There are very few absolutes in life. Having spent a lot of time at university, I once thought that there were no absolutes. This is the disease known as post-modernism.
But I always knew this was wrong. Even when I was most vehemently arguing that everything is relative I knew that some things aren't.
When you're dying, you believe in God.
When you're in love, you don't half love someone else.
When you have a true friend, you would do anything for them.
These are not relatives. They are either or situations. It's a trick of language that one of the least relative things in your life are your 'relatives'. They're either related to you by blood or they aren't. They are absolute in their relativity. Everything that matters in life - truly matters - is one of these. Family, friends, football.
The things that don't matter, but which we spend so much time and effort on, are things like status, wealth, competition.
I love these things as much as the next person, and I would never give up any of them. But ultimately they are not important. They are all dependent upon comparison for their meaning. Travelling the world this year, I have become starkly aware that wealth, for example, is a truly localised, relative concept. One can be wealthy in one place and enjoy the benefits of this appelation with a lot less than in another community. A wealthy person in an average suburb of Lima has a lot less than even a below average person in a suburb of Manhattan. But the Peruvian is rich, the New Yorker poor.
But when you are a lover or a friend, there is no comparison. It is absurd to ask whether you love your lover more than your other lover. There may be exceptions - if you're an Ottomon Sultan with a large harem, or a tyrannical dictator like Mao or maybe have a faithful wife and a hot girlfriend like Vladimir Putin. But to borrow a trite phrase which will soon become rather famous - in relationships there is a quantum of solace.
This quantum is an absolute. It is the only quantum which directly affects souls - if it exists in the material realm we as humans are less sensitive to it. It is the essence of true religious feeling. And we should worship it every day of our lives.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
be realistic! try the impossible!
When the 18 year old Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II decided to conquer Constantinople his Grand Vizier opposed him, calling the plan ‘the follies of an intoxicated youth’. In all likelihood he was right. But two years later when Mehmed sacked the city and became known throughout his embryonic empire as ‘Fatih’ the Conqueror he promptly executed his Prime Minister. The Grand Vizier was a victim of his pessimism.
After the rise of Hitler many Jews who had enough money to get out fled Europe. They could see the writing on the walls of the gas chambers. The optimists, who thought everything would turn out right in the end, were by and large exterminated. The optimists mostly died and the pessimists survived.
So who should you emulate? A depressed pessimist or an upbeat optimist?
I am going to make a tentative suggestion. And I know that I am going out on a limb – I believe that you shouldn’t aim to follow either - neither an eternal optimist nor a depressive pessimist should you be. Overbearing positivism suffers from denial about life’s likely outcomes. But you can’t enjoy a fruitful and joyous life by being a permanent party pooper either. There is a good middle path though – and I will argue that this is to be a realistic optimist. Be optimistic when you can afford to lose. Generally support other people’s dreams and fancies. If you do these two things, you have a better chance of ending up a Winner. Like a famous marxist once said 'be realistic! try the impossible!'
When you give up before you start, you don’t start very much. To restate a truism: without taking the first step you don’t get anywhere. This is the essential problem of being a pessimist – it means that you are likely to be a loser who never achieves much. I read a very funny book recently by a relatively successful American musician who (tongue firmly in cheek) suggested that this is what we should all aim for in life. His argument goes that since there is by definition only one winner in any contest, most of us are losers by default – but if we aim for this in the first place, well then we will have met our expectations. There may be some advantage to this strategy, especially for congenital failures. However if you have any talent whatsoever it is a disastrously foolish path to take – if you are pessimistic from the beginning then you will not try anything – and even if you do try, your chances of doing it well are slim. And this is the aim of life, isn’t it - to live well?
But optimism often over-reaches. Like Phaeton one tries to drive the sun across the sky with only a learner’s license. Put simply, people expect too much from themselves and from others. One person borrows too much money to speculate. Another gives up law-school and the promise of a depressing career with a steady income to become a mixed media artist focusing on not-for-profit art installations. When keeping it real goes wrong.
Even taking account of the stupidity of such a philosophy, there is still a big advantage to being an optimist – as an optimist you actually do something. In the moments of your quest you enjoy a sense of purpose, maybe even some achievement – you tend to feel good. This shows in your body language, in your speech, in your swagger. And other people instinctively respect you because of this misguided self-respect. Make no mistake - artists get hotter girls than lawyers. Of course in the long-run this path usually ends rather poorly. Just ask the investment bankers who were princes of profit – until they rather suddenly turned into penny-grabbing pariahs seeking salvation from the state.
Investment bankers may be many things – but they are not stupid. They know that in the long run we are all dead - and you might as well enjoy your time among the living. They know that the secret to happiness is to win. Everyone loves a winner. A winner is anyone who feels like they are in control of their life. Even losers can’t help but begrudgingly admire such people. No-one wants to be around a loser. Even those who do, only do so because they feel their superiority in comparison. Unbridled pessimism is a sure-fire way of becoming and staying a loser. But on the flip-side unbridled optimism is a pretty good way to end up a loser in the end as well.
Fortunately there is a middle path of mediocrity – not exactly the Buddha’s prescription, but worth considering all the same. It is a path of perception and action which is realistic about the chances of success, yet is still ready, willing and able to have a go. A way of life where you do not bet the bank on every spin of Fortuna’s wheel – so that when you inevitably lose (as we all must) you still have some spare chips to throw onto the roulette table of life. This is the path of realistic optimism.
With things that don’t really matter much you can afford to be wildly optimistic. Social settings are an excellent example. There is rarely a downside to being optimistic about other people, encouraging them in their idealistic dreams. Just don’t give them money you can’t afford to lose – that way your ass is not on the line when they fuck up. But when it comes to your own ventures, be sensible. Become a radiologist while you try to become a rock star.
Contrary to Dave Chappelle’s wise admonition, keeping it real doesn’t always go wrong. But no matter how hard we try most of us aren’t going to be a firmament in the heavens. Build a solid safety net. Then you won’t have to live in a trailer park while you wait and pray for your shooting star to take off.
After the rise of Hitler many Jews who had enough money to get out fled Europe. They could see the writing on the walls of the gas chambers. The optimists, who thought everything would turn out right in the end, were by and large exterminated. The optimists mostly died and the pessimists survived.
So who should you emulate? A depressed pessimist or an upbeat optimist?
I am going to make a tentative suggestion. And I know that I am going out on a limb – I believe that you shouldn’t aim to follow either - neither an eternal optimist nor a depressive pessimist should you be. Overbearing positivism suffers from denial about life’s likely outcomes. But you can’t enjoy a fruitful and joyous life by being a permanent party pooper either. There is a good middle path though – and I will argue that this is to be a realistic optimist. Be optimistic when you can afford to lose. Generally support other people’s dreams and fancies. If you do these two things, you have a better chance of ending up a Winner. Like a famous marxist once said 'be realistic! try the impossible!'
When you give up before you start, you don’t start very much. To restate a truism: without taking the first step you don’t get anywhere. This is the essential problem of being a pessimist – it means that you are likely to be a loser who never achieves much. I read a very funny book recently by a relatively successful American musician who (tongue firmly in cheek) suggested that this is what we should all aim for in life. His argument goes that since there is by definition only one winner in any contest, most of us are losers by default – but if we aim for this in the first place, well then we will have met our expectations. There may be some advantage to this strategy, especially for congenital failures. However if you have any talent whatsoever it is a disastrously foolish path to take – if you are pessimistic from the beginning then you will not try anything – and even if you do try, your chances of doing it well are slim. And this is the aim of life, isn’t it - to live well?
But optimism often over-reaches. Like Phaeton one tries to drive the sun across the sky with only a learner’s license. Put simply, people expect too much from themselves and from others. One person borrows too much money to speculate. Another gives up law-school and the promise of a depressing career with a steady income to become a mixed media artist focusing on not-for-profit art installations. When keeping it real goes wrong.
Even taking account of the stupidity of such a philosophy, there is still a big advantage to being an optimist – as an optimist you actually do something. In the moments of your quest you enjoy a sense of purpose, maybe even some achievement – you tend to feel good. This shows in your body language, in your speech, in your swagger. And other people instinctively respect you because of this misguided self-respect. Make no mistake - artists get hotter girls than lawyers. Of course in the long-run this path usually ends rather poorly. Just ask the investment bankers who were princes of profit – until they rather suddenly turned into penny-grabbing pariahs seeking salvation from the state.
Investment bankers may be many things – but they are not stupid. They know that in the long run we are all dead - and you might as well enjoy your time among the living. They know that the secret to happiness is to win. Everyone loves a winner. A winner is anyone who feels like they are in control of their life. Even losers can’t help but begrudgingly admire such people. No-one wants to be around a loser. Even those who do, only do so because they feel their superiority in comparison. Unbridled pessimism is a sure-fire way of becoming and staying a loser. But on the flip-side unbridled optimism is a pretty good way to end up a loser in the end as well.
Fortunately there is a middle path of mediocrity – not exactly the Buddha’s prescription, but worth considering all the same. It is a path of perception and action which is realistic about the chances of success, yet is still ready, willing and able to have a go. A way of life where you do not bet the bank on every spin of Fortuna’s wheel – so that when you inevitably lose (as we all must) you still have some spare chips to throw onto the roulette table of life. This is the path of realistic optimism.
With things that don’t really matter much you can afford to be wildly optimistic. Social settings are an excellent example. There is rarely a downside to being optimistic about other people, encouraging them in their idealistic dreams. Just don’t give them money you can’t afford to lose – that way your ass is not on the line when they fuck up. But when it comes to your own ventures, be sensible. Become a radiologist while you try to become a rock star.
Contrary to Dave Chappelle’s wise admonition, keeping it real doesn’t always go wrong. But no matter how hard we try most of us aren’t going to be a firmament in the heavens. Build a solid safety net. Then you won’t have to live in a trailer park while you wait and pray for your shooting star to take off.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Fuck them. I wish you God.
Snobs mind us off religion
nowadays if they can.
Fuck them. I wish you God.
Les Murray
http://www.poetryarchive.org/poetryarchive/singlePoem.do?poemId=219
I don't fully agree with this excerpt of a peom by Australia's Les Murray (a Roman catholic). But I do agree with its emotion. Everyone needs to believe in God. It is a ballast by which to build one's life.
Some people believe in the God of money, others the God of relationships, some the God of power. They may have other idols as well of course. On the weekends they might worship at the alter of unrestrained pleasure, or perhaps like me they light a candle for chess, dry wine and good conversation.
It is pointless arguing against religion and god. Nobody believes (nor disbelieves) because of sterile arguments. People believe because they have to believe.
Wouldn't it be better if people believed in a good God, one who represents the best man has to offer? Wouldn't we be better off believing in this than letting the flatland void continue to suck the spirit from our 'developed' societies? A civilisation where people commit suicide because they are lost, desperate, hopeless, friendless, drug-fucked. Godless.
We need God to comfort us. I've heard of suicide bombers, but they are the exception that proves the rule. People are so pathetic in the West that they even kill themselves when they lose some money. We should be ashamed of our civilisation.
God is who you make him.
We could do better. No, we must.
Let us do our best.
nowadays if they can.
Fuck them. I wish you God.
Les Murray
http://www.poetryarchive.org/poetryarchive/singlePoem.do?poemId=219
I don't fully agree with this excerpt of a peom by Australia's Les Murray (a Roman catholic). But I do agree with its emotion. Everyone needs to believe in God. It is a ballast by which to build one's life.
Some people believe in the God of money, others the God of relationships, some the God of power. They may have other idols as well of course. On the weekends they might worship at the alter of unrestrained pleasure, or perhaps like me they light a candle for chess, dry wine and good conversation.
It is pointless arguing against religion and god. Nobody believes (nor disbelieves) because of sterile arguments. People believe because they have to believe.
Wouldn't it be better if people believed in a good God, one who represents the best man has to offer? Wouldn't we be better off believing in this than letting the flatland void continue to suck the spirit from our 'developed' societies? A civilisation where people commit suicide because they are lost, desperate, hopeless, friendless, drug-fucked. Godless.
We need God to comfort us. I've heard of suicide bombers, but they are the exception that proves the rule. People are so pathetic in the West that they even kill themselves when they lose some money. We should be ashamed of our civilisation.
God is who you make him.
We could do better. No, we must.
Let us do our best.
Hitler's Bastards
If it weren’t for Adolf Hitler I would not exist. I get a kick out of telling people this. Of course it isn’t the whole truth. But you have to be fair. It is impossible to tell the whole truth – no one but God can try to do that.
My other existential godfather is Joseph Stalin. He was not as kind to my extended family as Hitler though – who in the goodness of his heart sponsored three grandparents for ‘working holidays’ in the Third Reich. In retaliation Stalin split up the rest of the family sending them to various places including Siberia for over a decade. He was not a very kind man.
My maternal great-grandfather had been an officer for the Austrians during the Great War and town mayor of about five villages near L'viv. His eldest son, my mother’s father, joined a patriotic Ukrainian independence army which fought against the Soviets – he was an officer in the Galizien SS division - before the war he was reluctantly studying to be a Greek-catholic priest. My father’s father was a deserter from the Soviet infantry after his army was overrun by the invading Wehrmacht – he escaped probable death as a POW by pretending to be a peasant and being sent to Germany as slave labour – which was also the fate of my two grandmothers. After the war the two Ukrainian grandparents met and married in a refugee camp in Austria, and the Polish grandmother and Russian/Chuvash grandfather did the same.
As a result I have a novel position on good and evil. Ultimately I think they are meaningless words in the big picture – they are too simple, too black and white. But I’m not advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ‘Good and evil’ does mean something, it points to something real, something vital.
I believe the greatest evil is to kill someone who does not threaten your own life. The second is to kill yourself or act in a way which does not ensure your own survival – my only exceptions are mental illness, and certain situations which cause mental illness: concentration camps and the like. Goodness is doing anything which leads to life.
I do not believe in God – at least not in the usual form related to sin and punishment. And yet I believe that suicide and unjustified murder are Sins. Most sins do not deserve the name. They are just ways of controlling people through irrational fear. But Sins which rob a man of his life deserve to cause fear in the hearts of every man – life is the only state of being which offers the hope of redemption, of goodness, of love. Taking this away is unforgivable by anyone but God.
Death is the only absolute failure in life. If one can learn something from a ‘failure’ it is no longer a failure. I have only contempt for ‘adventurers’ who throw their lives away on trivial pursuits – mostrosities like flying planes in ways never done before or crossing oceans in kayaks do not deserve our praise and adulation – they deserve disdain for their impudence, their stupidity, their unselfishness – for spitting in God's face for gracing them with their lives.
One grandfather an SS officer, the other a Soviet, one grandmother the bastard daughter of a Jewess, the other forced from the Ukrainian countryside as a sixteen year old, never to see her family or home again.
I do not like to jump to conclusions. Life is too nasty and complex for that. But I have no hesitation, no doubt whatsoever in saying: Life is good, it is true and it is beautiful – even when it is too ugly for words.
My other existential godfather is Joseph Stalin. He was not as kind to my extended family as Hitler though – who in the goodness of his heart sponsored three grandparents for ‘working holidays’ in the Third Reich. In retaliation Stalin split up the rest of the family sending them to various places including Siberia for over a decade. He was not a very kind man.
My maternal great-grandfather had been an officer for the Austrians during the Great War and town mayor of about five villages near L'viv. His eldest son, my mother’s father, joined a patriotic Ukrainian independence army which fought against the Soviets – he was an officer in the Galizien SS division - before the war he was reluctantly studying to be a Greek-catholic priest. My father’s father was a deserter from the Soviet infantry after his army was overrun by the invading Wehrmacht – he escaped probable death as a POW by pretending to be a peasant and being sent to Germany as slave labour – which was also the fate of my two grandmothers. After the war the two Ukrainian grandparents met and married in a refugee camp in Austria, and the Polish grandmother and Russian/Chuvash grandfather did the same.
As a result I have a novel position on good and evil. Ultimately I think they are meaningless words in the big picture – they are too simple, too black and white. But I’m not advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ‘Good and evil’ does mean something, it points to something real, something vital.
I believe the greatest evil is to kill someone who does not threaten your own life. The second is to kill yourself or act in a way which does not ensure your own survival – my only exceptions are mental illness, and certain situations which cause mental illness: concentration camps and the like. Goodness is doing anything which leads to life.
I do not believe in God – at least not in the usual form related to sin and punishment. And yet I believe that suicide and unjustified murder are Sins. Most sins do not deserve the name. They are just ways of controlling people through irrational fear. But Sins which rob a man of his life deserve to cause fear in the hearts of every man – life is the only state of being which offers the hope of redemption, of goodness, of love. Taking this away is unforgivable by anyone but God.
Death is the only absolute failure in life. If one can learn something from a ‘failure’ it is no longer a failure. I have only contempt for ‘adventurers’ who throw their lives away on trivial pursuits – mostrosities like flying planes in ways never done before or crossing oceans in kayaks do not deserve our praise and adulation – they deserve disdain for their impudence, their stupidity, their unselfishness – for spitting in God's face for gracing them with their lives.
One grandfather an SS officer, the other a Soviet, one grandmother the bastard daughter of a Jewess, the other forced from the Ukrainian countryside as a sixteen year old, never to see her family or home again.
I do not like to jump to conclusions. Life is too nasty and complex for that. But I have no hesitation, no doubt whatsoever in saying: Life is good, it is true and it is beautiful – even when it is too ugly for words.
Stupidity, or Why the dim outshine the bright
Most people are rational and stupid. This may seem absurd. It is. The world is absurd. It makes sense though, because their stupidities make sense within their own systems of thought. That is if the stupid can be said to have a system.
Of course everyone does have some sort of map within their minds through which they interpret the world. But these maps often have big problems – they’re like a satellite navigation system full of roads leading nowhere. Or football stadiums listed as churches. Actually, that would be pretty right.
I have always been amazed that so many people cope. They don't just survive, they thrive. Even with their shoddy thinking. It’s a mystery to the intelligent that others can be so stupid about so much and yet function so effectively. Gallingly, oftentimes the most conceptually stupid are the most successful. Whereas people who think a lot are often worse off than those who simply get on with the job. This is not a co-incidence. Most of what we do, we do on auto pilot. A lot of the time we are instinctually driven animals and thinking only gets in the way of what we already know how to do.
This is no excuse for stupidity though. Just because you can have a ridiculously complex and unintuitive mobile phone (take any Samsung as an example) does not mean we should throw all phones away (with the exception of Samsungs). The simplicity of a Nokia is still worth striving for. And this is the same with thinking. We should aim to think accurately, to have a good map of the world. But you do not build a map in a study, poring over books. You have to survey the land – in short get out and explore.
And this is why the conceptually poor are so often the worldly rich. Have you ever wondered why so many professional sportsmen are so dumb? How smart would you be if you spent most of your life running around kicking balls? Yeah, that's right - not very. But you would have a pretty fit body and if you got lucky you might even be an elite sportsman. The people who spend too much time thinking about the world can't compete with the people who regularly act in it. And this is why the dim often outshine the bright.
The problem is that these 'action' elites, in whatever field, are the best example of expert blindness. They spend so much of their time on one thing that they do not develop the ability to do others. Or even worse, their attachment to their expertise blinds them to other ways of seeing. Better ways. But this is a problem for another post.
People who spend their lives doing, tend to have something to show off at the end of their work. People who spend their lives thinking sometimes write a book or two – if they’re not very successful maybe some silly essay like this one. The secret to success is not winning – any idiot can win. The secret to success is losing. A lot. You show me a man who has lost a lot and I will show you a man who has had a full life. A winner in the big picture. Because the more you try, the more you do, and the more likely you are to have success.
I am not advocating that people should randomly throw darts at a wall in the hope that there is a dartboard there. That would just be more stupidity. We do not need more stupidity. What I am saying is that if you are sensible and make an effort to do things, then some of your efforts will bear fruit. But the thing is, you can never be sure what will and what won’t. You can be rather sure that certain actions will lead to certain results – putting on your pants in the morning usually means you don’t come to work naked. But coming to work does not guarantee success – big complex wins depend on far more variables than any one of us can control – and so there’s always the influence of luck. But if you don’t put on your pants before going to work, you can be pretty sure you won’t be successful. And the same goes for lying in bed all day.
I repeat: most people are rational and stupid. This makes sense. It is the world which does not make sense. But it makes enough sense that a smart person using a good map gets things done. This map is called accurate thinking. And once you have your map, to get anywhere you have to go outside for a walk. Or catch a bus. The means of transport is not really important. But many people live their lives waiting for the bus to stop by at their bedroom door. Some get lucky and it passes by their way. Most do not. They are stupid.
Of course everyone does have some sort of map within their minds through which they interpret the world. But these maps often have big problems – they’re like a satellite navigation system full of roads leading nowhere. Or football stadiums listed as churches. Actually, that would be pretty right.
I have always been amazed that so many people cope. They don't just survive, they thrive. Even with their shoddy thinking. It’s a mystery to the intelligent that others can be so stupid about so much and yet function so effectively. Gallingly, oftentimes the most conceptually stupid are the most successful. Whereas people who think a lot are often worse off than those who simply get on with the job. This is not a co-incidence. Most of what we do, we do on auto pilot. A lot of the time we are instinctually driven animals and thinking only gets in the way of what we already know how to do.
This is no excuse for stupidity though. Just because you can have a ridiculously complex and unintuitive mobile phone (take any Samsung as an example) does not mean we should throw all phones away (with the exception of Samsungs). The simplicity of a Nokia is still worth striving for. And this is the same with thinking. We should aim to think accurately, to have a good map of the world. But you do not build a map in a study, poring over books. You have to survey the land – in short get out and explore.
And this is why the conceptually poor are so often the worldly rich. Have you ever wondered why so many professional sportsmen are so dumb? How smart would you be if you spent most of your life running around kicking balls? Yeah, that's right - not very. But you would have a pretty fit body and if you got lucky you might even be an elite sportsman. The people who spend too much time thinking about the world can't compete with the people who regularly act in it. And this is why the dim often outshine the bright.
The problem is that these 'action' elites, in whatever field, are the best example of expert blindness. They spend so much of their time on one thing that they do not develop the ability to do others. Or even worse, their attachment to their expertise blinds them to other ways of seeing. Better ways. But this is a problem for another post.
People who spend their lives doing, tend to have something to show off at the end of their work. People who spend their lives thinking sometimes write a book or two – if they’re not very successful maybe some silly essay like this one. The secret to success is not winning – any idiot can win. The secret to success is losing. A lot. You show me a man who has lost a lot and I will show you a man who has had a full life. A winner in the big picture. Because the more you try, the more you do, and the more likely you are to have success.
I am not advocating that people should randomly throw darts at a wall in the hope that there is a dartboard there. That would just be more stupidity. We do not need more stupidity. What I am saying is that if you are sensible and make an effort to do things, then some of your efforts will bear fruit. But the thing is, you can never be sure what will and what won’t. You can be rather sure that certain actions will lead to certain results – putting on your pants in the morning usually means you don’t come to work naked. But coming to work does not guarantee success – big complex wins depend on far more variables than any one of us can control – and so there’s always the influence of luck. But if you don’t put on your pants before going to work, you can be pretty sure you won’t be successful. And the same goes for lying in bed all day.
I repeat: most people are rational and stupid. This makes sense. It is the world which does not make sense. But it makes enough sense that a smart person using a good map gets things done. This map is called accurate thinking. And once you have your map, to get anywhere you have to go outside for a walk. Or catch a bus. The means of transport is not really important. But many people live their lives waiting for the bus to stop by at their bedroom door. Some get lucky and it passes by their way. Most do not. They are stupid.
The Dr's Guide to Nabbing a Man for Good
Men are not very complex creatures. We like food, we love sex and we don't like to clean up after either. After a while no matter who the woman is, we get bored and we want to try someone else's cooking. We are not very smart, most of us.
And yet I keep meeting articulate, educated and emotionally intelligent women who have been beaten by such a beast - just an ordinary simple man.
A common denominator is a long courtship. These women go out with their men for 6, 7, 8 years before the men finally break free. Now, after the break-up the women and all their female friends (and traitorous men) begin to call the man an idiot. From the female perspective this is an emotionally perceptive way to feel better about the situation. But it is neither useful in addressing the actual problem nor in helping other women avoid the same fate.
It is strange how a man can go from being someone's 'baby' one day to an 'idiot' the next. If they were idiots, they were idiots before as well. And if they truly are idiots (and I do not doubt that in most relationships it is the man who is the relationship village retard) then whose responsibility is the car-crash in the relationship when the man wants out? Who was at the steering wheel?
Is it not more sensible to focus on the actions of the emotionally stronger party - the woman who usually grows and is in effective control of the relationship?
Men are not designed for 7 year couplings without children, commitment or marriage to keep them keen. After 2 or 3 years of a serious relationship (and in most parts of the world it is much much sooner than this) a smart woman gives her man an effective ultimatum - 'marry me or we're through'. Any woman who thinks she has a better chance of this tactic after 6 or 7 years rather than 2 or 3 doesn't need an extra degree - she needs a crash course in male psychology.
I am not for one moment suggesting that the world would be a better place or that we would have more successful marriages as a result of such a change. But we would have a lot less 30 year old women hurting badly after often having only one serious relationship in their entire lives ending in a de facto divorce.
In the Balkans there is a tradition of mass marriages - after every winter all the couples who shacked up together come down from their love nests and have their relationships ratified. If they did not have this social tradition and the attendant pressure on the men, how many of them do you think would actually get married after a winter of warmth and a springtime blossoming with opportunities? Nowhere near so many as do.
Men are like consumers - we have to be told what we need and what is good for us. We are not, like many women, pre-sold on the idea of marriage.
A very smart, accomplished woman who was recently dumped after being with her man for 7 years told me: ''I didn't want to force him - if he didn't want me, well he wasn't the right one.''
This is a fallacy of monumental proportions. Seriously, how many people know what they want? Granted a few do, but most take what they can and then make the best of it. Not very romantic, but then real life usually isn't. But strangely, most people are no less happy because they didn't 'know' they wanted to marry a specific person at a specific time. This knowledge is much less important than the life the married couple create together - and this is not something that happens in an instant - it is years of love and work.
So, women everywhere - do not let your relationship be driven into a ditch by an emotional idiot - take control of the wheel - if you want to marry someone, force their hand. And be smart about it - you're manipulative and clever enough to do it in a way that he won't even realise you slipped his hand into the ring - well, maybe not until it's too late to matter anymore.
And yet I keep meeting articulate, educated and emotionally intelligent women who have been beaten by such a beast - just an ordinary simple man.
A common denominator is a long courtship. These women go out with their men for 6, 7, 8 years before the men finally break free. Now, after the break-up the women and all their female friends (and traitorous men) begin to call the man an idiot. From the female perspective this is an emotionally perceptive way to feel better about the situation. But it is neither useful in addressing the actual problem nor in helping other women avoid the same fate.
It is strange how a man can go from being someone's 'baby' one day to an 'idiot' the next. If they were idiots, they were idiots before as well. And if they truly are idiots (and I do not doubt that in most relationships it is the man who is the relationship village retard) then whose responsibility is the car-crash in the relationship when the man wants out? Who was at the steering wheel?
Is it not more sensible to focus on the actions of the emotionally stronger party - the woman who usually grows and is in effective control of the relationship?
Men are not designed for 7 year couplings without children, commitment or marriage to keep them keen. After 2 or 3 years of a serious relationship (and in most parts of the world it is much much sooner than this) a smart woman gives her man an effective ultimatum - 'marry me or we're through'. Any woman who thinks she has a better chance of this tactic after 6 or 7 years rather than 2 or 3 doesn't need an extra degree - she needs a crash course in male psychology.
I am not for one moment suggesting that the world would be a better place or that we would have more successful marriages as a result of such a change. But we would have a lot less 30 year old women hurting badly after often having only one serious relationship in their entire lives ending in a de facto divorce.
In the Balkans there is a tradition of mass marriages - after every winter all the couples who shacked up together come down from their love nests and have their relationships ratified. If they did not have this social tradition and the attendant pressure on the men, how many of them do you think would actually get married after a winter of warmth and a springtime blossoming with opportunities? Nowhere near so many as do.
Men are like consumers - we have to be told what we need and what is good for us. We are not, like many women, pre-sold on the idea of marriage.
A very smart, accomplished woman who was recently dumped after being with her man for 7 years told me: ''I didn't want to force him - if he didn't want me, well he wasn't the right one.''
This is a fallacy of monumental proportions. Seriously, how many people know what they want? Granted a few do, but most take what they can and then make the best of it. Not very romantic, but then real life usually isn't. But strangely, most people are no less happy because they didn't 'know' they wanted to marry a specific person at a specific time. This knowledge is much less important than the life the married couple create together - and this is not something that happens in an instant - it is years of love and work.
So, women everywhere - do not let your relationship be driven into a ditch by an emotional idiot - take control of the wheel - if you want to marry someone, force their hand. And be smart about it - you're manipulative and clever enough to do it in a way that he won't even realise you slipped his hand into the ring - well, maybe not until it's too late to matter anymore.
Confessional
Hi,
my name's Aslan. I'm a recovering catholic. I've been told by people that once you're in, there's no escape. This seems rather unfair. Especially when you are baptised and confirmed as a baby. And then I was brainwashed into goodness - being taught prayers in Ukrainian by my orthodox catholic mother. It hasn't all been bad though. As a pre-teen altar boy I felt sacrilegiously closer to God. There's something elevating about looking down on the masses from up high in a sacristy wearing a dress and having first bite on the communion. And I still enjoy the rituals and rites of mass. There is something very beautiful and soothing about incense and gentle bells.
In high school I went to a high/low church Anglican grammar school in Sydney. My favourite 'religious' memories are making up obscene words for the beautiful hymns and being told by my Latin teaching headmaster that if you wanted to sleep during chapel then you should use the kneelers for support to keep your body upright. That way you looked like you were praying with your eyes closed. This particular headmaster (who was quite famous) also had a good line of stories about competitive boyhood masturbation, but that is really material for a different post.
As a teenager yearning for authenticity and being repaid with an uninspiring unintellectual brand of Christianity, I had a midlife spiritual crisis and started searching for alternatives. I became interested in Daoism and Zen Buddhism. The Tao Te Ching is a masterpiece.
After highschool I spent a year in a Japanese country town on a rotary exchange program. I went to a Zen temple run by my club secretary monk every Sunday to do zazen. In the middle of the year I did a weekend retreat where I met an American guy who told me I should bang as many teenage japanese schoolgirls as possible or I would regret it for the rest of my life. I haven't reached 'the rest of my life' yet, but I think he may have been onto something. At the end of the year, I spent a week in retreat at the head temple of Soto Zen - founded by Dogen Zenji. On my return to the country town I was ordained as a zen novice with the name Chiryu.
After returning to Australia, I tried to keep up my practice but after several years finally succumbed to the absurdity of it and stopped. Or maybe I just got lazy and wanted to please my girlfriend at the time. She wasn't too keen on my being a monk. She liked Chanel handbags too much to risk that type of behaviour.
I did a major in comparative religious studies at Sydney University in my first degree - studying classical hinduism, paganism and the new age, australian aboriginal religions, chinese religions (daoism, confucianism, buddhism) and meditation.
After this smorgasbord, I could no longer believe in any one system of divinity. I am convinced that all the major world religions have a solid grip on absolute truth through their beliefs and practices, without any one oligarch (or is that Patriarch) holding a monopoly. Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Daoism all have treasures of wisdom to impart if a person is sincere in their search. And they are excellent pathways to get to grips with the big questions in life without thinking too much for yourself. One does not have to re-invent the wheel to go for a drive.
And as for normal people, well these religions provide a good framework of everyday ethics, conformity and restraint. Isn't this what any working system of social control aims for? I am tired of hearing people whinge about the evils of religions which they find constraining - such ideals are good for most people. They give all of us something to live up to. And they are certainly good for those who like to flout the rules - being bad isn't half as fun when it is acceptable ;-)
As for me, I now believe that we have to choose what we believe. We have to look around us, see what the effects of different beliefs are and adjust our own accordingly. This requires great flexibility, capacity for change and constant learning.
But in our dynamic world, I think this offers a good method for having a happy, successful and long life.
Here endeth the confession,
Aslan
my name's Aslan. I'm a recovering catholic. I've been told by people that once you're in, there's no escape. This seems rather unfair. Especially when you are baptised and confirmed as a baby. And then I was brainwashed into goodness - being taught prayers in Ukrainian by my orthodox catholic mother. It hasn't all been bad though. As a pre-teen altar boy I felt sacrilegiously closer to God. There's something elevating about looking down on the masses from up high in a sacristy wearing a dress and having first bite on the communion. And I still enjoy the rituals and rites of mass. There is something very beautiful and soothing about incense and gentle bells.
In high school I went to a high/low church Anglican grammar school in Sydney. My favourite 'religious' memories are making up obscene words for the beautiful hymns and being told by my Latin teaching headmaster that if you wanted to sleep during chapel then you should use the kneelers for support to keep your body upright. That way you looked like you were praying with your eyes closed. This particular headmaster (who was quite famous) also had a good line of stories about competitive boyhood masturbation, but that is really material for a different post.
As a teenager yearning for authenticity and being repaid with an uninspiring unintellectual brand of Christianity, I had a midlife spiritual crisis and started searching for alternatives. I became interested in Daoism and Zen Buddhism. The Tao Te Ching is a masterpiece.
After highschool I spent a year in a Japanese country town on a rotary exchange program. I went to a Zen temple run by my club secretary monk every Sunday to do zazen. In the middle of the year I did a weekend retreat where I met an American guy who told me I should bang as many teenage japanese schoolgirls as possible or I would regret it for the rest of my life. I haven't reached 'the rest of my life' yet, but I think he may have been onto something. At the end of the year, I spent a week in retreat at the head temple of Soto Zen - founded by Dogen Zenji. On my return to the country town I was ordained as a zen novice with the name Chiryu.
After returning to Australia, I tried to keep up my practice but after several years finally succumbed to the absurdity of it and stopped. Or maybe I just got lazy and wanted to please my girlfriend at the time. She wasn't too keen on my being a monk. She liked Chanel handbags too much to risk that type of behaviour.
I did a major in comparative religious studies at Sydney University in my first degree - studying classical hinduism, paganism and the new age, australian aboriginal religions, chinese religions (daoism, confucianism, buddhism) and meditation.
After this smorgasbord, I could no longer believe in any one system of divinity. I am convinced that all the major world religions have a solid grip on absolute truth through their beliefs and practices, without any one oligarch (or is that Patriarch) holding a monopoly. Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Daoism all have treasures of wisdom to impart if a person is sincere in their search. And they are excellent pathways to get to grips with the big questions in life without thinking too much for yourself. One does not have to re-invent the wheel to go for a drive.
And as for normal people, well these religions provide a good framework of everyday ethics, conformity and restraint. Isn't this what any working system of social control aims for? I am tired of hearing people whinge about the evils of religions which they find constraining - such ideals are good for most people. They give all of us something to live up to. And they are certainly good for those who like to flout the rules - being bad isn't half as fun when it is acceptable ;-)
As for me, I now believe that we have to choose what we believe. We have to look around us, see what the effects of different beliefs are and adjust our own accordingly. This requires great flexibility, capacity for change and constant learning.
But in our dynamic world, I think this offers a good method for having a happy, successful and long life.
Here endeth the confession,
Aslan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
