...because sometimes it really sucks to be right.
No, it is not a reference to my political stance. Once again I have managed to give my vanity an ego trip by successfully predicting the outcome of a relationship. I won't say whose because that's their own affair and they'll suffer enough natural embarassment and despair without my assistance in rallying up more people to pass comment.
Why should I write about it then? Well the subject matter is not the important part of what I wish to discuss. However, it does put this post neatly in context.
Far too often I entertain the cute idea that you can tell a lot from someone's eyes. As far as I'm aware, there is no scientific proof for being able to tell anything from someone's eyes (except their genes, and only then to a degree). There was something on furrows in the iris being associated with particular personality traits, but that was an early stage observation without any significant evidence to make it plausible or useful.
I'll meet new people, I'll look them in the eye and I'll know something about them in an instant. I don't know what it is I know. It takes a stimulus to provoke the knowledge into not only being useful but noticeable. You understand why I think this is a silly concept. It all sounds very wonderful, but very much dreamed up. Still, it would seem to work for the moment, so I'll entertain the idea as being possible.
With this relationship, one of the couple was a very close friend of mine. I knew their character, but was interested to find out about this other person who they'd "got together" with. I looked them in the eye, and I knew that it'd run quite smoothly for a while, but that something would break them up eventually. 4 months later, it happened. Alright, so that's not amazing because break ups happen all the time, but this isn't about an amazing ability to read people and know their actions (besides I can't do that). This is about seeing the same thing over and over again. I look at couples and get to know them and I always see the same problem.
People expect too much from a relationship. You are more than welcome to argue that we do too little for a relationship in this day and age, but I'm going to go for expecting too much (the latter may simply be a consequence of the first, after all thoughts come before actions...generally :)). The idea seems to have sunk into people's minds that a relationship is meant to be perfect. Furthermore, people's ideas of perfect seem to have become this fantasy where you must think alike, act alike and speak alike. If you have any disagreements on matters, that's it. You're clearly "far too different" to be with them. And this is the problem.
We have tackled racism and sexism, but opinionism (as I have randomly chosen to refer to it as) is absolutely thriving. We find it hard to accept different opinions.
We all think differently about things. If we didn't, we wouldn't be individuals. For some reason that I haven't yet figured out (and a historian may enjoy trying to find the point where it all changed or if it "changed" at all), we have become a society clinging to similarity in opinions and thoughts. Appreciation of differences seems to have been destroyed for the most part. So it is no wonder that relationships don't work and that I keep seeing the same thing. People are different, and the moment that becomes apparent (in other words, reality checks) that's the problem. People can't take difference. Perhaps the racism and sexism fights have inspired it, I don't know. All I can say is that I've observed the destruction of our appreciation for our individuality and the result is the gradual destruction of community spirit.
It's obvious why people are part of a group who all dress alike and act alike when they're teenagers. The concept of just being in a group of friends who are all different is alien to us. It is no surprise that I should continually ask myself, "why can I get on with so many people while others refuse to speak outside of their circle?"
I now apologise for generalising grossly. I don't "know" everything about us and our many societies. However, from experience of my own society (whatever that is) I have noticed this problem in nearly everyone. Many claim to be accepting and put on a worthy façade to try and support that notion (besides they want to appear like good, balanced people), but in reality the truth is inside their head, and it is a completely different world in there.
We are all different. Our opinions are concluded by various means, unique to our own journey through life. I have always chosen to refer to life as a book, and now is another good opportunity to draw a comparison. What may have been 16 chapters in my book, leading to my conclusions on life, could've been 16 entirely different chapters in someone else's book, leading them to their different conclusions. Who is to say which book is more right? I take the stance that they're both good books, for what greater author is their than life? What could be 1984 for one person could be Pride and Prejudice for another. Both books I recommend thoroughly, yet while accepting their similarities, they are different books.
I ran this by my dad a few minutes ago and we ended up chatting about it while sitting in the sun under the window in my room. We got onto global warming eventually, but that's for another day. He said this:
"Back when we were small tribal societies, we were cohesive because that was paramount to the survival of the tribe. Everyone had their part to play. You wouldn't do a misdeed to your neighbour because that neighbour wouldn't wish to help you later, thus destroying the cohesiveness of the society. Eventually, a strain factor, such as a drought, would occur and the tribe would be left trying to find a way to make the rains come. For some reason, dancing around may have seemed to work on one occasion (I suggested by coincidence or amazingly actually working). This would be remembered by the tribe and the accepted idea would be that dancing around in a particular way would bring the rains (this is a rather short explanation for what could be far more complicated if desired)."
The obvious consequence of dance causing rain is that someone would suggest that for the dance to achieve something, there must be a sentient force that was watching them and responding to the dance by bringing the rains. Kapow, you have a rain God.
Now I have the opportunity to be infinitely controversial. I'll be interested if anyone takes offence from my next conclusions. It could well prove my point about not appreciating individuality and difference of opinion. THIS MAY NOT BE RIGHT, BUT IT IS AN IDEA NONETHELESS!
So you dance for rain, you get rain, you conclude there is a rain God. You dance for sun, you get sun, there is a sun God. Pretty soon a few coincidences of "dancing and raining" lead people to conclude that there is a God for everything. You want a disease to go, you pray to the God of health. You want a child, you pray to the God of fertility. Praying is not necessarily hands together, eyes closed. It could be dancing as I have suggested, or wearing asparagus around you legs. The method isn't important, just the concept (very Romanesque belief system).
So then what? Well there's a hell of a lot of Gods. Why not just have one God for all of it? That's so much easier than having to speak to different Gods. I am not aiming to be patronising, I'm merely identifying a possible human trail of thought. Again, if anyone takes offence and gives me a rather nasty reply and/or tries to cleverly conceal it, but while fuming, I will be disappointed, but I'll accept it happens.
But I'm being sidetracked, this is another discussion. My point is that different tribes established different beliefs with or without different Gods. Eventually tribes meet other tribes and beliefs meet other beliefs. And so ensued the argument; which one of us is right?
"Well we danced for rain and we got rain.
Oh, well we sacrificed a lamb and got rain.
Sacrificed a lamb for rain? That's crazy. Lambs are the sacred creature of our God. You cannot kill a lamb!
Look we shall show you.
You dare to anger our God!? You insult us. We shall destroy you and your heathen religion.
Oh you will will you? Stupid bunch of rain dancers."
And so we have a lovely confrontation showing humanity in all its glory; controlled by what started out as a coincidence.
Again I apologise for generalising grossly. And AGAIN I say, this is just an idea, a trail of thought. It should not be offensive, and anyone who is offended is unnecessarily sensitive. But that is my "lamb for rain". Who knows, being open with my thoughts might insult someone's God.
Linking back to the start of this post, we are all different. Our conclusions, be it as an individual or a group, are different. When we try to discuss our opinions, some people get overly defensive about it and throw a tantrum. People don't like difference. The idea of disagreement is a scary one. When we come across someone "killing sacred lambs", our response is to stop that injustice, because in our minds, it IS an injustice. There's so much more resulting from this idea because I'm sure someone will say "Well does that mean we should accept people who kill, cheat and steal?" I can't answer that question. I am merely observing a human quality. If I had an answer I'd give it to you. All I can say is that I only exercise my moral fist when I feel that someone is doing something wrong to another person. I don't care about "dancing for rain", I care about people to people relationships. The abstract is interesting, but it shouldn't dictate your reality.
Anyway, enough of a random trail of thought. As ever I'm open to comments, arguments, etc. Even if they're laughable, I'll still read them with great interest. We're all individuals and we all have our opinions. Please share them with me.
PS Apologies for a post a while back on love. I said "I myself am not contemplating whether I am in love." Surely I am always contemplating whether I am in love. I simply don't believe myself in love at the moment, although I accept the possibility of a seed.
Saturday, 10 March 2007
Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Becoming lost in time
As Phil could testify, often one requires provocation to tease out thoughts and feelings on a matter. Today I was provoked by something.
My grandmother (whoI refer to as Nan) has gone into hospital with breathing difficulties. She is looking better than she did 24 hours ago so I'm not despairing. However, while visiting her, I was overcome with several different feelings. My initial feeling was that of my usual feeling for hospitals; a feeling of warmth and appreciation for the ingenuity and excellence of the hospital. But there was something quite painful that was caused to resurface while I was in there.
Many of the occupants in the ward were elderly (it would seem that they were all being kept together). Across from my Nan was a lady whom, having had her possessions put in a locker, had led herself to believe that she has misplaced them in various locations around the room. Down the end of the ward was a woman constantly squeaking for help. "Help! Please!" she would exclaim over and over. And there was a woman who didn't even belong in the ward, but with her mind elsewhere, she wandered aimlessly, perhaps guided by the loneliness of the hospital ward.
These were sad sights and they inspired great pain in what I can only imagine is one's heart. And it got me thinking about something that has been bugging me for a few weeks.
Recently there has been a report on an expected increase in the number of cases of dementia for the next generation. By 2050, there will be a million more people in the UK alone with dementia, predominantly by alzheimers. I had said to my sister that I wish never to be left to lose my mind, for to lose my mind is to have myself rubbed from the canvas of reality. I considered briefly that losing one's mind is comparable to nurturing one's mind in that we change as a person, but quickly dismissed this, as the loss of one's mind is the loss of one's identity, rather than the refinement of one's identity.
This was one thing that crossed my mind, that I would not wish to slip into nothingness, while leaving behind an empty shell of a body. But this was not my only problem.
The BBC had shown one of their "distressing" clips on dementia, and for once the word "distressing" genuinely applied; I was very nearly moved to tears. A man, whose name I forget, described the progression of his wife's dementia. He said that he began to get this aching feeling in his heart, and he soon realised that this aching was loneliness. His wife, who for so long had been the missing piece of the jigsaw that made him complete, was slowly being cut with a pair of scissors so that that piece did not fit anymore. Eventually dementia had totally disfigured her mind, leaving a confused being, unable to speak clearly, blind and disabled. He mentioned how she lapsed into and out of making sense as the dementia progressed. On one occasion, she said "We've had fun together haven't we?" and he supposedly broke down and cried.
Now this lead me to consider the more painful side of what I witnessed in that hospital ward. For me, the prospect of losing my mind is terrible so far as I would only know my suffering before it happened. Once my mind begins to go, I'd lose the ability to recognise that. But the more painful side is that there are people who will have to witness you lose your mind, with all the awareness that you once possessed. They would see your charms, your talents and your spirit dying in front of them, like a wilting flower. The person they loved would slowly become a memory, and yet they'd still be there, or at least, their body would make them appear to be there.
Perhaps if I were to ignore my emotions, I would accept the loss of one's mind by dementia as another unfortunate ailment that happens all the time. This school of thought extends to believing all of medicine to be a pointless attempt to delay the inevitable (and not just delaying death of a single lifetime. I refer to the greater life of humanity as a whole).
Fortunately or unfortunately, I have my emotions and seeing those ladies, still semi-aware, but so clearly not the beautiful roses they once were, inspired pain. There was no positive way to look at the deconstruction of a person's mind.
My grandmother (whoI refer to as Nan) has gone into hospital with breathing difficulties. She is looking better than she did 24 hours ago so I'm not despairing. However, while visiting her, I was overcome with several different feelings. My initial feeling was that of my usual feeling for hospitals; a feeling of warmth and appreciation for the ingenuity and excellence of the hospital. But there was something quite painful that was caused to resurface while I was in there.
Many of the occupants in the ward were elderly (it would seem that they were all being kept together). Across from my Nan was a lady whom, having had her possessions put in a locker, had led herself to believe that she has misplaced them in various locations around the room. Down the end of the ward was a woman constantly squeaking for help. "Help! Please!" she would exclaim over and over. And there was a woman who didn't even belong in the ward, but with her mind elsewhere, she wandered aimlessly, perhaps guided by the loneliness of the hospital ward.
These were sad sights and they inspired great pain in what I can only imagine is one's heart. And it got me thinking about something that has been bugging me for a few weeks.
Recently there has been a report on an expected increase in the number of cases of dementia for the next generation. By 2050, there will be a million more people in the UK alone with dementia, predominantly by alzheimers. I had said to my sister that I wish never to be left to lose my mind, for to lose my mind is to have myself rubbed from the canvas of reality. I considered briefly that losing one's mind is comparable to nurturing one's mind in that we change as a person, but quickly dismissed this, as the loss of one's mind is the loss of one's identity, rather than the refinement of one's identity.
This was one thing that crossed my mind, that I would not wish to slip into nothingness, while leaving behind an empty shell of a body. But this was not my only problem.
The BBC had shown one of their "distressing" clips on dementia, and for once the word "distressing" genuinely applied; I was very nearly moved to tears. A man, whose name I forget, described the progression of his wife's dementia. He said that he began to get this aching feeling in his heart, and he soon realised that this aching was loneliness. His wife, who for so long had been the missing piece of the jigsaw that made him complete, was slowly being cut with a pair of scissors so that that piece did not fit anymore. Eventually dementia had totally disfigured her mind, leaving a confused being, unable to speak clearly, blind and disabled. He mentioned how she lapsed into and out of making sense as the dementia progressed. On one occasion, she said "We've had fun together haven't we?" and he supposedly broke down and cried.
Now this lead me to consider the more painful side of what I witnessed in that hospital ward. For me, the prospect of losing my mind is terrible so far as I would only know my suffering before it happened. Once my mind begins to go, I'd lose the ability to recognise that. But the more painful side is that there are people who will have to witness you lose your mind, with all the awareness that you once possessed. They would see your charms, your talents and your spirit dying in front of them, like a wilting flower. The person they loved would slowly become a memory, and yet they'd still be there, or at least, their body would make them appear to be there.
Perhaps if I were to ignore my emotions, I would accept the loss of one's mind by dementia as another unfortunate ailment that happens all the time. This school of thought extends to believing all of medicine to be a pointless attempt to delay the inevitable (and not just delaying death of a single lifetime. I refer to the greater life of humanity as a whole).
Fortunately or unfortunately, I have my emotions and seeing those ladies, still semi-aware, but so clearly not the beautiful roses they once were, inspired pain. There was no positive way to look at the deconstruction of a person's mind.
Monday, 12 February 2007
Plastering
You may ask why this post is titled plastering. What better way is there to fill a gap?
I'm currently in the middle of writing a rather long post on an interesting topic. Depending upon it's length after completion, I shall either post it as instalments or one big blog entry.
I gave blood this Sunday. Mr Brockington-Hill and his lady also came along and did the good deed. For those of you who may have been busy and unable to attend this weeks session, there are plenty more. If you're interested in giving blood, give me a buzz. I have a calendar with sessions in locations all around Southend. Come on, you know you want to ;)
For those of you who "don't like" needles, get over it. Nobody, except for people with an aim to harm themselves, likes needles. For those of you who have a "fear" of needles, I'm sorry that you suffer from this debilitating phobia. I don't think anyone could expect you to give blood.
Alright, I've finished being an arse...yeah right :D
I'm currently in the middle of writing a rather long post on an interesting topic. Depending upon it's length after completion, I shall either post it as instalments or one big blog entry.
I gave blood this Sunday. Mr Brockington-Hill and his lady also came along and did the good deed. For those of you who may have been busy and unable to attend this weeks session, there are plenty more. If you're interested in giving blood, give me a buzz. I have a calendar with sessions in locations all around Southend. Come on, you know you want to ;)
For those of you who "don't like" needles, get over it. Nobody, except for people with an aim to harm themselves, likes needles. For those of you who have a "fear" of needles, I'm sorry that you suffer from this debilitating phobia. I don't think anyone could expect you to give blood.
Alright, I've finished being an arse...yeah right :D
Wednesday, 7 February 2007
Love?
No, I am not myself contemplating whether I am in love, and I do not intend to try and describe it. I intend merely to make observations on situations that may or may not be on the subject of love, depending upon the authenticity of the claims of respected parties.
Where do I begin? There is such a vast number of observations and many more unmade conclusions on them. When can you as a friend trust in the judgement of a friend who claims to be in love? One would like to think in all foolishness that it would be instantaneous, after all what trust is there when you cannot trust a friend? But it would be a lie to claim that I had absolutely no doubts in the claims of my friends. We are at our most unobservant and our most ignorant when we believe we are in love. Perhaps as it can be said that ignorance is bliss, it is true to say that bliss is ignorance. However, I do not mean this as a general rule. I mean only to observe that I cannot recall any case where someone has concluded unquestionably that they had not been in love and admitted that they had been wrong*.
It is our weakness, and yet our strength also, to hold onto our dreams so dearly, and what greater dream is there than that of sharing something special with someone other than yourself? No one would wish to return to the dire loneliness that inflicts those that are not in love, even if our error is clear to see. Not only this, but should we have been so sure of our being in love, it is only natural in future to assume a position of greater skepticism in believing our feelings as we have experienced the consequences of being wrong.
*I accept that one cannot totally believe oneself in error for having claimed to have been in love. Love itself has often been compared to a plant (I am trying to avoid describing it); it must be nurtured for it to flourish. We are quite capable of being in love and losing that love, and thus not being wrong, but becoming wrong in allowing the delusion of love to persist.
I suppose one can take the view that becoming more skeptical of one's feeling is a bad thing, leading us to doubt ourselves and taking us ever further into depression and paranoia based on a lack of trust in oneself. However, one can also take the view that it is in fact a development that improves our ability to know when we are in fact in love. As such it can be said of love that to find it, one must climb a rigorous learning curve to be able to discern it clearly from our mistaken suspicions. Once one has learned to understand one's feeling with clarity, it could be said of oneself that one has passed the course.
However, I feel it does no justice to love to consider it in such a simple way. I believe that learning to realise true love when it comes your way is an important part of finding love, but it is not the sole constituent of love.
My reasons for doubting my friends are perhaps based on my own doubts as established by the processes detailed above. It is easy to believe yourself in love when you see a kind face. It is too easy for one to associate a character with that person and to fool oneself into believing it is love. We can confuse ourselves by creating dreams of what our love would be like and grafting that dream onto reflections of a person's character, thus giving them the illusion of perfection. Unfortunately it is the perfect illusion because it is based on our unique ideas of perfection. Hence, I suppose, why situations arise where someone can believe themselves madly in love with a decent sort, while all their friends perceive the 'decent sort' as a person of no clear profligacy, or perhaps even worthy of criticism.
I would continue by asking "When then can we say that we are in love?", but I would be dancing dangerously close to the line of attempting to describe love itself. Instead I'll continue by detailing some observations of consequences from the often long thought battle with oneself (and yes, I have deliberately used the wrong thought) as to whether one is or is not actually in love. Not only this, but also the consequences of believing that you know the answer.
Those of us who dare to love learn rather soon that it is not just an experience of pure happiness. And love is not always a simple case of falling in love and being together. In fact, these two things are entirely separate. One such example is one where the person you fall in love with loves you, but already has a partner who they love. It is interesting to wonder whether it is possible to love more than one person at a time. I don't mean to say love as in a crush or mere compatibility. I mean to say true love, where you could not and would not dare risk breaking the heart of either person that you love. And further still, I must define further the boundaries within which I mean "not wishing to break either person's heart". This can be a selfish act, whereby the person stuck in the middle simply does not wish to feel guilty, rather than wishing not to cause pain in the respective persons. However, the opposite is also a case worthy of noting. True love is not wishing to inflict pain on the person(s) you love and neglecting to consider the multitudes of guilt that you will feel. But here I find myself defining true love, and so again I must cease.
I make the assumption that it is entirely possible for us to love more than one person at any one time. However, by making this assumption we must explore the realms of comparison between the two or more persons loved by a single soul.
If one should find oneself in a position of loving two persons, should one be forced to decide between which of the two persons they will continue to love? I feel that it is a "decision" and I say this so that I make clear that I believe that there are no external forces (but for society who would have us believe polyamory wrong) forcing the lover of two to pick one answer over another. It is in every sense a dilemma because both choices will result in good and bad consequences. However, we must realise that in a real situation, one choice will inevitably produce more good outcomes, and therefore less bad outcomes, than the other.
With this realisation, we see that the lover of two will either choose to maintain a relationship with both persons, or be forced to choose between them. With the latter, one begins to identify the criteria of the different persons that would be good and bad. The process need not be conscious. Basic awareness of our surroundings and of other people occurs without any effort (I say "basic" because of Francis' post on awareness recently). One would like to believe that the person who must make the choice is intimately aware of every intricacy of the personality of both persons that they love and so can immediately make an informed decision. But it would be wrong to suggest that we ever entirely know a person (I now find myself touching upon Fergus' post).
So we now realise that not only do we not totally know these people, causing us to perhaps disrepute our feelings to a degree due to their civil conflict, but that we shall never entirely know these people. All I can say here is thank God for rational thinking. We should not be discouraged by the apparent impossibility of knowing everything about someone. We can still learn a hell of a lot about someone and continue to do so for a very long time. And so just because we can't know everything, it does not mean that we should not try to know a lot of things.
Once one has passed this time of doubt, or perhaps simply learned to think alongside it, one realises that there are significant differences between the two persons. I am not suggesting that there are not significant similarities, only that I assume that there are differences between the two, and in the case of deciding who to love these differences become more significant in the eyes of the chooser. It is these differences that lead one to try to make a decision between the two. But it is only trying to make a decision because even if one were to eventually choose one person over the other, the positive outcomes that will never come out, because one chose one path over another, leads one to doubt oneself (little giggle for Fergus there - Clive James would be proud).
And so I say again, it is a decision for the lover of two, but it is a decision that can never be fully resolved with absolute belief in oneself in having made the "right" decision (and there in itself is another topic for discussion - what is right?).
Should one actually be able to make a physical choice between the two, even if not the mental one, one commits oneself and the two persons that were and are the object of their love to a single, narrow path. Should one lose one's footing, it is of no surprise that one would try to find one's way back onto the path, retrace one's footsteps and find oneself back at the point of decision. Here then one may find themselves choosing to love again the person that they decided not to love any longer. And then so many more problems begin.
This post is an unfinished article, but there are quite a few points of discussion within this alone to satisfy a few curious minds with the will to read and respond. I still have to talk about fallback lovers and misinterpretation. I also did not discuss the perils of maintaining a relationship with two lovers at any one time. I may also wish to go onto the subject of marriage.
Upon mentioning that I was reading Pride and Prejudice, a friend of mine told me that they were in the process of writing an essay on why the marriage between Charlotte and Mr Collins was a bad thing. Perhaps I'll use that as my springboard for my next post on this. But you'll be glad to hear that that will most probably not be for a fortnight, if not longer.
If you've read this far, thanks for taking the time to trawl through this article.
Alternatively, if you've scrolled down to the end of the post, go back and read the whole thing you lazy git.
Where do I begin? There is such a vast number of observations and many more unmade conclusions on them. When can you as a friend trust in the judgement of a friend who claims to be in love? One would like to think in all foolishness that it would be instantaneous, after all what trust is there when you cannot trust a friend? But it would be a lie to claim that I had absolutely no doubts in the claims of my friends. We are at our most unobservant and our most ignorant when we believe we are in love. Perhaps as it can be said that ignorance is bliss, it is true to say that bliss is ignorance. However, I do not mean this as a general rule. I mean only to observe that I cannot recall any case where someone has concluded unquestionably that they had not been in love and admitted that they had been wrong*.
It is our weakness, and yet our strength also, to hold onto our dreams so dearly, and what greater dream is there than that of sharing something special with someone other than yourself? No one would wish to return to the dire loneliness that inflicts those that are not in love, even if our error is clear to see. Not only this, but should we have been so sure of our being in love, it is only natural in future to assume a position of greater skepticism in believing our feelings as we have experienced the consequences of being wrong.
*I accept that one cannot totally believe oneself in error for having claimed to have been in love. Love itself has often been compared to a plant (I am trying to avoid describing it); it must be nurtured for it to flourish. We are quite capable of being in love and losing that love, and thus not being wrong, but becoming wrong in allowing the delusion of love to persist.
I suppose one can take the view that becoming more skeptical of one's feeling is a bad thing, leading us to doubt ourselves and taking us ever further into depression and paranoia based on a lack of trust in oneself. However, one can also take the view that it is in fact a development that improves our ability to know when we are in fact in love. As such it can be said of love that to find it, one must climb a rigorous learning curve to be able to discern it clearly from our mistaken suspicions. Once one has learned to understand one's feeling with clarity, it could be said of oneself that one has passed the course.
However, I feel it does no justice to love to consider it in such a simple way. I believe that learning to realise true love when it comes your way is an important part of finding love, but it is not the sole constituent of love.
My reasons for doubting my friends are perhaps based on my own doubts as established by the processes detailed above. It is easy to believe yourself in love when you see a kind face. It is too easy for one to associate a character with that person and to fool oneself into believing it is love. We can confuse ourselves by creating dreams of what our love would be like and grafting that dream onto reflections of a person's character, thus giving them the illusion of perfection. Unfortunately it is the perfect illusion because it is based on our unique ideas of perfection. Hence, I suppose, why situations arise where someone can believe themselves madly in love with a decent sort, while all their friends perceive the 'decent sort' as a person of no clear profligacy, or perhaps even worthy of criticism.
I would continue by asking "When then can we say that we are in love?", but I would be dancing dangerously close to the line of attempting to describe love itself. Instead I'll continue by detailing some observations of consequences from the often long thought battle with oneself (and yes, I have deliberately used the wrong thought) as to whether one is or is not actually in love. Not only this, but also the consequences of believing that you know the answer.
Those of us who dare to love learn rather soon that it is not just an experience of pure happiness. And love is not always a simple case of falling in love and being together. In fact, these two things are entirely separate. One such example is one where the person you fall in love with loves you, but already has a partner who they love. It is interesting to wonder whether it is possible to love more than one person at a time. I don't mean to say love as in a crush or mere compatibility. I mean to say true love, where you could not and would not dare risk breaking the heart of either person that you love. And further still, I must define further the boundaries within which I mean "not wishing to break either person's heart". This can be a selfish act, whereby the person stuck in the middle simply does not wish to feel guilty, rather than wishing not to cause pain in the respective persons. However, the opposite is also a case worthy of noting. True love is not wishing to inflict pain on the person(s) you love and neglecting to consider the multitudes of guilt that you will feel. But here I find myself defining true love, and so again I must cease.
I make the assumption that it is entirely possible for us to love more than one person at any one time. However, by making this assumption we must explore the realms of comparison between the two or more persons loved by a single soul.
If one should find oneself in a position of loving two persons, should one be forced to decide between which of the two persons they will continue to love? I feel that it is a "decision" and I say this so that I make clear that I believe that there are no external forces (but for society who would have us believe polyamory wrong) forcing the lover of two to pick one answer over another. It is in every sense a dilemma because both choices will result in good and bad consequences. However, we must realise that in a real situation, one choice will inevitably produce more good outcomes, and therefore less bad outcomes, than the other.
With this realisation, we see that the lover of two will either choose to maintain a relationship with both persons, or be forced to choose between them. With the latter, one begins to identify the criteria of the different persons that would be good and bad. The process need not be conscious. Basic awareness of our surroundings and of other people occurs without any effort (I say "basic" because of Francis' post on awareness recently). One would like to believe that the person who must make the choice is intimately aware of every intricacy of the personality of both persons that they love and so can immediately make an informed decision. But it would be wrong to suggest that we ever entirely know a person (I now find myself touching upon Fergus' post).
So we now realise that not only do we not totally know these people, causing us to perhaps disrepute our feelings to a degree due to their civil conflict, but that we shall never entirely know these people. All I can say here is thank God for rational thinking. We should not be discouraged by the apparent impossibility of knowing everything about someone. We can still learn a hell of a lot about someone and continue to do so for a very long time. And so just because we can't know everything, it does not mean that we should not try to know a lot of things.
Once one has passed this time of doubt, or perhaps simply learned to think alongside it, one realises that there are significant differences between the two persons. I am not suggesting that there are not significant similarities, only that I assume that there are differences between the two, and in the case of deciding who to love these differences become more significant in the eyes of the chooser. It is these differences that lead one to try to make a decision between the two. But it is only trying to make a decision because even if one were to eventually choose one person over the other, the positive outcomes that will never come out, because one chose one path over another, leads one to doubt oneself (little giggle for Fergus there - Clive James would be proud).
And so I say again, it is a decision for the lover of two, but it is a decision that can never be fully resolved with absolute belief in oneself in having made the "right" decision (and there in itself is another topic for discussion - what is right?).
Should one actually be able to make a physical choice between the two, even if not the mental one, one commits oneself and the two persons that were and are the object of their love to a single, narrow path. Should one lose one's footing, it is of no surprise that one would try to find one's way back onto the path, retrace one's footsteps and find oneself back at the point of decision. Here then one may find themselves choosing to love again the person that they decided not to love any longer. And then so many more problems begin.
This post is an unfinished article, but there are quite a few points of discussion within this alone to satisfy a few curious minds with the will to read and respond. I still have to talk about fallback lovers and misinterpretation. I also did not discuss the perils of maintaining a relationship with two lovers at any one time. I may also wish to go onto the subject of marriage.
Upon mentioning that I was reading Pride and Prejudice, a friend of mine told me that they were in the process of writing an essay on why the marriage between Charlotte and Mr Collins was a bad thing. Perhaps I'll use that as my springboard for my next post on this. But you'll be glad to hear that that will most probably not be for a fortnight, if not longer.
If you've read this far, thanks for taking the time to trawl through this article.
Alternatively, if you've scrolled down to the end of the post, go back and read the whole thing you lazy git.
Tuesday, 6 February 2007
Topics of interest: Embryology
Yes, one of my many topics of interest is that of our coming into existence. For those with a crude sense of humour, I am not referring to the act of bringing us into existence, but rather that, which results from that act. Further still, for those of you that suffer with a droll sense of humour, I am not referring to the 9 months of back breaking pregnancy that befalls the female, nor the 18 years of 'torture' that will ensue, for those who would consider parenting in such a light.
I will not bore those who do not share my interest in the subject by writing about it in gross detail. I need only say that it is quite involved and it is my opinion that embryology when first realised, gave the chance for many an idle scientist to create words with no derivation but that stemming from their ability to sound impressive and infinitely condescending. I am quite aware that there is more to each word than their ability to sound extraordinary. Many words in fact share their roots in Latin, which for those of you familiar with medical terminology (and perhaps a little Latin) will find to be no revelation. However, I myself suffer from the congenital defect of a sense of humour and cannot help but exhibit symptoms of it by ridiculing the profound ability of Biology to confuse matters by not only using unnecessary polysyllabic words, but a whole anthology of them dedicated to a single subject.
Please enjoy the amusing nature of the last sentence :)
Alright, so it is hypocrisy to mock something in a manner comparable to the subject being mocked, but I find that amusing. One could suggest from that that I find hypocrisy amusing and I suppose one would be correct in that assumption. However, it must be made clear that I do not find the act of hypocrisy itself amusing, but rather its ability to be used as a method of revealing the true absurdity of that which the hypocrite chooses to emulate, be that to the benefit of the hypocrite in asserting a point, or the detriment of his/her integrity (yes I do have room for equality of the genders).
I must say, I'm being quite defensive of my stance on such matters. I'd apologise for that, but I cannot falter a little caution and foresight into the disagreements of others that might arise should I not cover my arse. Feel free to disagree with that.
I will not bore those who do not share my interest in the subject by writing about it in gross detail. I need only say that it is quite involved and it is my opinion that embryology when first realised, gave the chance for many an idle scientist to create words with no derivation but that stemming from their ability to sound impressive and infinitely condescending. I am quite aware that there is more to each word than their ability to sound extraordinary. Many words in fact share their roots in Latin, which for those of you familiar with medical terminology (and perhaps a little Latin) will find to be no revelation. However, I myself suffer from the congenital defect of a sense of humour and cannot help but exhibit symptoms of it by ridiculing the profound ability of Biology to confuse matters by not only using unnecessary polysyllabic words, but a whole anthology of them dedicated to a single subject.
Please enjoy the amusing nature of the last sentence :)
Alright, so it is hypocrisy to mock something in a manner comparable to the subject being mocked, but I find that amusing. One could suggest from that that I find hypocrisy amusing and I suppose one would be correct in that assumption. However, it must be made clear that I do not find the act of hypocrisy itself amusing, but rather its ability to be used as a method of revealing the true absurdity of that which the hypocrite chooses to emulate, be that to the benefit of the hypocrite in asserting a point, or the detriment of his/her integrity (yes I do have room for equality of the genders).
I must say, I'm being quite defensive of my stance on such matters. I'd apologise for that, but I cannot falter a little caution and foresight into the disagreements of others that might arise should I not cover my arse. Feel free to disagree with that.
Monday, 5 February 2007
A social observation (1)
I have already attempted to make a blog, but it would seem that that blog is now lost to me.
I begin this blog in a different fashion to that of the other, as the content of a post is a reflection of the events that have passed before it, and the events that have not yet had chance to affect it. Simply put, a post is unique to its time of posting.
I have titled this first entry "A social observation (1)" and shall justify this title henceforth.
Rather than offend anyone, which given the sensitive nature of some is inevitable, I shall instead use letters to represent persons present in the social encounters I am to describe.
Person A brings up a topic indicative of causing disagreement between people of different dispositions. At this point you might say that any topic is graced by the ability to encite disagreement between two individuals, but to clarify, this topic is capable of producing strongly opinionated arguments, based on both moral and rational thinking (I apologise for giving the impression of moral and rational thinking being two separate schools of thought). The topic of attention is that of "Should Gay Couples adopt?"
Person B is a religious character, a Christian for the purposes of this argument. According to the religion of Person B, homosexuality is wrong and unholy. Person B's immediate knee-jerk reaction, and I apologise if in this situation the person had actually given the topic more than a moments thought, is to view adoption by Gay couples as wrong.
Person A asks of Person B to provide him with a coherent argument that would justify Person B's opinion. Once more, Person B is guilty of a knee jerk reaction, refusing instantaneously to provide Person A with an explanation, claiming to have the right to an opinion.
Person A at this point feels that Person B is viewing Person A as an idiot, incapable of simple acknowledgements, such as that of people's rights. Person A, however, persists with maintaining an air of serenity and continues by adding that he understands Person B's entitlement to an opinion, but cannot, with veracity, give Person B the pleasure of agreeing with their opinion.
Upon reflection Person A decides to pursue the subject no further, having concluded that Person B, though perhaps capable of rational thought, refuses in this situation to entertain its use. Person B is strongly opinionated, perhaps due to his overawareness of his "right" to possess one as such. Person A has no problem with this. As it is one's right to have an opinion, it is also one's right to refrain from justifying that opinion.
However, Person A is not happy with the aggressive nature of Person B's argument, should one choose to call it that. I can only assume the dissappointment felt by Person A is attributed to Person B's acting in a manner that Person A can only observe as being unjust. This feeling of injustice is then multiplied yet further still by the claim of Person B to be of a faith, the ideal of which is one of good triumphing over bad.
It is perhaps wrong for Person A to tie so closely the act of good and bad with justice and injustice (there in itself is a topic of interest). However, Person A would appreciate speaking to a person with a pair of unobstructed ears, rather than one whose secondary phalanges are shoved firmly into their ear canals, it is, after all, Person A's right to speak, is it not?
Perhaps I shall enjoy retorts discussing the fact that although it is one's right to speak, it is not one's obligation to listen. Perhaps then we can discuss whether it is instead one's duty? It shall also be interesting to hear anyone's opinions and, more pleasingly, their justifications for holding such opinions on the matter of gay couples adopting.
I begin this blog in a different fashion to that of the other, as the content of a post is a reflection of the events that have passed before it, and the events that have not yet had chance to affect it. Simply put, a post is unique to its time of posting.
I have titled this first entry "A social observation (1)" and shall justify this title henceforth.
Rather than offend anyone, which given the sensitive nature of some is inevitable, I shall instead use letters to represent persons present in the social encounters I am to describe.
Person A brings up a topic indicative of causing disagreement between people of different dispositions. At this point you might say that any topic is graced by the ability to encite disagreement between two individuals, but to clarify, this topic is capable of producing strongly opinionated arguments, based on both moral and rational thinking (I apologise for giving the impression of moral and rational thinking being two separate schools of thought). The topic of attention is that of "Should Gay Couples adopt?"
Person B is a religious character, a Christian for the purposes of this argument. According to the religion of Person B, homosexuality is wrong and unholy. Person B's immediate knee-jerk reaction, and I apologise if in this situation the person had actually given the topic more than a moments thought, is to view adoption by Gay couples as wrong.
Person A asks of Person B to provide him with a coherent argument that would justify Person B's opinion. Once more, Person B is guilty of a knee jerk reaction, refusing instantaneously to provide Person A with an explanation, claiming to have the right to an opinion.
Person A at this point feels that Person B is viewing Person A as an idiot, incapable of simple acknowledgements, such as that of people's rights. Person A, however, persists with maintaining an air of serenity and continues by adding that he understands Person B's entitlement to an opinion, but cannot, with veracity, give Person B the pleasure of agreeing with their opinion.
Upon reflection Person A decides to pursue the subject no further, having concluded that Person B, though perhaps capable of rational thought, refuses in this situation to entertain its use. Person B is strongly opinionated, perhaps due to his overawareness of his "right" to possess one as such. Person A has no problem with this. As it is one's right to have an opinion, it is also one's right to refrain from justifying that opinion.
However, Person A is not happy with the aggressive nature of Person B's argument, should one choose to call it that. I can only assume the dissappointment felt by Person A is attributed to Person B's acting in a manner that Person A can only observe as being unjust. This feeling of injustice is then multiplied yet further still by the claim of Person B to be of a faith, the ideal of which is one of good triumphing over bad.
It is perhaps wrong for Person A to tie so closely the act of good and bad with justice and injustice (there in itself is a topic of interest). However, Person A would appreciate speaking to a person with a pair of unobstructed ears, rather than one whose secondary phalanges are shoved firmly into their ear canals, it is, after all, Person A's right to speak, is it not?
Perhaps I shall enjoy retorts discussing the fact that although it is one's right to speak, it is not one's obligation to listen. Perhaps then we can discuss whether it is instead one's duty? It shall also be interesting to hear anyone's opinions and, more pleasingly, their justifications for holding such opinions on the matter of gay couples adopting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)