better ones. I did find a better pair soon enough, so those got left in the closet in good condition. Then one day I thought I’d wear them for a change. I put them on and spent an entire day out, meeting people and hanging around in public places. It had been dark when I put the boots on and I was completely unsuspecting. Outside, I discovered the fake leather on the boots had completely peeled off, and kept peeling off more and more as I was walking, it was terrible. Combine this with my torn coat pocket. I felt I must look like a homeless person and this time I was embarrassed too. These boots had been perfectly okay when I stored them in the closet, so they had self-destroyed while just sitting there….And they weren’t even that cheap.
I don’t really understand economy that well. Maybe there is some reason for which we need to produce so much crap instead of good quality items that would last. Beyond the reason that once we are on that particular train and stuck in that thinking of “more is better”, you can’t get off any more without major disruptions and a new philosophy altogether. Maybe there is a reason, a true reason. And this wish of mine for quality without paying a fortune is completely dated, so I should simply adjust myself to the idea that T-shirts can be washed 10 times and then they are past their wear-by-date. And boots too. In the future, I got to check shoes and boots for signs of self-destruction. I didn’t think planned obsolescence existed in footwear.
If I was all-powerful and could re-arrange the core values of society, goodness and empathy would hold top positions. Not intelligence, wealth or beauty.
I’ve questioned the almost unquestionable merit of knowledge and intelligence before. I do not dispute that knowledge and intellect are valuable and responsible for a great many wonderful advancements, but they are amoral. Intelligence without empathy can be extremely harmful, which is why, in my ideal society, it would take a second place after kindness.
I’ve recently had a few courses were intelligence has been discussed along with intelligence testing. I can’t help but think how distasteful it is to arrange people based on their IQs. Maybe university professors love studying IQ because their own is medium to high. They are among the privileged group thanks to their genes and beneficial upbringing. It would be less so if their own was 95 (an impossibility, but let us suppose). There are charts ranking occupations and education levels and the average IQ.
Imagine being among the low IQ people. Their good fortune sometimes is that they don’t realise their own lack. Of course, it has been found that the less a person knows, the smarter they believe they are. But there are certainly many exceptions. People who are painfully aware of how they don’t get math or understand complex academic papers. Who suffer for it and feel they are good for nothing. Intelligence testing and ordering people based on IQ feels as unethical to me as ordering people based on looks – having an attractiveness quotient. Not because of the testing itself, but because of the value judgements that come with it.
Most people want to be considered intelligent because it has prestige and power. They generally want to receive an above-average IQ score. When they don’t, they tend to get a tiny bit disappointed. Alternatively, they start claiming how tests are faulty and don’t measure real intelligence. They do it to defend themselves from the label of being only average in intelligence, or below average. Readjusting tests is not an answer. It is too superficial and maintains the hierarchy. It just disadvantages someone else. I deeply, fundamentally dislike a society where people are ordered based on who is better than the other. Hierarchy is not so bad in itself, but if value judgements are added, it is. Ego massage for those at the top, self-esteem killer for those at the bottom. That seems to be human nature though. Labelling and competing.
So if we can’t live without competing with each other and wanting to be better, I wish that we could compete with each other in empathy. That being empathic and kind would be the highest values a person could aspire to and that having attained them, people would be rewarded with the same prestige and honours that the intelligent, beautiful and wealthy receive in our society. Furthermore, unlike IQ, empathy is a lot more flexible. For the average person, it is a lot more receptive to cultivation. If being emphatic was prestigious and people were motivated to cultivate that part of them, the world would surely become a kinder place.
In the present world, it often seems to me people are afraid of being kind. It feels “too much”. People who are caring and empathic are not respected enough. It has no obvious profit in it. Being middle-of-the-way is a lot more desirable, lest you be deemed a fool or an altruist.