Today is my second day on tinder. I have come to learn some things about what I think of dating in this way. For instance, I am reinforced in my opinion that dating begins almost entirely by visual attraction. It is too apparent as well that I have my preferences. Again, I wonder how truly I adhere to the things I say about destiny and its place in my system of para-beliefs. I shan't be cryptic, what I mean is that I wonder if it is time to make something of my own destiny. I also wonder if I am actually as handsome as I think I am. Do not be mistaken, I think it no great loss if I am no good looking man. I mean that it would be some relief to know exactly what a reasonable representation of the public might think of my appearance. And so on. This mode is thus interesting in itself, whatever else it may lead to.
But the true purpose of this post is this. One of the girls had in her profile this question, which asked what one thing I would change about my life if I had the power to do so. This is an excellent question and it led me to, after considering her appearance, "like" it as well.
To my mind I am absolutely certain that this extraordinary power could be ably put to right any number of the myriad things I think insufficient or hapless in my life. Any number. And I can think up such an esteemed list without serious effort. Such a list would contain the shallow as easily and as naturally it would the significant. I could be half a foot taller and be an absolutely devastating sportsman. I could never have lost the first love of my life. I could live in a beautiful family. I could have stayed at my old firm as the bosses' favourite. All these are wonderful things. But the philosopher in me would revolt.
And philosophy is love of knowledge. Philo-soph-y, exactly. This may seem too abstract and far removed from wanting to change something unpleasant in one's life, but the distance is only in the distinction (and the consequent derivation) between principle and act-decision. The classic teacher Socrates would say that every effort should be made towards only the search for wisdom, and so let come the vissicitudes what may. The existentialists would say that life is too absurd to take so seriously, and so one would do better to consider one's given position and thus also how one understood life to have meaning, crucially, quite apart from the whims and prevarications of life's provision. So that would be, very briefly, a sufficient mention of philosophy. How then could I insist on any of the things I have listed, and many more besides those?
Of course, I might make some purely altruistic use of the power, and even nobly. But I am doubtful whether even then it would be correct to do so. After all, the question is interesting only in so far as it it concerned with what I might change in my life. And in principle I think I ought not wish for anything to change in my life. It would be cowardly to do so, I think. In every sense. And if anything, I refuse to admit this cowardice.
So the truth is that my life is sufficient to me, at least in the account that I have thus given. Accordingly, any such power given to me must be used and have effect only towards the lives of others. And only with their consent, surely.
Ok. Seriousness aside, the one thing I would like to have changed in my life is this. I have always thought that I would love to have been born in 1955. And my being born in 1987 gives me no great advantage over being born in the earlier time. Imagine all the great music I've missed! Oh! And so I wish for the life of me that I could have been born in 1955 and thus have caught all the wonderful music produced in the late 60s and the golden, golden 70s. Oh lord! What I wouldn't give!
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Saturday, October 25, 2014
CLXVI - spaghetti and tomatoes
i realise that my earlier post on what i took to be love might well be described as being normatively hollow, in the sense that my account of "love" does not, in itself, profer something so, one might say, important, as romantic fidelity. at the moment, i have not considered what else the account might be said to lack. but fidelity! surely fidelity is to love as tomato is to spaghetti.
i think this is a fair point. one may yet resist the charge by saying, one must by caring, as the first limb of my account, naturally consider fidelity. but i shall resist this temptation. this is a very fair point, and must be very fairly considered.
i remember a passage in norwegian wood which had reiko explaining to toru that loving two women at once was okay. it goes like this:
i believe that's true. i mean, people do lose their spouses. and they do fall in love again, and they do get married again. this may be a bit of my inner libertarian tendency coming through, but i believe that love is a wonderful thing that can be had at any time in any place (and almost, with any person). so the crux of it is then how we act according to the feeling of "love", i.e. of liking and then of caring. and fidelity at its most complete should, in my opinion, have very little to say about who we "love", but very much to say about how we act according to that "love". accordingly (and by god, woohoo!), my account of "love" is in a domain prior to and separate from that which fidelity is concerned with.
in fact i think norwegian wood explored the idea of loving two women at once beautifully, and to my mind, responsibly as well. but this is toru in a nutshell - midori told him that she loved him because he only acted when he felt sure of what he was doing.
so i have described spaghetti as flour and eggs (and seasoning). tomato is merely in the sauce. and who has not had, say, squid ink spaghetti? but i am partial to tomato too.
by the way, the following is, to my mind, the most accurate song about love i have ever heard in my life.
the darkness, love is only a feeling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSGa1dW_KoE
i think this is a fair point. one may yet resist the charge by saying, one must by caring, as the first limb of my account, naturally consider fidelity. but i shall resist this temptation. this is a very fair point, and must be very fairly considered.
i remember a passage in norwegian wood which had reiko explaining to toru that loving two women at once was okay. it goes like this:
"things like that happen all the time in this great big world of ours. it's like taking a boat out on a beautiful lake on a beautiful day and thinking both the sky and the lake are beautiful."
i believe that's true. i mean, people do lose their spouses. and they do fall in love again, and they do get married again. this may be a bit of my inner libertarian tendency coming through, but i believe that love is a wonderful thing that can be had at any time in any place (and almost, with any person). so the crux of it is then how we act according to the feeling of "love", i.e. of liking and then of caring. and fidelity at its most complete should, in my opinion, have very little to say about who we "love", but very much to say about how we act according to that "love". accordingly (and by god, woohoo!), my account of "love" is in a domain prior to and separate from that which fidelity is concerned with.
in fact i think norwegian wood explored the idea of loving two women at once beautifully, and to my mind, responsibly as well. but this is toru in a nutshell - midori told him that she loved him because he only acted when he felt sure of what he was doing.
so i have described spaghetti as flour and eggs (and seasoning). tomato is merely in the sauce. and who has not had, say, squid ink spaghetti? but i am partial to tomato too.
by the way, the following is, to my mind, the most accurate song about love i have ever heard in my life.
the darkness, love is only a feeling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSGa1dW_KoE
Friday, October 24, 2014
CLXV - the process
I have realised that life for me is a process, a process not of achieving, or of attaining, or of arriving, but of waiting.
I say this despite the fact that it is in our nature to strive for the objects of our desires. So there are generally speaking two phases in this mode, well, the desiring/creating of desire comes first, but I refer here to the striving and then the attaining. For me, I feel that we tend to lose perspective when we strive. I think we neglect (even ignore) a very vital existential attitude, which basically should tell us that we may die in the next instant. And so we create priorities for ourselves which tend in the larger picture to be myopic. We sometimes lose that spark of our humanity, which is compassion. So much for the ills of striving. And is not attaining the lesser of striving? Much the lesser I say! Who has in attaining ever been satisfied in his soul? None, for the soul stirs, whether in straining or in joy, by endeavour. And many have realised only dismay at the final reckoning of the measure and costs of their attainments.
So what is better? I say waiting is better. And here are two phases to waiting, one I shall call the accepting, and two, the enlightening. Accepting is a simple idea made simpler by realisation of the true precariousness of our situation. What we are, and to some extent, what we have become and where we hope to go, in truth, are entirely and profoundly not up to us to decide. Life is crucially and fundamentally whimsical. Take a moment to consider this. You have five fingers, do you not? And which of those five fingers did you decide to grow? And what will your hands and feet do tomorrow? If thought is to precede action, it is not sufficient for us to insist on action as a meaningful end in itself. Accordingly, no amount of striving can overcome the fact that life is entirely whimsical and gives little regard to our efforts. So that is acceptance. Acceptance at its strongest provides that we cease to desire. Instead, we abide.
But we do not merely abide. For enlightenment yet remains. This consists of gratitude and of seeking betterment. Gratitude in that we have so many things that few in this world can do without. Fingers, air, shelter, education, hope, love, and so on. For God has tried but apparently man was not worthy of a perfect world. So we must be grateful for all that we have been given in this imperfect world. And certainly we must on that basis also have compassion.
To me, I seek betterment because I subscribe to Socrates' idea of the good. I think that knowledge, truth and wisdom are ends in themselves. And so I believe that there is fundamental meaning in desiring to behold the good. Not to use these to further my own purposes, no, but to surpass myself and to fully and bravely live as an intelligent human in this wonderful world. Thus also may I do justice with what I have been given and be some model or encouragement to those around me.
Socrates also argued that it was necessary for the good of each city to be guarded and ruled by men who desired the good. Transposing this, betterment is necessary because there is so much we can do with what we have to help this world. If we are unable to see above our own mean desires, we will scarcely be able to lend aid where it is needed. And if we do not become better in every way, we will squander the fleeting opportunities we will be given to do good work. Betterment is to me the single most important facility we must busy ourselves with. Not attaining, bettering. What we hope to be is to be better and thus to be worthy, presently or eventually, of guardianship and of husbandry of the things (or people or places) that will be entrusted to us by destiny (or, if you will, the higher power). And so the question here is, are you good enough and are you wise enough to take your place at this seat? If not, are you at least worthy of the apprenticeship? Can you one day be fit to "serve"?
So this is waiting. I wait, and I remind myself not to worry. I am, I hope, worthy of waiting.
I say this despite the fact that it is in our nature to strive for the objects of our desires. So there are generally speaking two phases in this mode, well, the desiring/creating of desire comes first, but I refer here to the striving and then the attaining. For me, I feel that we tend to lose perspective when we strive. I think we neglect (even ignore) a very vital existential attitude, which basically should tell us that we may die in the next instant. And so we create priorities for ourselves which tend in the larger picture to be myopic. We sometimes lose that spark of our humanity, which is compassion. So much for the ills of striving. And is not attaining the lesser of striving? Much the lesser I say! Who has in attaining ever been satisfied in his soul? None, for the soul stirs, whether in straining or in joy, by endeavour. And many have realised only dismay at the final reckoning of the measure and costs of their attainments.
So what is better? I say waiting is better. And here are two phases to waiting, one I shall call the accepting, and two, the enlightening. Accepting is a simple idea made simpler by realisation of the true precariousness of our situation. What we are, and to some extent, what we have become and where we hope to go, in truth, are entirely and profoundly not up to us to decide. Life is crucially and fundamentally whimsical. Take a moment to consider this. You have five fingers, do you not? And which of those five fingers did you decide to grow? And what will your hands and feet do tomorrow? If thought is to precede action, it is not sufficient for us to insist on action as a meaningful end in itself. Accordingly, no amount of striving can overcome the fact that life is entirely whimsical and gives little regard to our efforts. So that is acceptance. Acceptance at its strongest provides that we cease to desire. Instead, we abide.
But we do not merely abide. For enlightenment yet remains. This consists of gratitude and of seeking betterment. Gratitude in that we have so many things that few in this world can do without. Fingers, air, shelter, education, hope, love, and so on. For God has tried but apparently man was not worthy of a perfect world. So we must be grateful for all that we have been given in this imperfect world. And certainly we must on that basis also have compassion.
To me, I seek betterment because I subscribe to Socrates' idea of the good. I think that knowledge, truth and wisdom are ends in themselves. And so I believe that there is fundamental meaning in desiring to behold the good. Not to use these to further my own purposes, no, but to surpass myself and to fully and bravely live as an intelligent human in this wonderful world. Thus also may I do justice with what I have been given and be some model or encouragement to those around me.
Socrates also argued that it was necessary for the good of each city to be guarded and ruled by men who desired the good. Transposing this, betterment is necessary because there is so much we can do with what we have to help this world. If we are unable to see above our own mean desires, we will scarcely be able to lend aid where it is needed. And if we do not become better in every way, we will squander the fleeting opportunities we will be given to do good work. Betterment is to me the single most important facility we must busy ourselves with. Not attaining, bettering. What we hope to be is to be better and thus to be worthy, presently or eventually, of guardianship and of husbandry of the things (or people or places) that will be entrusted to us by destiny (or, if you will, the higher power). And so the question here is, are you good enough and are you wise enough to take your place at this seat? If not, are you at least worthy of the apprenticeship? Can you one day be fit to "serve"?
So this is waiting. I wait, and I remind myself not to worry. I am, I hope, worthy of waiting.
Monday, October 20, 2014
CLXIV - "love"
i have decided on my understanding of love. it is this.
love is caring about (someone, something, someplace) as much as you like (them, it, him, her).
this definition (well, loosely speaking it may be called a "definition") may seem spurious in the sense that a person's liking or disliking tends to vary (and understandably so) according with circumstance. so, a child may well dislike his parent when he is scolded for dropping his apple. are we then to understand that the child no longer loves his parent? no. but for my purposes, i believe i need not provide the most exact phrasing (exceptions and all) of how i understand love, so long as you understand that by "like", i mean a deeper sense of "liking" than passing emotion. a dropped apple leads to chagrin for all, but the child still understands that the apple (and the reproach) was handed over in fondness.
as i thought about it (and obviously about my love), i had this fleeting, tremendous shiver through my frame as i thought about when (and how much) i cared for you.
it is so hard to move on, it's funny in a way. you and the loss of you have become something that is always with me, a bit like a shadow. i don't know whether i drag this shadow or whether it is just a sort of material that is me in a different way. peter pan tried to re-fix his shadow with a bar of soap. so the idea is not quite heresy or nekulturny (which means loosely, uncultured). in the book, wendy fixed it by sewing it back to him. to his foot!
as an aside, i love peter pan. in a way, peter pan, alice in wonderland, the little prince, these books are a lot more important than we realise.
the problem with men is that we are, i would say, characteristically good at liking someone or something without caring for them (or it). this is, of course, among other things, men going to ktvs. we do. we are men. in a way, we have to say for ourselves what is or is not in accord with our own moral compass. no one can (and indeed, no one should) intervene at these moments of maturity. so much for ktvs. in a word, they are fun. it's true. fun tends to excess, that is also true. and so, moral compass, gentlemen, moral compass. also, negative externalities. as phil jackson once said, paraphrasing, as a basketball player, one must learn to have compassion for the opponent as well as for oneself.
love! it seems simple enough! i leave you with an anecdote. one of the things i remember about an interview will smith did was when he was asked about his marriage of seventeen years. he said he had to work at it and improve himself, sacrifices things, etc. continuing, he also said that he estimated his record to be 15-2. so out of that seventeen years, he considered that he had two losing seasons. i mean, to me, that's a wonderful record, but to lose in those two years, that's also something else. who can say that, though, to look back at x years and say, i'm fifteen and two. goodness, that's fantastic, and also scary.
so that's "love".
love is caring about (someone, something, someplace) as much as you like (them, it, him, her).
this definition (well, loosely speaking it may be called a "definition") may seem spurious in the sense that a person's liking or disliking tends to vary (and understandably so) according with circumstance. so, a child may well dislike his parent when he is scolded for dropping his apple. are we then to understand that the child no longer loves his parent? no. but for my purposes, i believe i need not provide the most exact phrasing (exceptions and all) of how i understand love, so long as you understand that by "like", i mean a deeper sense of "liking" than passing emotion. a dropped apple leads to chagrin for all, but the child still understands that the apple (and the reproach) was handed over in fondness.
as i thought about it (and obviously about my love), i had this fleeting, tremendous shiver through my frame as i thought about when (and how much) i cared for you.
it is so hard to move on, it's funny in a way. you and the loss of you have become something that is always with me, a bit like a shadow. i don't know whether i drag this shadow or whether it is just a sort of material that is me in a different way. peter pan tried to re-fix his shadow with a bar of soap. so the idea is not quite heresy or nekulturny (which means loosely, uncultured). in the book, wendy fixed it by sewing it back to him. to his foot!
as an aside, i love peter pan. in a way, peter pan, alice in wonderland, the little prince, these books are a lot more important than we realise.
the problem with men is that we are, i would say, characteristically good at liking someone or something without caring for them (or it). this is, of course, among other things, men going to ktvs. we do. we are men. in a way, we have to say for ourselves what is or is not in accord with our own moral compass. no one can (and indeed, no one should) intervene at these moments of maturity. so much for ktvs. in a word, they are fun. it's true. fun tends to excess, that is also true. and so, moral compass, gentlemen, moral compass. also, negative externalities. as phil jackson once said, paraphrasing, as a basketball player, one must learn to have compassion for the opponent as well as for oneself.
love! it seems simple enough! i leave you with an anecdote. one of the things i remember about an interview will smith did was when he was asked about his marriage of seventeen years. he said he had to work at it and improve himself, sacrifices things, etc. continuing, he also said that he estimated his record to be 15-2. so out of that seventeen years, he considered that he had two losing seasons. i mean, to me, that's a wonderful record, but to lose in those two years, that's also something else. who can say that, though, to look back at x years and say, i'm fifteen and two. goodness, that's fantastic, and also scary.
so that's "love".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)