I know this post is probably lame, but I have no idea how to edit a wardrobe.
I know I need a whole new wardrobe. I've been rich, poor, a bit richer, a bit poorer, then basically in poverty for the last year.
Do I throw things in bags and let them sit for 2 months before I send them to Goodwill in case I need to wear something in there? Do I let things sit for five years and then go closet digging and find things that look brand new and get excited? I don't know!
The thing is that I'm turning into a new person. The clothes that I have don't match who I am becoming. So now I'm stuck hanging on to these things that remind me of a time I don't particularly want to remember. Clothes are truly a first impression of the person that you are trying to communicate, which is why it is very important to edit your wardrobe to fit that person. People are truly that superficial. I never wanted to believe it, but I believe it now.
So I guess instead of doing the whole write and delete that I usually do for everything, I'm stuck with what I've got and I have to edit it.
I have major issues with editing, which I just remembered from writing this. See, if it's not working for me, I lack the ability to just edit it until it does. I trash the whole thing and start from scratch. This includes pretty much everything; I'm very black and white. It's a dangerous lifestyle.
Usually what I do when I don't like something anymore is I a) burn it or delete it; b) throw it away, no matter what it is; c) give it away; or d) ignore it, hoping it will go away.
But you can't always do that. Sometimes you're just stuck with what you have. Which includes ugly clothes.
I think I've figured it out, though. Just buy things that you can't get sick of in the first place. In certain colors. Buy shoes that can't ever go out of style. Buy a nice purse and never put Rollo's in it to melt (true story). I mean these are pretty obvious things, but not for me I guess. Oh, and no impulse buys. Those are the worst. They always end up getting the boot.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Editing Perfection
I had about 15 different editing topics to choose from and then it dawned on me: what standard are we editing toward, and doesn't this standard continuously evolve anyway?
Please define perfection for me...ok, you can't. I can't. So if we're constantly editing ourselves, products, cars, houses, etc etc...I just get lost in it. Are we aiming for perfection? Obviously corrections are supposed to get us that much closer to perfection, right?
The perfect house keeps evolving, the perfect car keeps evolving, the perfect foods keep evolving, the perfect looks keep evolving. I get that the standard of perfection is set to keep us from getting bored, to keep us interested as consumers, to make us feel like something is wrong with us so that we must get better by using new and improved products. Those people who have edited themselves "to the standard" and broke their backs for it, those people who quite possible remortgaged their houses 3 times for it, are going to have the things they worked so hard for edited in the future anyway. 30 years from now whatever that thing is will be changed, bulldozed down, discontinued or "improved" to the standard of the time.
I guess my point is to just keep things as natural as possible and keep things simple. That's about all you can ask for. Nothing will be considered perfect because perfection is an elusive standard, but there are simple and consistent principles that make this constant editing and evolution unnecessary. Everything is pretty perfect the way it has always been available to us.
For example, food is consistent if you keep it simple. Vegetables, fruits, animals and grains have evolved very little, if at all, over hundreds of years. Maybe instead of fad products, just eat very simply.
Some old school products such as some soaps, perfumes, lotions and makeup have evolved very little over the years. Maybe it has everything to do with the ingredients and nothing to do with improvements. Improvements are obviously a sham: we weren't born needing synthetics, so why would improving a synthetic that we already don't need justify an extra $50 price tag? Don't fall for it. And the synthetics that tend to work are replicas of things that are found naturally anyway.
Houses are going to evolve constantly, so why not just live in a house that you enjoy and not one that will impress your neighbors? Cars will constantly evolve, so why be car poor? All of these things will constantly edit their standards over time, and so will people. Why break your back for that?
There will always be the issue of medicine but the main ingredients in synthetic medications have been used for thousands of years anyway. Many medications cause side effects, which then create more necessary medications to treat those side effects. I'm not arguing that medications aren't necessary for some, but they are a way of editing perfection as well. Countless people use and abuse them because they think whatever they are medicating themselves for will go away and bring them that much closer to the standard of perfection.
My philosophy is that the more complicated something is, the more editing will be necessary. Complication and amount of editing are directly correlated. Just let things flow naturally (and I don't mean aim for the bare minimum) and you will probably find that you'll be happy and have a lot less work cut out for yourself in the end. If you're feeling bad about not reaching the standard of perfection, just remember that a lot of it is made up and about 90% of it is your own projections. Edit that out and you'll be golden.
I'm not saying not to buy or do things that you think are perfect; those small things that will make you very happy for years. Just don't buy things or do things because you think they'll make you look perfect. That's never a good standard because that standard isn't fixed.
Please define perfection for me...ok, you can't. I can't. So if we're constantly editing ourselves, products, cars, houses, etc etc...I just get lost in it. Are we aiming for perfection? Obviously corrections are supposed to get us that much closer to perfection, right?
The perfect house keeps evolving, the perfect car keeps evolving, the perfect foods keep evolving, the perfect looks keep evolving. I get that the standard of perfection is set to keep us from getting bored, to keep us interested as consumers, to make us feel like something is wrong with us so that we must get better by using new and improved products. Those people who have edited themselves "to the standard" and broke their backs for it, those people who quite possible remortgaged their houses 3 times for it, are going to have the things they worked so hard for edited in the future anyway. 30 years from now whatever that thing is will be changed, bulldozed down, discontinued or "improved" to the standard of the time.
I guess my point is to just keep things as natural as possible and keep things simple. That's about all you can ask for. Nothing will be considered perfect because perfection is an elusive standard, but there are simple and consistent principles that make this constant editing and evolution unnecessary. Everything is pretty perfect the way it has always been available to us.
For example, food is consistent if you keep it simple. Vegetables, fruits, animals and grains have evolved very little, if at all, over hundreds of years. Maybe instead of fad products, just eat very simply.
Some old school products such as some soaps, perfumes, lotions and makeup have evolved very little over the years. Maybe it has everything to do with the ingredients and nothing to do with improvements. Improvements are obviously a sham: we weren't born needing synthetics, so why would improving a synthetic that we already don't need justify an extra $50 price tag? Don't fall for it. And the synthetics that tend to work are replicas of things that are found naturally anyway.
Houses are going to evolve constantly, so why not just live in a house that you enjoy and not one that will impress your neighbors? Cars will constantly evolve, so why be car poor? All of these things will constantly edit their standards over time, and so will people. Why break your back for that?
There will always be the issue of medicine but the main ingredients in synthetic medications have been used for thousands of years anyway. Many medications cause side effects, which then create more necessary medications to treat those side effects. I'm not arguing that medications aren't necessary for some, but they are a way of editing perfection as well. Countless people use and abuse them because they think whatever they are medicating themselves for will go away and bring them that much closer to the standard of perfection.
My philosophy is that the more complicated something is, the more editing will be necessary. Complication and amount of editing are directly correlated. Just let things flow naturally (and I don't mean aim for the bare minimum) and you will probably find that you'll be happy and have a lot less work cut out for yourself in the end. If you're feeling bad about not reaching the standard of perfection, just remember that a lot of it is made up and about 90% of it is your own projections. Edit that out and you'll be golden.
I'm not saying not to buy or do things that you think are perfect; those small things that will make you very happy for years. Just don't buy things or do things because you think they'll make you look perfect. That's never a good standard because that standard isn't fixed.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Editing and the Mind
If writing were a psychic apparatus, the writer would be the id, writing would be the ego, and editing would be the super-ego.
Sometimes good editing goes beyond basic syntax and grammar. Writing is a conscious effort often heavily influenced by the unconscious: the writer's emotions and drives often slip into their writing, unbeknownst to the writer. The writing that they produce is an attempt at balancing the desires of the writer with the demands of the editor. The writer and the editor are opposing forces, with the writing being the only thing really joining the two. A good editor should take the writing and transform it to communicate the writer's overall intentions in the most organized way possible.
Writing doesn't necessarily have to conform to societal morals and expectations, but I believe that out of fear many writers restrain themselves in their writing by trying to please both themselves and the editor. This is actually quite damaging, because now not only has the ego (the writing) repressed the desires of the writer (the id) in a disorganized fashion, the super-ego (the editor) will further repress the writer until there is no underlying soul left in the work.
I like to think that the best writers in the world don't have an ego and that they are their own editors, in every sense of the word. These writers' super-egos and ids communicate directly, without having to go through the ego: this would probably explain why so many of the best writers in this world are depressed, self-conscious, and riddled with anxiety. The writer's super-ego can directly edit, judge and bring forth what lies in the id, without repressing or losing any authenticity in the process. The writing, then, becomes part of a strange emptiness - a nirvana, if you will. The author constructs an ego(the writing) without having an ego-construction themselves. This direct editing and communication transcends the id and brings forth something instinctual and beautiful, pleasing to both the writer and the editor.
I believe that good writing becomes its own entity through the struggle between writer and editor and their ultimate synergy. I believe that authenticity in creativity is born out of struggle and moments of transcendence. If anything, rules and technicalities should only help to communicate this in the most advantageous and recognizable ways possible.
Sometimes good editing goes beyond basic syntax and grammar. Writing is a conscious effort often heavily influenced by the unconscious: the writer's emotions and drives often slip into their writing, unbeknownst to the writer. The writing that they produce is an attempt at balancing the desires of the writer with the demands of the editor. The writer and the editor are opposing forces, with the writing being the only thing really joining the two. A good editor should take the writing and transform it to communicate the writer's overall intentions in the most organized way possible.
Writing doesn't necessarily have to conform to societal morals and expectations, but I believe that out of fear many writers restrain themselves in their writing by trying to please both themselves and the editor. This is actually quite damaging, because now not only has the ego (the writing) repressed the desires of the writer (the id) in a disorganized fashion, the super-ego (the editor) will further repress the writer until there is no underlying soul left in the work.
I like to think that the best writers in the world don't have an ego and that they are their own editors, in every sense of the word. These writers' super-egos and ids communicate directly, without having to go through the ego: this would probably explain why so many of the best writers in this world are depressed, self-conscious, and riddled with anxiety. The writer's super-ego can directly edit, judge and bring forth what lies in the id, without repressing or losing any authenticity in the process. The writing, then, becomes part of a strange emptiness - a nirvana, if you will. The author constructs an ego(the writing) without having an ego-construction themselves. This direct editing and communication transcends the id and brings forth something instinctual and beautiful, pleasing to both the writer and the editor.
I believe that good writing becomes its own entity through the struggle between writer and editor and their ultimate synergy. I believe that authenticity in creativity is born out of struggle and moments of transcendence. If anything, rules and technicalities should only help to communicate this in the most advantageous and recognizable ways possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)