The Awesome Boyfriend and I were getting errands done recently and I felt a sneeze coming on. Trouble was that it was taking its sweet time - as in minutes ... plural. It was uncomfortable and odd, waiting for a sneeze that was gonna come, but hadn't yet.
I told the Awesome Boyfriend and he opened up the sunroof, pointing out that sunshine tends to make one sneeze and, sure enough, a few short seconds later, he sneezed.
And the REALLY weird part? My sneeze went away.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
... and counting.
While it's true that nothing has gone as planned (good or bad), I'm honored to have experienced it.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Privately Public
As promised from my last post, I'd like to address and further define a couple of words that I think have started to lose their meaning. In this, the very-digital age, where everything (and I do mean EVERYTHING) can be found online, it may be hard to remember how to categorize certain things. Why is categorization important? It brings order. It brings understanding.
In an effort to further my own understanding, I've decided to clarify the two words (and opposites) "public" and "private", and I'll include four points of definition.
Public. (Adjective) (1)Exposed to general view. (2)Well-known. (3)Prominent. (4)Perceptible.
Hmmm. Already I see a conflict - again, because of the digital-age. Something that is "exposed to general view" or "perceptible" may not be "well-known" or "prominent". Examples? There are individuals in the various entertainment industries (who, by virtue of their career path, are "exposed to general view") that have lives outside of their career that are not "prominent" or, even all that "perceptible". And as for "well-known", in the example I've given, that'd be more like "rumor", I suppose.
So already we have a contradiction problem. Drat. Let's step away and move to the other word.
Private. (Adjective) (1)Intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class. (2)Belonging to or concerning an individual person, company, or interest. (3)Not known or intended to be known publicly. (4)Preferring to keep personal affairs to oneself.
Ok now we're achieving clarity! No fuzziness here ... but let's make sure by using my above-given example. This fictional entertainer could, in fact, be in the public eye but still have a private life. But only (and this is important) if that privacy is RESPECTED by the individuals who are not in the group or class where said private information was divulged.
Ahhhhhh ... there's the problem! The general population, other groups of individuals, family, friends, passing acquaintances and sometimes people that have not even met the subject in question - the PUBLIC - sometimes feels as though they are somehow owed access to a person's PRIVATE life.
And that respect is even harder to come by in this day of being able to find out damn near every detail of anything just by typing in a few terms to search by. How else would we know that Joanne Kathleen Rowling is better known as the author who writes under "J. K. Rowling"? That actor Tom Cruise is 5' 7"? That Mariah Carey was worth $225 Million in 2009? Heck - easy. We just type in a few key words and *bing* we get our answers. Ergo, one may assume that information that is found through electronic (or other) research is clearly public knowledge because, to use the definition, it is "exposed to general view".
But do we feel that we're owed that information, because we've done the research? Hmmm ... that's a slippery slope. It's one thing when the information is fairly harmless (one can estimate from photographs how tall Mr. Cruise is ... and from interviews she has given, Ms. Rowling herself has explained her initials and her reasons behind using them ... and tax records would show the 2009 income of Ms. Carey) but just because that information can be found, it is not all that "prominent" or, in many cases, all that "perceptible". It was discovered (verb - "to make known, to find out, uncovered"). Side-note ... the opposite of uncovered? Covered. 'Nuf said.
This issue becomes even murkier when dealing with a person who is not in the spotlight, such as a family member, a friend, a co-worker, or an acquaintance. Sometimes people who fall into that collective group feel that they ARE, in fact, owed such information. I know, for instance, that I could easily discover the cost of the home an acquaintance purchased, the current career path my ex-coworker is pursuing, the legal struggles that my cousin is going through, or the operating system, IP address, location, date, and time of every single person who ever reads this.
But just because I can find this information, just because this data is either part of public record, or word of mouth through family channels, or electronic search methods doesn't mean that the acquaintance, my ex-co-worker, my cousin, or you WANT me knowing these details of your private life. And I respect that.
For now.
In an effort to further my own understanding, I've decided to clarify the two words (and opposites) "public" and "private", and I'll include four points of definition.
Public. (Adjective) (1)Exposed to general view. (2)Well-known. (3)Prominent. (4)Perceptible.
Hmmm. Already I see a conflict - again, because of the digital-age. Something that is "exposed to general view" or "perceptible" may not be "well-known" or "prominent". Examples? There are individuals in the various entertainment industries (who, by virtue of their career path, are "exposed to general view") that have lives outside of their career that are not "prominent" or, even all that "perceptible". And as for "well-known", in the example I've given, that'd be more like "rumor", I suppose.
So already we have a contradiction problem. Drat. Let's step away and move to the other word.
Private. (Adjective) (1)Intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class. (2)Belonging to or concerning an individual person, company, or interest. (3)Not known or intended to be known publicly. (4)Preferring to keep personal affairs to oneself.
Ok now we're achieving clarity! No fuzziness here ... but let's make sure by using my above-given example. This fictional entertainer could, in fact, be in the public eye but still have a private life. But only (and this is important) if that privacy is RESPECTED by the individuals who are not in the group or class where said private information was divulged.
Ahhhhhh ... there's the problem! The general population, other groups of individuals, family, friends, passing acquaintances and sometimes people that have not even met the subject in question - the PUBLIC - sometimes feels as though they are somehow owed access to a person's PRIVATE life.
And that respect is even harder to come by in this day of being able to find out damn near every detail of anything just by typing in a few terms to search by. How else would we know that Joanne Kathleen Rowling is better known as the author who writes under "J. K. Rowling"? That actor Tom Cruise is 5' 7"? That Mariah Carey was worth $225 Million in 2009? Heck - easy. We just type in a few key words and *bing* we get our answers. Ergo, one may assume that information that is found through electronic (or other) research is clearly public knowledge because, to use the definition, it is "exposed to general view".
But do we feel that we're owed that information, because we've done the research? Hmmm ... that's a slippery slope. It's one thing when the information is fairly harmless (one can estimate from photographs how tall Mr. Cruise is ... and from interviews she has given, Ms. Rowling herself has explained her initials and her reasons behind using them ... and tax records would show the 2009 income of Ms. Carey) but just because that information can be found, it is not all that "prominent" or, in many cases, all that "perceptible". It was discovered (verb - "to make known, to find out, uncovered"). Side-note ... the opposite of uncovered? Covered. 'Nuf said.
This issue becomes even murkier when dealing with a person who is not in the spotlight, such as a family member, a friend, a co-worker, or an acquaintance. Sometimes people who fall into that collective group feel that they ARE, in fact, owed such information. I know, for instance, that I could easily discover the cost of the home an acquaintance purchased, the current career path my ex-coworker is pursuing, the legal struggles that my cousin is going through, or the operating system, IP address, location, date, and time of every single person who ever reads this.
But just because I can find this information, just because this data is either part of public record, or word of mouth through family channels, or electronic search methods doesn't mean that the acquaintance, my ex-co-worker, my cousin, or you WANT me knowing these details of your private life. And I respect that.
For now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)