Attention has always interested me as a subject of thinking, but as a non-psychologist, it’s been difficult for me to get stuck into the study of it. I can search, of course, but it’s not a huge topic when I do so. Instead, what I’m going to do here is a bias, which is a form I use to put forward my personal theory about an idea. From there, when I decide to pick up this line of thought again, I’ll have specific avenues existing already that I want to move forward with. I expect that a lot of my presumptions will be ripped apart when I look into them further; that’s the nature of honest research. I’ve had my own thoughts and done some preliminary reading on the subject. That said, I will be leaving this largely unsourced so that I don’t give off the idea that these are final conclusions.
Tag: philosophy
Review: The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle
The word I would use to describe Eckhart Tolle’s The Power of Now is “mirage”. I’m not going to lie: I wanted to hate this book. I did not like the book, I wouldn’t go that far, but my thoughts on it are more complicated than I originally thought they’d be. One of the issues with New Thought work is that it’s not always easy to say it’s capital-W Wrong. There are things wrong about what Tolle says, absolutely, but it’s not wrong in a way that responds well to a clear takedown. Tolle references people who call what he’s written gobbledygook. In my opinion, it’s not so much that it’s uninteligible as that it prescribes a philosophy of ignorance.
Getting this isn’t straightforward, and I am not going to do an exhaustive breakdown with citations here, so if you haven’t read the book you will have to trust me. Overall, the problem is that though Tolle’s descriptions of why things go wrong can be compelling, there is no insight offered into these events. The response is always to simply be unaffected by it, something that is completely impossible in a lot of situations.
There’s also something to be said for Tolle’s style, which is structured to lull you into certain patterns of thought. But we’ll get to that.
AEW Needs 13 Titles
AEW needs to add more titles. Did I get your fucking attention? Yeah? Good, because this is gonna be a pretty sober and theoretical article. The real lead-in should be “AEW could add some more titles if they want”. I’m not very good at the clickbait style of writing but we keep it moving. I find titles really interesting and while I work on a more comprehensive Philosophy of Pro Wrestling, I wanted to focus a bit on titles and how they can be used. The typical wisdom with AEW is that they have too many titles floating around, they aren’t focused on them enough, and they’re getting lost in the shuffle. I don’t disagree but… is that a bad thing?
High Stakes in Pro Wrestling
“Heat and hatred” has become a catchphrase of Joe Lanza from the Voices of Wrestling Flagship podcast. Heat and hatred draws money, that’s his point. It gets people excited so that they want to buy a ticket and see the show. It’s what creates interest. Pro wrestling has been built on heat and hatred, especially in the United States. I don’t disagree about this. One of the reasons that wrestling falls into the sports entertainment trap, though, is that they push for heat and hatred while forgetting one other thing: stakes.