Cue the band...

I don't fully understand why Bon Jovi went unplugged for this particular performance, but really, who I am to judge? It almost feels like all classic rock acts have to inevitably go acoustic to validate age and experience - what a joke. Look at Dee Snider, that guy knows how to rock no matter his age or place in life. There's credibility in that. The rock revival that has taken place, ostensibly, over the last few years is worth noting. Like them or not, bands like The Strokes, or the The White Stripes, etc. have created an environment suitable to basic guitar rock. The rap metal movement, pop punk craze and obsession with pop-metal managed to bury what rock and roll could have, or should have been. These distractions simply served to take attention away from what was already established and well received. Rock and roll just WORKS. Redefinition is entirely unnecessary.

"let this be my writ of misinthropy to a thankless world of men, who have perfected nothing - save the art of accusation"

Congruency and follow through can be difficult -  often times these concepts are uncomfortable and difficult. They involve decisions that can be quite unpopular and create a certain amount of discomfort; people are angry when they're held accountable. It's easy to preach and say that we need to live a life that embraces our values but when the "rubber meets the road" very few make a concerted, dedicated effort. 

Someone, much wiser than myself, once said that talking about the word integrity, or any other concept that reflects congruent living, is why most won't get there. It's easy to talk integrity, honesty, etc, but living that life is an entirely different concept. It means strictly living. It's not about talking. Preaching, is dangerous. Soap boxes are treacherous. Nobody likes a martyr. 

"But that's not it. You love your work. God help you, you love it! And that's the curse. That's the brand on your forehead for all of them to see. You love it, and they know it, and they know they have you. Do you ever look at people in the street? Aren't you afraid of them? I am. They move past you and they wear hats and carry bundles. But that's not the substance of them. The stubstance of them is the hatred for any man that loves his work. That's the only kind they fear."

-Ayn Rand, the Fountainhead 

Howard Roark talks little of his work, his talent or his passion in The Fountainhead - that's what makes him such a menacing character to Peter Keating. There's such a sense of authenticity in Howard that Peter is enraged at the very core of his being. 

It's how you someone carries themselves - Roark carries himself so intensely and honestly that it scares people. The world loves to say that they would rather know what they're getting from relationships but I don't quite believe that. We want those around us to play roles - roles are far more predictable that authenticity. I would argue that authenticity is not volatile but instead intimidating. 

The point Ayn Rand makes is so timeless and human it's almost sickening. Humanity desires to embrace passion but so naturally pushes it away. We've been socialized to resist following that which excites us, pulls us in, creates love, hope and audacity. We are socialized to do so because we fear those who are in that state so effortlessly. It reminds us of what we once wanted, once had or once failed in acquiring. 

Roark is what every man fears because he is so intrinsically and organically talented. 

I think there's a balance to be struck - approaching what you love with grace, compassion and authenticity is everything. When you love what you do I think you are more engaged in the moment, living for what is happening now. It's almost a higher form of consciousness. 

Where  I struggle with this is when that's still not good enough (see previous post title). My mentors assure me that this will never change, you will never make everybody happy all of the time. I'd like to believe that this is not the case - it's simply a case of surrender. 

"I keep telling myself it'll be fine, you can't make everybody happy all of time"

Ah, behold, the musings of a neophyte student affairs professional. I can make absolutely no promises about the content of this blog other than to say that it will contain no less than the honesty and authenticity internet blogging strictly demands! There's a certain amount of integrity in public discourse, then again, there's a certain amount of hesitation in being genuine.

 "Men hate passion, any great passion. Henry Cameron made a mistake: he loved his work. That was why he fought. That was why he lost."

-Ayn Rand, "The Fountainhead"

I really do believe there is a certain amount of truth in that statement. Passion can be the most infectious agent for change, while simultaneously acting as a barrier to achievement in the traditional sense of the word. American ideals of achievement leave little room for passion and truth! The American Achiever is a strong, masculine, steadfast and professional. Kimmel calls this the "heroic artisan" or, the individual that is self assured, ruggedly independent and self made. When have we ever imagined this ideal to be passionate, engaged and heartfelt? Never!

Passion is too often misunderstood as misdirection, immaturity and idealism. 

Passion and engagement will forever be a double edged sword. We're all too worried about "turf" and "what is ours" - I'm absolutely no exception to this and own it entirely. This is very literally my ego at work. Ego is powerful. I firmly believe that ego exists between our head and our heart - it is the constant interruption of how our head and heart communicate (note that our mouth falls directly in-between both). 

How does one make passion, engagement and authenticity palatable? Great question