Mokokoma Mokhonoana

Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com Random rants, by An Occasional Failure™ Tue, 09 Apr 2013 06:07:16 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 mokokomamokhonoanahttp://feedburner.google.com Ignoramus: Freed by Education, Caged by Specialization http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/WnrflRK3EBA/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/ignoramus-freed-by-education-caged-by-specialization/#comments Tue, 09 Apr 2013 06:07:16 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=7444
Yet, the collective of what one is knowledgeable in and what one is interested in pales when juxtaposed with the collective of what one is ignorant of and what one is indifferent to.

School fed us — employment then perpetuates — the fallacy that, professionally, and, more tragic, mentally, one ‘thing’ is the most that one person can be.

As a result, most lawyers, programmers, doctors, priests, etc. are boring after-hours.

A specialist is seldom mindful of the fact that life is a thing, not things. We have merely divided, in our minds, life into things, spheres, disciplines, etc., to make it easier for us to refer to a specific process, person, place, moment, or, thing when communicating.

Because of the specialist’s unmindfulness of everything other than his specialty, it then becomes inexorable for a rich gluttonous man to judge a poor starving man who, in his desperate attempt to avoid starvation, stole a loaf of bread.

(A specialist, blinded by his habitual exclusive focus on only one of the gazillion spheres of life, inevitably fails to link the state of his country’s economy with the starving-devoted-Christian man’s inability to honor the 8th Commandment.)

]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/ignoramus-freed-by-education-caged-by-specialization/feed/ 0 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/ignoramus-freed-by-education-caged-by-specialization/ The Fantasy of Heaven and The Reality of Global Warming http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/DWNXTTdRq_A/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/the-fantasy-of-heaven-and-the-reality-of-global-warming/#comments Sun, 17 Feb 2013 06:20:27 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=7238
I believe that, as I once quipped, to help a good-looking woman with a bad breath, talk about her breath, not her looks. That should explain why I seem to only focus on the “bad side” of whatever thing or ideology it is that I am exploring.

As expected, my work paints me as anti-employment, anti-religion, anti-school, etc.

(To be more specific, “a pessimist.” Seeing that I almost never praise anything.)

As a humanitarian, a creature that is concerned with the welfare of creatures called human beings, I embed, within my work, what I see as causes of most of our suffering; particularly sufferings that are side effects of man-made systems.

Employment, religion, school, etc. play an enormous role in influencing our way of life, our worldview, our relationship with the environment, our relationship with animals, and, our relationship with fellow human beings.

Be that as it may, your average human being does not have an accurate idea, if any at all, of how much he is influenced by his society’s customs, myths, ignorance, beliefs, social systems, and, prevailing opinions.

I will narrow the influence of the above three man-made systems and ideologies to global warming. And I will further narrow the causes of global warming to human activities; leaving out natural causes like forest fires, volcanic eruptions, et al.

(I am fully aware of the fact that there is a divide between those who believe and those who do not believe in there being such a phenomenon as global warming; even amongst scientists. Be that as it may, this essay is penned with an assumption that such a phenomenon is.)

Although I do not have any “credible” data to confirm so, I have the necessary arrogance to assert that most of our contribution to global warming is primarily through the act of employment (i.e., manufacturing of both necessary and unnecessary products; by “unnecessary” I mean both “not needed” and “more than is needed.”)

Schooled human beings are mostly employed to either make or sell things.

Such an obvious observation should be an adequate rationalization to my assertion of industry, the economic activity concerned with the processing of raw materials and manufacture of goods in factories, as I have just hypothesized, being the primary vehicle with which man contributes to global warming.

If that is plausible, then school’s contribution to man’s contribution to global warming should be self-evident.

School, as things are, is loyal to the desires of those who employ, not the future or the welfare of the human race. So, if we indeed continuously rape our mother, Mother Nature, through deeds that are only doable through industry, then school too is a culprit. For school is a factory where employees manufacture employees.

Now that employment and school are out of the way, we are left with religion.

Despite the fact that almost all its adherents are likely argue otherwise, I contend that religion, the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, is an ideology; ipso facto, “man-made.” For I strongly believe that no human being exits the womb with the presence of any religious belief in their mind; even kids fathered by priests.

Generally, everything that man knows and everything that he believes was fed to him.

Natural laws, as opposed to man-made laws, offer us not the freedom of choosing whether or not we adhere to them. For one can simply choose to disobey The Ten Commandments. However, the same cannot be said about The Law of Gravity.

I will, as an illustration, explore religion’s subtle influence on the religious.

It is, I believe, impossible for, say, a Christian, to accurately estimate the influence that Christianity has on his way of life and his worldview. Since, like most, he was fed Christianity while he was too young to think for himself. Furthermore, he is unlikely to have ever been an adherent of any religion other than Christianity.

While taking a walk with a friend, he asked why couldn’t believers and nonbelievers stop trying to convert each other to their religious stance; and just get along. I answered him with what is, I believe, an illustration of religion’s subtle influence on the human race (both, believers and nonbelievers.)

I replied that, whether or not our ability to fly between continents is a blessing, is up for discussion. Nonetheless, in a democratic world with a population of 3 believers and 2 nonbelievers, believers could easily make the invention of aircrafts impossible by arguing that, bearing the notion of The Will of God in mind, if we were meant to fly to other continents, we would have been born with wings.

(I have published, The Hypocrisy of Believers, an essay with which I tried to illustrate how the notion of The Will of God unwittingly makes all believers hypocrites.)

Lastly, I would like to narrow religion’s influence on man to global warming.

Because of greed and shortsightedness, we are battling, as it is, to make our fellow human beings think of future generations; with regard to the state of the environment which they will inherit.

Religion has a subtle, yet immense, impact on the religious’ relationship with our environment; thus, our climate. For it fed the religious the notion of an afterlife.

(As a result, those who bought such a notion subconsciously asks themselves, why should they really worry about the earth’s future, if life on earth is, to those who believe in there being an afterlife, merely a means to some end* called heaven.)

*If heaven really exists: then heaven is the job, unemployment is hell, while life is merely an interview.

]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/the-fantasy-of-heaven-and-the-reality-of-global-warming/feed/ 0 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/the-fantasy-of-heaven-and-the-reality-of-global-warming/ Nature Doesn’t Give a Fuck Who Fucks http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/9rZkPEzBtX0/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/nature-doesnt-give-a-fuck-who-fucks/#comments Thu, 03 Jan 2013 07:50:54 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=7040
Like most people, my first reaction, or, rather, my first thought, was, “Is she out of her mind?” But I then I asked myself, “What makes her insane for wanting a kid?”

Most “sane” people are likely to regard the kid as insane; because of the kid’s wish to have a kid. And that would mainly be because the kid is “too young” to have a kid.

That is to say, she does not afford to make her parents grandparents. Seeing that she is still financially dependent on them.

(Let’s not bring “maturity” into this. For there are countless “childish” grown-ups.)

That reminded me of how we, human beings, assume to be superior to nature; the very same phenomenon that we are a part of. Naturally, I found myself exploring the discord between natural laws and man-made laws (i.e., “social systems.”)

Such a mental excursion led me to this conclusion: “While other organisms see the world as a painting, man sees his environment as a blank canvas.”

Back to the kid’s “abnormal” undesirable desire to have a kid whilst she is still one.

Is the kid’s desire to make her parents grandparents “childish” because she is still a child, or, merely because she lacks the financial standing necessary to raise a kid?

Though “maturity” too plays a significant role, sane people label others as “kids” and as “not ready to have kids” mainly because of the shallowness of the labeled’s pockets.

However, generally speaking, how much money one has is primarily dependent of which side of the employment fence one belongs to. Whether or not one works, and, how much one earns is dependent on their schooling. While, when one has “completed” or will “complete” their schooling is mostly dependent on one’s age.

To decrease the odds of this essay seeming senseless, it is worth reminding the reader that money, employment, and, school are man-made ideologies.

What if we designed a social system where an average schooled human being started working at, say, 12? Would we still have labeled the 14 year-old-aspiring-mother-within-12-months as “insane”?

(Er, … I ask those “righteous” readers who will find such a thought as thoughtless to be mindful of the fact that chances are that some of the possesions which’s presence they enjoy were probably manufactured through the employment of child labor.)

The assertion that an average 14 year-old isn’t “matured” enough to have a kid sounds like a “mature” thing to say. But only when it is looked at through eyes that are contaminated by our social conditioning and prevailing social systems.

Be that as it may, a female is ready to reproduce, in the eyes of mother nature, as soon as she completes her menarche (i.e., her first menstrual cycle.)

As intelligent as we might think we are and regardless of how much of our environment we succeed in altering, nature will never conform to the social systems that we have devised:

Being schooled —> Being employed —> Being (regarded as) worthy of reproducing.

(If nature gave a damn about social systems that man has devised, females would only get their first menstrual cycle after they have received their first paycheck.)

]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/nature-doesnt-give-a-fuck-who-fucks/feed/ 0 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/nature-doesnt-give-a-fuck-who-fucks/ Infidelity and Tap Water http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/QCb_TtRamoc/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/infidelity-and-tap-water/#comments Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:34:16 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=6900
(One sentence I employed. Two things I assert.)

Firstly, our inventing the idea of fidelity inevitably bred its antithesis; the idea of infidelity. In the same way that the invention of clothes, not nature, made “private parts” private.

Secondly, the idea of marking all men and/or all women, except he or she that one is in a relationship with, as “forbidden fruits” leads to infidelity more than we are aware.

It is the latter that I will dedicate this essay to exploring.

A “forbidden fruit” is defined as something that is desired all the more because it is not allowed. The part which what is left of this essay will revolve around being, “ … all the more because it is not allowed.”

In one of his interviews, Jacque Fresco shared a story about his visit to some island that is home to some tribe without clothes. An island where every single member of the “primitive” tribe is forever butt naked.

Such a living arrangement is so exotic to us, the so-called “civilized” people, to an extent that a thought of it will leave some of this essay’s readers turned-on.

(Embedded within the previous sentence is an illustration of the enormous effect that one’s culture has on one’s reaction to one’s environmental stimuli.)

Jacque Fresco concluded the story with something that is inconceivable to most of us.

Whenever men spoke with women, the men’s eyes where forever on the women’s faces; not on their nipples or “private parts” as most of us would have assumed.

For now, I ask the reader to allow me to digress for a few paragraphs; to bring, into this essay, the second part of its title.

Most sexually active people see having sex (for pleasure, not reproduction) as much a necessity as drinking water is to their living and well-being.

One man’s killing another over a glass of water is more likely to be seen, in a village where there is a scarcity of drinking water, as “understandable,” than the very same incident that come to pass in a town with taps overflowing with drinking water.

Our need to get rid of thirst can be as intense as our want to satisfy our sexual urge.

(Of course, that statement will be inconceivable — or, even “nonsensical” — to some readers. But that is only because most of us with running water have never really experienced, firsthand, thirst at its worst.)

However, we, with running water, are not forever glued to our taps.

A likelihood too irresistible not to mention is that, as the alert reader is likely to have expected, if we didn’t invent the idea of dating and the idea of monogamy (ideologies which bred the idea of infidelity), it is likely that we would have treated having sex with the same attitude that we have towards drinking water (i.e., we wouldn’t be glued to our sex partner’s waist; just like how we are not glued to our taps).

To wit, sexual intercourse would be a deed done only when “needed.”

Back to our marking all human beings — except our lovers — as forbidden fruits.

People don’t always cheat because their “accomplice” is better, at whatever that turns them on, than their lover. Most people cheat because of two things: [1] more common, boredom; and [2] less conscious of by many, the thrill that one’s knowing that they are not supposed to have sex with anyone other than their lover breeds — whenever one is about to have sex with anyone other than their lover.

Curiosity plays a subtle role than most of us are aware. Such a conviction is proven in instances where a man that thought a woman to be “sexy,” a t-shirt and a mini-skirt ago, finds her “so-so,” a few seconds after her t-shirt, mini-skirt, bra, and, panties hit the floor.

(I am in no way implying that women do not experience the same sexual disappointment. I’ve always been a bro — I’ve never worn a bra — hence, I only spoke from a perspective of a hombre.)

In such cases, curiosity leads to the curious imagining. While imagining what a woman’s skimpy clothes are employed to package does wonders to an observing imaginative heterosexual man or lesbian’s sexual desire.

The influence that curiosity has is by no means limited to grown-ups’ being commanded not to have sex with other grown-ups; other than their lovers.

Our relentlessly warning kids against having sex breeds the same curiosity that, in some cases, leads to them having sex; not because they were turned on beyond control, but merely because having sex is the only way for them to find out (i.e., to fulfill the curiosity which our too many to be counted warnings against them having sex has instilled) what the fuss about this deed called sex is.

Amongst a “primitive” tribe of forever naked beings, a woman’s walking around in an extremely short skirt wouldn’t be as “sexy” or “provoking” to heterosexual men and lesbians who had the privilege to be spectators of such a parade.

(Our forbidding having sex with anyone other than one’s lover subconsciously encourages many to indulge in the forbidden.)

]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/infidelity-and-tap-water/feed/ 0 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/infidelity-and-tap-water/ Perpetrators Are Victims http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/Ru7_2BfMHrA/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/perpetrators-are-victims/#comments Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:52:03 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=6844
Our beliefs, hatred, dreams, and, prejudices, are by-products of multiple brush strokes that were subconsciously painted by some artist called society.

The things that we think we know and the things that we know we think were fed to us by our society (i.e., our parents, friends, neighbors, educational institutions, et al.).

Though we’d like to believe otherwise, “our dreams” too are almost always fed to us. Some are tattooed on our uncontaminated minds from such an early age that we end up believing them to be our genuine aspirations.

There are countless people living like kings; as a result of their having enslaved others — physically, mentally, or, both.

Some kids grew up being sold the belief that life is much more pleasant when one has other human beings under their control — the more the people under one’s control, the more worthy of living the master’s life is likely to be. The ramifications of such a belief is seen in kids who wanted to be employers (for the sake of being in control of other men’s actions) from the word go.

By mentioning one’s so-called “dream-whatever,” I wanted to remind the reader of how much what we know, believe, and, relentlessly strive for, is usually fed to us. With the exception of nonconformists and iconoclasts, men are slaves of their society’s prevailing beliefs, aspirations, and, biases.

I hope that that will help what I am about to explore next make sense, and, more importantly, make it more plausible.

Sane people do sane things, not because they are special or honorable or considerate, but merely because they are, well, sane.

Sane people do sane things because they are sane. They are not sane because they do sane things.

That is to say, sanity leads to sane behavior; not the other way around.

In any given situation, our actions, or lack thereof, are dictated by our way of thinking, what we know, what we believe, et cetera. However, our way of thinking, what we know, what we believe, et cetera, are by-products of our educational, cultural, religious, or, social conditioning.

To wit, your average human being did not think to think the way they think; they were fed a particular way of thinking by those that they think … think.

When a man, who was taught from an early age, by his father, that his race is superior, kills another, merely because of the killed’s being of a race different from his, it is easy to blame the killer for racism. But isn’t he, to some extent, a victim of his father’s indoctrination? (A father who too is probably a victim of his father’s indoctrination — who too was indoctrinated by his father.)

Known, or, unbeknown to us, our mind governs our actions, or, lack thereof.

Certain states of mind (outlook, knowledge, mood, etc.) breed certain behaviors.

A man that kills another because of insanity is a victim of insanity.

A man that enslaves others because of greed is a victim of greed.

A man that harms another because of jealousy is a victim of jealousy.

A man that steals from others because of starvation is a victim of starvation.

A man that cheats because of his “unreasonable” sex drive is a victim of an “unreasonable” sex drive. In cases where he cheats because he is a “dog” … he is a victim of being a “dog.”

(A man that rapes another human being is a victim of a sex urge that was “uncontrollable” to him, or, a victim of miseducation, i.e., an end-result of the fallacy that having sex with a virgin sans a condom cures AIDS).

This essay is by no means an attempt to free man from his so-called “responsibilities” as a member of a society. It is merely a reminder that there are men who were, whilst still boys, successfully sold the idea that being a gangster is more honorable than being a rockstar. That is to say, their pulling a trigger, whilst others are pulling strings, is a by-product of their social conditioning; not their genuine desire, or, an end-result of their own thinking.

]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/perpetrators-are-victims/feed/ 0 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/perpetrators-are-victims/ In Defense of Gold Diggers http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/2JsJfSi18SU/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/in-defense-of-gold-diggers/#comments Tue, 04 Sep 2012 04:09:09 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=6775
I am of the opinion that love is conditional* — together with things like “like” , “lust” , “dislike” , “hatred” , et al. The reason that we fail to see love for what it is, a by-product of a condition met, is that we are brought up to believe love to be sacred; and that love is special (the concept of “soul mates” comes to mind.)

By “soul mate” I refer to one’s supposedly divinely foreordained spouse.

People differ (as a result of, amongst other factors, upbringing, culture, social class, education, religion, et al.); naturally, people’s preferences vary.

In a man, some women prioritize looks; some prioritize brains; some prioritize the depth of the man’s pockets (i.e., “financial security”); et cetera.

We were indoctrinated to see the so-called “gold diggers” as immoral.

That is to say, we are made to believe that a woman’s dating a man for his money is more immoral than a woman’s dating a man for his height, physique, libido, complexion, intellect, penis size — or the like.

Be that as it may, behind a lover’s love for their lover lies a condition or three.

If that is indeed so, then “I love so-and-so” is quite misleading. The more accurate way to express that would be, “I love this-and-that about so-and-so.”

To boldly get to the point: a person cannot really be loved; it is a certain thing — or things — about them that their lover loves.

Back to the issue of gold diggers’ immorality.

Now, question is, what exactly are these things that we call “morals”?

Well, I am of an opinion that morals are merely an attempt to tame this “beast” called man. Morals are democratic. That is to say, what is seen to be right or wrong behavior; good or bad human character; is dependent on the majority’s take on the behavior or the character.

Furthermore, morals are a by-product of cultural and religious conditioning.

Wherever “the majority” of a populace finds eating a fellow human being as “normal” — cannibalism is seen as nothing but a human being sustaining their life (albeit, at the expense of another’s).

Seeing that we have designed social systems that prioritize the well-being of those with the deepest pockets, logically, and, to some people (esp. those who grew up in utter poverty), a woman’s going for a rich man might actually be seen as a wise move.

If the most basic human instinct is indeed survival, then the man with a lot of money to spend is more likely to be chased by women; than a man with lots of love to give.

While love might be a beautiful thing, it does not provide the loved with nutrients that life demands to keep the loved living.

The biggest contributor, to go back to gold diggers, to our readily seeing gold diggers as immoral, is our assumption that all women need a man for the very same reasons. While some women might seek a life-long romantic partner in a man; some are merely looking for someone that will cover the “other half” of their rent.

(To a woman looking for “financial security” in a man, how a man looks is useless. For dimples pays rent not; unless, of course, the man is a model.)

*To justify that I always invite those who believe love not to be conditional to take “hatred” , the antithesis of love, and then, think of anything or anyone that they hate for no reason. To this day, I am yet to meet someone who hate something or someone for no reason.

]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/in-defense-of-gold-diggers/feed/ 0 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/in-defense-of-gold-diggers/ Gone Too Soon http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/Hk_Wec7i0ao/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/gone-too-soon/#comments Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:02:35 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=6731 programmed). The death of a toddler hurts, for most, a couple of times more than that of an elderly.

The cause being that, I presume, we believe that being an elderly equals to having lived. Which is arguable. For there are, as we all know, 80-year-olds who have lived one year 80 times.

But that’s not what I would like to explore with this essay.

I am sure that we can all agree on the “Gone” part of the title of this essay; when it is used to refer to someone that is no more. It is the “Too Soon” that I’d like to address.

It is safe to presume that embedded within the “Too Soon” is the average lifespan of a human being. That is to say, “Too Soon” means “way before reaching the number of years that an average person is expected to live.”

(Keep the word “expected” in mind. It is the gist of my second point.)

This is yet another example of human beings being fooled by their tools.

Statistics are the underlying cause of our unenlightened usage of “Too Soon,” when referring to the death of a young one.

As a second point, I think that we are hurt, not by people, things, or, life, but by our expectations from people, things, or, life.

I am sure that the reader can see how this links with the previous point.

When a kid dies, we get hurt, not because they died (we all know that every living organism shares this destination), but because they died before reaching the “average” age that we expected them to reach.

It is mostly the realization that the grown-up that we hoped the kid will be, and, the things that we hoped the kid will accomplish, will never be … that causes us agony.

Logically, (ironically, by the aid of statistics), we all know that life inevitably gives birth to death. However, our blind reliance on statistics blinds our logical mind’s eyes.

(Within statistics lies an odd paradox. Statistics shows that an average person lives for, say, 70 years. While statistics shows that, in some cases, believing the previous statistic is misleading.)

Because of what statistics tells us (that an average lifespan is, say, 70 years), we call anything way below 70 years as “Too Soon” — and, at times, “unfair.”

We foolishly expect nature to work as per our desires and expectations.

Our being the cause of our suffering (through having expectations) isn’t limited to our relationship with death. Our relationship with others too brings us suffering … whenever those people do not do or behave as our expections.

More often than not, at the core of an about-to-be a divorcee’s hurting lies her having expected death to be the only thing that would lead to her losing her husband (“till death do us part?”).

To halve the number of times that you get hurt, halve the number of expectations that you have from people, things, or, life.

(Life is deadly. The second life is … death is inevitable.)

I guess, from the phrase “Gone Too Soon” one can presume that, once dead, those that have survived abortion are said to have “Lived Too Long.”

]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/gone-too-soon/feed/ 0 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/gone-too-soon/ A “Thank You” Note http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/8a4qQRiNWpA/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/a-thank-you-note/#comments Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:20:18 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=6711
However, when someone tells you that they love your work, they aren’t really telling you about your work, they are telling you about themselves.

(People who get offended by your not saying “Thank you!” after they have paid you a compliment were merely desperate to be thanked.)

]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/a-thank-you-note/feed/ 0 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/a-thank-you-note/ Why We Weep http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/GzQc6f_scOU/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/why-we-weep/#comments Wed, 18 Jul 2012 05:40:55 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=6693
Are the tears an innate human reaction? Or, are we taught to react so?

Pain, unless it is physical, is taught. For it exists only in our minds.

We all know that we do not have forever here on earth.

It isn’t that we did not know that our loved one will, like everybody else, someday die. It is just that we didn’t, for some strange reason, expect them to die.

There are probably reasonable reasons why death leaves the left behind crying. But I find that we mostly, though subconsciously so, cry for selfish reasons.

Our crying is more about us, and, less about those who left us.

After hearing that their husbands has just died, “the bills” is usually the first thing that comes to most then widows’ minds.

After Person A dies, Person B’s crying is not really over Person A’s death. Person B’s crying is over the things that he got from, or, did with, Person A … that he will no longer get or do.

(After our loved one dies: we cry, not because they left; but because they left us.)

One can, of course, argue that crying is our way of healing a broken heart. However, I believe that at the core of whatever the reason for the heartbreak is … lies the heartbroken, not he or she whose life has just been taken.

]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/why-we-weep/feed/ 0 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/why-we-weep/ Getting to Know Someone http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokomamokhonoana/~3/N1HjYU6-Cvg/ http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/getting-to-know-someone/#comments Thu, 12 Jul 2012 05:29:55 +0000 Mokokoma Mokhonoana http://www.mokokoma.com/?p=6495
But what really is knowing someone?

When a husband asserts that he “knows” his wife, what exactly is his assertion based on?

Things that she did, or, things that she never did?

Things that she said, or, things that she never said?

Can a human being, a forever-evolving creature (character, ideals, flaws, etc.), really be known? How wise is our attaching a fixed label (e.g. “lazy” , “rich” , “boring” , “funny” , etc.) to things that aren’t immune to change?

What we call “character” — to some extent — works like the presumption of innocence (“Innocent until proven guilty”). That is to say, every single person is a good person, until you find out of a bad thing that they did, or, a bad habit that they have.

But what happens if you never find out about their bad side?

If a person, like most of us, has done some good and some bad, what are they? A good, or, a bad person?

A person, like things, cannot be known. We can only know certain facts about the person, or, the thing. However, not every fact is to be so forever.

There are what I call static-facts: which are facts that are immune to change. Things like one’s birthdate, or, one’s biological parents. And, there are what I call variable-facts: facts that are not immune to change. Things like a person’s character, opinions, beliefs, etc. — or something as simple as a woman’s surname.

We obsess with the burdensome concept of “character” and “personality” primarily because it increases the odds of our predicting people’s behavior being right.

When our predictions fail us, we blamed the people whose behavior we wrongly predicted. We say things like, “He changed. He ain’t what he used to be.”

But, usually, it is what we now see in a person that has changed, not the person.

That’s like looking at the one side of a coin all your life; and then someday it happens that you get a glimpse of the coin’s other side. New perspective, new facts, new opinions, new hates, new likes … same old coin.

(“Getting to know someone” is more about the about-to-know’s chances of predicting the about-to-be-known’s behaviour, than it is about the about-to-be-known.)

]]> http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/getting-to-know-someone/feed/ 0 http://www.mokokoma.com/essays/getting-to-know-someone/