...is it better to be the axis or in orbit?...

I wrote something on my blog awhile back, on August 26th to be precise, that had some semblence of philosophy and social analysis. I figured the Council is a good place to elicit opinions on stuff like that. Please keep in mind the main points of the dialogue, and look past the controversy that spawned it; I do not post this here for the sake of opening old arguments. If you read the whole thing, you'll see what I mean.

(from)...the "I can't believe it's not a novel" blog...
The following is taken from my comment on Scott’s latest blog:

“There's alot of stuff I haven't done that I thought might be cool to do, simply because I didn't want it to be an issue...when I put stickers on my car, people thought I was trying to copy Scott; when I talked about Quillcade, Murph and Corey suspected I was being a copycat; it just becomes a contest of who was the originator and who's a copy. And it shouldn't be that way. If something I or someone else does is cool enough, I don't blame anyone for doing it as well, like swords or GK, or building an arcade machine. Anyway, too much drama running rampant...shouldn't be that way. And I'd be lying if I said I wasn't part of it-the shitty thing is, it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, because if I ignored it, I'd be anti-social, and if I react to it at all, I'm facilitating it's growth. Damned social infrastructure, oh how I hate you! LOL”

And these are excerpts from what I posted on Hizzy’s latest two blogs:

1) “Here's yet another free bit of advice from a friend to a friend: stop caring about whether people "give you credit" - that's not why you should want to succeed. You should want success for success' sake. And also, recognize when you get credit and you'll be happy.”
2) “Just be more confident in yourself and your own accomplishments, and don't put so much emphasis on being "important" or "recognized"-trust me, it's a double-edged sword that will cut you at the first opportunity.”

Why did I (re)post these excerpts? Analyzation, of course.

On the Scott Blog quote: It really is a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” structure that we have in our circle; maybe it’s that way with every social situation. I mean, I don’t name any names in my blog when I talk about stuff, because it seems a good way to cover my ass and not embarrass someone (even though the person I refer to would obviously know it was them anyway). And like with other situations, if I ignore it and opt to take the high ground and not play the high school game, I’m either seen as the “neglectful friend” or the “snobby asshole”…OR…I react in some way, ANY way, no matter how democratic and insightful, and I’m STILL facilitating the continuation of the bullshit. Both choices either continue or spawn bullshit. Social interaction sucks when it comes to this. It’s great when everything is bright and happy, but then when you get into “he said/she said” or “this person is an asshole because blah blah blah fyuh fyuh”…there’s no way to win. There has got to be a better way. There just HAS to. I don’t have any clue as to what, but we have to find it. Can I get an amen? (No, I’m not talking about any particular person(s) or situation(s) here, I’m just giving generic examples based on past events. PLEASE take note of that.)

On the Hizzy Blog Post 1: I can understand people wanting to be recognized for something big and important. Hell, it’s great when you get pats on the back, we all know this. But, the whole follower/copycat/one-up stuff is out of control, as Scott already stated. I mean, I don’t view people as copycats and followers for doing something that everyone and his brother does, like blogging/journals. If someone were to start calling themselves the Prince of Quill and start playing with a foam Buster sword and claiming to be the biggest “whore” in our group, THEN I would view that person as a copycat and probably be pissed about it. And with good reason, as it would mean my individuality would be compromised. Besides, people wouldn’t be too happy with more than one of me around, making jokes and insults (well, Heather might, but that’s a different situation LOL). But I don’t see many instances where individuality is being threatened…I see things like marriage, music, journals, arcade boxes, stickers, karaoke, and countless other situations being treated like a competition. If we were all married, that doesn’t mean one marriage is better than another, nor does it mean that one relationship is of deeper meaning and greater love than another. And karaoke? Shit, like any of us are American Idols, right? I sure as hell am not. Point is, we’re all unique, we all have specialness that is unique to us, and we should all stop competing for a position of dominance that in the end only leads to becoming viewed as the biggest asshole ever. (Again, I’m not talking about any people or specific situations, just stating examples.)

On the Hizzy Blog Post 2: I’ve found that being the center of attention generally places you at the center of conflict as well. This is what I mean by double-edged sword. It’s dangerous to be the center of a "social universe", because things that you do and say ripple out and effect opinions of you, and your individual relationships. On the other hand, if you’re orbitting the center of the “social universe”, you can say and do things with a higher degree of safety. I used to be at, or close to, the center of things back in the Oakville Senior days of this group dynamic (and so was Scott), and it was great for awhile. I can’t speak for Scott’s experience, but people would come to me for advice, and most of the time when I had a plan of action for what we were going to do, we did it. But it got sour, because my opinions and views and advice became less popular as I evolved and grew as a person. And, I think, because I was at that center, it was easy to focus on, almost like a gravitational thing. I’m NOT saying that I was or am the center of everyone’s attention, but when you have someone who’s a common link between several people, and that common link is around all the time and involved in several situations, it’s very easy to talk about that person. I think it would be better explained this way: Scott, me, Heather, Beaver, Dave, Hizzy…these are just a few examples of the “core people” in our group of friends. There are others, but I’m just giving a couple of examples. Now, Nathan Berry and Chris DeLarbar, they aren’t around as much as the “core people”, so they could be put in a “orbit people” category. Simply, “core people” are around more, they’re involved in more situations, they voice their opinions more often (because they are there), and are thus subject to more criticism and attention. “Orbit people”, on the other hand, aren’t around a lot, when they ARE around they don’t know enough about current dealings and goings on to make too serious of a judgment, and they aren’t involved with every social interaction and situation; so they fall under the radar of scutiny. Basically, out of sight, out of mind. (One way to think of it; I’m not implying that when people aren’t around they don’t matter, but you get the jist of it. I hope.) And yes, Scott, you are gone out of town a lot, but you are nonetheless involved and active in what goes on. And, as I said, being a “orbit person” doesn’t mean you’re not important or thought of, it just guages your level of involvement and attendance. The number of “core people” and who those people are changes depending on if people move away, have children, go to college for a few years, etc. Now, this is of course all theoretical talk about our group dynamic, and you can certainly disagree; I just found it an interesting concept.

All the above states is that sometimes, it’s better to be relatively unimportant and a face in the crowd than it is to be the local hero or linchpin in the machine. I’m sure several people can agree with me on that.