I've moved this blog to a new location, as Word Press has more features and control options than blogger does. You can find a blog about common things at http://blogaboutcommonthings.wordpress.com/. My schedule is still Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday, with today's blog in the works. I hope you enjoy the new location and layout, bigger and better things are in store.
Thanks for your continued readership and/or bookmarking, it means quite a bit to know that others enjoy my hobby as much as I do.
Showing posts with label On:. Show all posts
Showing posts with label On:. Show all posts
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
On Demagogy.
"Demagogue" has a bitter taste to it by definition, but it doesn't have to be this way. Wikipedia lists four in their article about the word, and none are positive examples. Merriam-Webster has two definitions. The first echoes the Wikipedia page, but the second seems more fitting. "A leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times," seems closer to my belief. The roots roughly translate to "lead people."
A demagogue is someone with the ability to empathize with people and convince them that something needs to be done. Demagogy is what public speakers mostly wish they could accomplish, and what the successful ones do achieve. It's a skill that's half learned, half inherent. It's a tool for leadership, like philosophy and psychology. In many cases, it's incorporated into this ability when cemented with diction and passion. Maybe that's why all the people listed on the page are such terrible human beings.
I learned the word from a game a few years back (your vocabulary increases exponentially when you play text-heavy games, it's amazing), it was a character class for some terrible table top platform. Upon hearing the ability, I jumped on it. The ability to sway minds and hearts with words is not only powerful, but I'd been learning it since early on in scouting. It was something I'd used in the past to save lives, organize people, and spare people from bodily harm. It's something wonderful that should be more common amongst people in leadership positions.
Demagogy isn't a key to limitless power, nor is it a promise of being able to change the world in a huge way. In some famous cases - Barack Obama most recently - it does. In most cases it's an underdeveloped ability that doesn't catch on most that can make use of it.
It isn't always used to positive effect. The most famous demagogue in history is Adolf Hitler, a violent madman responsible for unfathomable death. He never used force to get to power, he only used words. He believed what he was saying, and he knew how to and which strings to tug to convince his audience that he was telling the truth. When you tell a lie often enough, you start to forget the truth. After a long enough time, there is no more truth for you. People do this all the time, but most people don't have the ability to change minds. This is why it is so potentially dangerous. A demagogue could be anyone.
To the previous example, Barack Obama has a similar ability that gets used to a more positive effect so far. His skill is more learned than genuine, but the skill is still there. The speeches aren't particularly powerful, but the choice of diction is clear and concise. He chooses concepts that are important enough for his audience to hold on to, and tells them the things that he wants them to hear and know. While there are other clauses to most of what he says, he doesn't present them in the same way. No demagogue ever does. They must gather the consent to do what they plan to do, then execute it after. All politicians do this, but most aren't honest or genuine. These are two very important traits in any leader, and for an effective positive demagogue they are the most important traits one can have. There are other outside factors that relate to his presidency, but most have nothing to do with the ability to lead.
This can only exist if there is honesty in the world, because honesty is key. You must be trusted, and be able to trust yourself. You must not lie. You must be able to tell what you believe without fear of judgment for it, because you will be judged. You will be torn apart and criticized. You will not be well received by everyone, but the people that do will welcome you warmly. If you lie, people will know.
This can only exist if there is genuine care for the well being of the people you care about. You will not get anywhere if you're lying and working solely towards personal gain. You don't do it for money or fame, you do it to ensure that the lives of others will be enriched.
In my relatively short life so far, I've been in leadership roles many times. I've worked to help students, scouts, and a number of other young organizations that need voices. I care enough about my peers - even the ones I don't like - to fight for them. That's what a demagogue does, they do what they believe is right. The only thing more important than doing what is right is making sure that what you believe actually is.
A demagogue is someone with the ability to empathize with people and convince them that something needs to be done. Demagogy is what public speakers mostly wish they could accomplish, and what the successful ones do achieve. It's a skill that's half learned, half inherent. It's a tool for leadership, like philosophy and psychology. In many cases, it's incorporated into this ability when cemented with diction and passion. Maybe that's why all the people listed on the page are such terrible human beings.
I learned the word from a game a few years back (your vocabulary increases exponentially when you play text-heavy games, it's amazing), it was a character class for some terrible table top platform. Upon hearing the ability, I jumped on it. The ability to sway minds and hearts with words is not only powerful, but I'd been learning it since early on in scouting. It was something I'd used in the past to save lives, organize people, and spare people from bodily harm. It's something wonderful that should be more common amongst people in leadership positions.
Demagogy isn't a key to limitless power, nor is it a promise of being able to change the world in a huge way. In some famous cases - Barack Obama most recently - it does. In most cases it's an underdeveloped ability that doesn't catch on most that can make use of it.
It isn't always used to positive effect. The most famous demagogue in history is Adolf Hitler, a violent madman responsible for unfathomable death. He never used force to get to power, he only used words. He believed what he was saying, and he knew how to and which strings to tug to convince his audience that he was telling the truth. When you tell a lie often enough, you start to forget the truth. After a long enough time, there is no more truth for you. People do this all the time, but most people don't have the ability to change minds. This is why it is so potentially dangerous. A demagogue could be anyone.
To the previous example, Barack Obama has a similar ability that gets used to a more positive effect so far. His skill is more learned than genuine, but the skill is still there. The speeches aren't particularly powerful, but the choice of diction is clear and concise. He chooses concepts that are important enough for his audience to hold on to, and tells them the things that he wants them to hear and know. While there are other clauses to most of what he says, he doesn't present them in the same way. No demagogue ever does. They must gather the consent to do what they plan to do, then execute it after. All politicians do this, but most aren't honest or genuine. These are two very important traits in any leader, and for an effective positive demagogue they are the most important traits one can have. There are other outside factors that relate to his presidency, but most have nothing to do with the ability to lead.
This can only exist if there is honesty in the world, because honesty is key. You must be trusted, and be able to trust yourself. You must not lie. You must be able to tell what you believe without fear of judgment for it, because you will be judged. You will be torn apart and criticized. You will not be well received by everyone, but the people that do will welcome you warmly. If you lie, people will know.
This can only exist if there is genuine care for the well being of the people you care about. You will not get anywhere if you're lying and working solely towards personal gain. You don't do it for money or fame, you do it to ensure that the lives of others will be enriched.
In my relatively short life so far, I've been in leadership roles many times. I've worked to help students, scouts, and a number of other young organizations that need voices. I care enough about my peers - even the ones I don't like - to fight for them. That's what a demagogue does, they do what they believe is right. The only thing more important than doing what is right is making sure that what you believe actually is.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
On Maturity.
It's funny how such a simple concept is so easily twisted and bastardized. Maturity shouldn't be difficult to grasp, but for whatever reason it slips away from many "mature" adults.
Maturity can be applied to many things. A boy is considered physically mature by the end of his teens. He will have grown in spurts, developed facial hair, and other things kick in. This doesn't mean that his mind matures at the same rate, or that he will emotionally ever mature.
The biggest misconception is that adults are mature. Maturity has nothing to do with age. It is not a miraculous sticker that gets put on your forehead that says you'll comprehend everything and be able to handle life. Legally, I've been an adult for six years. Most of my friends are considered adults at this point as well. Some recent things they've done include fighting over girls, holding grudges over (literally) nothing, playing with plastic knives, lighting themselves on fire, and the complete inability to cope with death. These are all different people - and with my social circle, a tiny percentage of the people I associate with - and each of them has space to grow in various ways. These people are also amazing musicians, intellectuals, humorists, and aspiring politicians. They're all adults, and all reasonably stable. Just immature.
Emotional maturity comes from understanding that there are things that are beyond your control that will sometimes hurt your feelings. The mature response is to deal with it, find something that helps sooth it, and get on with life. The juvenile response is to rage at the world and make hollow threats. No one can overcome all circumstances in life. It is not mature to be the "man's man," and punch things while ejaculating into their coffee. It doesn't matter if that's what you suspect Chuck Norris would do, it matters that you look like a 13 year old that just realized the girl you were crushing on doesn't like boys. Tough fucking shit.
A maturing mind is something vastly different from the other two common sorts, but it is linked to both. When I say that someone is mentally immature, I'm not saying they're handicapped/disabled/whatever other PC terms exist for "retarded" these days. Mental maturity comes from the practiced ability to handle situations that are much larger than human comprehension. Among these are astronomical numbers, death, birth, the question of God, and the realization that all that one does effects hundreds of thousands of people around them. It isn't something that happens suddenly, despite the concept of an epiphany. You will realize that everything dies - including you - at some point, but you will spend years trying to understand it. You will realize that God might not exist, but you won't comprehend the implications for the majority of your life. You will realize at some point that the creation of new life is something inherently god-like, but you won't ever fully understand the intricacies of it. Anyone that claims to is lying. Even doctors - who know the process inside and out (all that sex from med school) - will never fully understand the concept of when/if/how a soul is injected into a new being.
Maturity comes in many forms, but the form it should come in is exercised control and the knowledge of when self restraint is an option and when it should be thrown to the wind. Most of the time the wind gets too much. Hold on to some for yourself.
Errata: "Mature" should never be applied to television and music. "Mature" audiences just existed long enough to have been exposed to it previously. Same way that a kid shouldn't play most Mature games. They can't fucking comprehend what the implication of killing someone is, why desensitize them to it before they know what it is?
Maturity can be applied to many things. A boy is considered physically mature by the end of his teens. He will have grown in spurts, developed facial hair, and other things kick in. This doesn't mean that his mind matures at the same rate, or that he will emotionally ever mature.
The biggest misconception is that adults are mature. Maturity has nothing to do with age. It is not a miraculous sticker that gets put on your forehead that says you'll comprehend everything and be able to handle life. Legally, I've been an adult for six years. Most of my friends are considered adults at this point as well. Some recent things they've done include fighting over girls, holding grudges over (literally) nothing, playing with plastic knives, lighting themselves on fire, and the complete inability to cope with death. These are all different people - and with my social circle, a tiny percentage of the people I associate with - and each of them has space to grow in various ways. These people are also amazing musicians, intellectuals, humorists, and aspiring politicians. They're all adults, and all reasonably stable. Just immature.
Emotional maturity comes from understanding that there are things that are beyond your control that will sometimes hurt your feelings. The mature response is to deal with it, find something that helps sooth it, and get on with life. The juvenile response is to rage at the world and make hollow threats. No one can overcome all circumstances in life. It is not mature to be the "man's man," and punch things while ejaculating into their coffee. It doesn't matter if that's what you suspect Chuck Norris would do, it matters that you look like a 13 year old that just realized the girl you were crushing on doesn't like boys. Tough fucking shit.
A maturing mind is something vastly different from the other two common sorts, but it is linked to both. When I say that someone is mentally immature, I'm not saying they're handicapped/disabled/whatever other PC terms exist for "retarded" these days. Mental maturity comes from the practiced ability to handle situations that are much larger than human comprehension. Among these are astronomical numbers, death, birth, the question of God, and the realization that all that one does effects hundreds of thousands of people around them. It isn't something that happens suddenly, despite the concept of an epiphany. You will realize that everything dies - including you - at some point, but you will spend years trying to understand it. You will realize that God might not exist, but you won't comprehend the implications for the majority of your life. You will realize at some point that the creation of new life is something inherently god-like, but you won't ever fully understand the intricacies of it. Anyone that claims to is lying. Even doctors - who know the process inside and out (all that sex from med school) - will never fully understand the concept of when/if/how a soul is injected into a new being.
Maturity comes in many forms, but the form it should come in is exercised control and the knowledge of when self restraint is an option and when it should be thrown to the wind. Most of the time the wind gets too much. Hold on to some for yourself.
Errata: "Mature" should never be applied to television and music. "Mature" audiences just existed long enough to have been exposed to it previously. Same way that a kid shouldn't play most Mature games. They can't fucking comprehend what the implication of killing someone is, why desensitize them to it before they know what it is?
Monday, March 22, 2010
On Religion.
I know it's a half hour late. Sorry.
I'm a deist by choice, but its' a choice I came to through logic. I was originally born and baptized Lutheran, but my mother and her husband decided it was much more fashionable to convert me to Catholicism when I was in second grade. They didn't think it was fair that I should feel left out while all the other kids made their first communion. Time went on, I was confirmed in seventh grade. This is about the time I stopped believing.
There were a lot of things that drove me away from Catholicism (and really all Christianity), but the biggest was the realization that a priest has amnesty from the law in the name of God, with the backing of The Church. The Capital-C has the power to keep their folks out of jail, regardless of what laws they break and which sins they confess to one another. Not all clergy are guilty of the grandiose atrocities that Capital-C is getting well known for, but the ones that are there aren't being punished for what they've done. Just like when a cop goes corrupt, they don't usually get reprimanded for it unless it's against another cop. If a priest sodomizes another priest, I'd imagine they'd get punished. Altar boys though? Who gives a shit? For the record, I was never an altar boy, nor was I ever raped. It's not that personal. I just hate rapists of any/all sort.
Further issues with Capital-C arose when I noticed that it was essentially doing the same thing that many government officials attempt, in collecting money from the folks that don't have any to subsist. I probably wouldn't mind so much if the community was funded entirely from the well to do, but we're not all rich. My family isn't, I sure as hell am not. If a buck is all I could afford to toss into the green bucket, that's about all that I could afford. I shouldn't get dirty looks for the absence of it.
Capital-C really pushed me off edge when we were being taught sex-ed in my grade school. The private school didn't really say very much about sex except that you shouldn't do it until you're married. Then they showed us a head-on video of a woman giving birth, to ensure all boners were killed. They didn't talk about condoms, or STDs, or much of anything else. The teachers didn't know that a decent chunk of their class was already playing with the beginnings of it, even if no one'd bumped uglies yet. I was too much of a wholesome nerd to do any of it yet, but I knew so many that were. Funny how the double standards bite you in the balls.
In high school I decided to be an atheist, but only because I didn't know what other options there were. I studied as many others as I could - looked into Buddhism, Judaism, various nature faiths - but nothing really made sense to me. All the doctrine was essentially the same, even if the zeal fluctuated between them. I pulled the word "agnostic" out of Donnie Darko, really liking the gray area between blind faith and cognitive thought. I kept this claim well into the start of college.
After two years of college, I decided that some sort of cosmic power had to exist. I didn't decide because of some stellar event, or because I watched a baby get born (a second time), or because I prayed at random and it came true. Prayers only come true if you fight for them, just like wishes.
I knew people who were overseas fighting for our right to oil, and some had actually died. I knew people who were raped, and couldn't get vengeance for them. I knew people who were psychologically abused to the point where they'd do anything on behalf of their mental captors, Stockholm syndrome taking root. My brother was born with a rare heart defect, the same one that killed my uncle as an infant. Family members have floated in and out of rehab and alcoholics anonymous, and I've heard stories so unflattering about my fore bearers that I was nearly ashamed to claim membership in my family house. Yet despite all of these things, flowers still grow. Babies are still born, children are still innocent and beautiful in their natural curiosity. People still find love, and grow old together. Music capable of pulling people back from suicide is written, and people still take solace in knowing that they are never alone.
While the world is bleak, there is still beauty in it. While we all suffer, there is still something to redeem us and bring reason to life.
I can't believe it's a coincidence, regardless of whatever else I'm capable of believing. I don't feel that any human should have the right to control others with brainwashing in the name of faith. I'm not going to hell because I had a bacon-cheeseburger on Friday in lent with some shellfish on the side. I'm not going to burn for eternity because I support same sex marriage, or because I believe that all people should have the ability to have an abortion, whether they exercise it or not.
I'm a deist because of you.
I'm a deist by choice, but its' a choice I came to through logic. I was originally born and baptized Lutheran, but my mother and her husband decided it was much more fashionable to convert me to Catholicism when I was in second grade. They didn't think it was fair that I should feel left out while all the other kids made their first communion. Time went on, I was confirmed in seventh grade. This is about the time I stopped believing.
There were a lot of things that drove me away from Catholicism (and really all Christianity), but the biggest was the realization that a priest has amnesty from the law in the name of God, with the backing of The Church. The Capital-C has the power to keep their folks out of jail, regardless of what laws they break and which sins they confess to one another. Not all clergy are guilty of the grandiose atrocities that Capital-C is getting well known for, but the ones that are there aren't being punished for what they've done. Just like when a cop goes corrupt, they don't usually get reprimanded for it unless it's against another cop. If a priest sodomizes another priest, I'd imagine they'd get punished. Altar boys though? Who gives a shit? For the record, I was never an altar boy, nor was I ever raped. It's not that personal. I just hate rapists of any/all sort.
Further issues with Capital-C arose when I noticed that it was essentially doing the same thing that many government officials attempt, in collecting money from the folks that don't have any to subsist. I probably wouldn't mind so much if the community was funded entirely from the well to do, but we're not all rich. My family isn't, I sure as hell am not. If a buck is all I could afford to toss into the green bucket, that's about all that I could afford. I shouldn't get dirty looks for the absence of it.
Capital-C really pushed me off edge when we were being taught sex-ed in my grade school. The private school didn't really say very much about sex except that you shouldn't do it until you're married. Then they showed us a head-on video of a woman giving birth, to ensure all boners were killed. They didn't talk about condoms, or STDs, or much of anything else. The teachers didn't know that a decent chunk of their class was already playing with the beginnings of it, even if no one'd bumped uglies yet. I was too much of a wholesome nerd to do any of it yet, but I knew so many that were. Funny how the double standards bite you in the balls.
In high school I decided to be an atheist, but only because I didn't know what other options there were. I studied as many others as I could - looked into Buddhism, Judaism, various nature faiths - but nothing really made sense to me. All the doctrine was essentially the same, even if the zeal fluctuated between them. I pulled the word "agnostic" out of Donnie Darko, really liking the gray area between blind faith and cognitive thought. I kept this claim well into the start of college.
After two years of college, I decided that some sort of cosmic power had to exist. I didn't decide because of some stellar event, or because I watched a baby get born (a second time), or because I prayed at random and it came true. Prayers only come true if you fight for them, just like wishes.
I knew people who were overseas fighting for our right to oil, and some had actually died. I knew people who were raped, and couldn't get vengeance for them. I knew people who were psychologically abused to the point where they'd do anything on behalf of their mental captors, Stockholm syndrome taking root. My brother was born with a rare heart defect, the same one that killed my uncle as an infant. Family members have floated in and out of rehab and alcoholics anonymous, and I've heard stories so unflattering about my fore bearers that I was nearly ashamed to claim membership in my family house. Yet despite all of these things, flowers still grow. Babies are still born, children are still innocent and beautiful in their natural curiosity. People still find love, and grow old together. Music capable of pulling people back from suicide is written, and people still take solace in knowing that they are never alone.
While the world is bleak, there is still beauty in it. While we all suffer, there is still something to redeem us and bring reason to life.
I can't believe it's a coincidence, regardless of whatever else I'm capable of believing. I don't feel that any human should have the right to control others with brainwashing in the name of faith. I'm not going to hell because I had a bacon-cheeseburger on Friday in lent with some shellfish on the side. I'm not going to burn for eternity because I support same sex marriage, or because I believe that all people should have the ability to have an abortion, whether they exercise it or not.
I'm a deist because of you.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
On Motivation.
There are a number of things that can motivate someone into any action. Most folks would like to think they’re being selfless, and especially to be praised as such. Most of the time the motives are much less charitable.
Some people have it engraved into their minds from a young age that in helping others, you are a good person. This is very, very common. The reason seems harmless enough, and the result is usually positive for all parties. This is not selfless, the individual is still acting to be perceived as a good person. They want to come out on top without an issue. I don’t really mind these people much, they’ve really done nothing wrong.
Some people have more blatantly self-centered drives, and act only for themselves. This is also exceptionally common, though more often overlooked in the United States. If someone would help another person, it is only so that the helped may return the favor when the helper needs it. This is the backbone of many relationships, families, and even most organized religion. In some cases, these are still good people, only preservationists.
Some people are kind to others because they don’t want others to suffer. This is much less common, but perhaps the most questionable rationale. It could be perceived as selfless for the sake of ending suffering without an immediate reaction, but some would say the desire not to be surrounded by suffering is still ultimately self-serving when it’s boiled down. Obviously I dig these reasons, even if it sometimes conflicts with others.
Another group believes strictly in the relative abstracts of justice and law. These people aren’t really wrong in their thinking and actions, they’re just blinded in their anal retentive adhesion to something that might not always apply. I’m not saying to embrace beldam, but in various situations it can be in poor taste. An old man jaywalks to get to his bus on time, and a cop disciplines him for it the same as he would a young person playing chicken with an SUV. Besides the cop being an asshole, he’s enforcing the law to an absolute without any gray areas. This doesn’t make him wrong, but it does show that his convictions are stronger towards the system of organization than they are to human decency.
There is another category of people too, I call them “Confused Blenders.” They’re the most common sort of people, motivation-wise. Usually they have mixed motives, and lie about which is more dominant. If an action would help one individual, but hurt others that you don’t like, it is doubly serving. That individual can receive both praise for helping someone, and take sick satisfaction in knowing they’ve harmed others and come out the victor. This example is not for all, it can be a blend of any of the other types. Someone who believes in the law for the sake of removing suffering is just as conflicting as someone who believes in the law and acts out of selfish motives, as also to someone that wants praise while remaining empathetic. They all conflict.
Also, just because someone has a general type they will adhere to, it does not mean that they will not have actions that break these barriers and fall into others as well. A cop that would let off a shoplifter that’s stealing food to feed his children is breaking their own conviction to reduce human suffering. It’s entirely relative, and situational.
I’m sure there are others that I’ve overlooked as well. Remind me if I have. And try not to be selfish (unrelated thoughts, just in case you were confused).
Some people have it engraved into their minds from a young age that in helping others, you are a good person. This is very, very common. The reason seems harmless enough, and the result is usually positive for all parties. This is not selfless, the individual is still acting to be perceived as a good person. They want to come out on top without an issue. I don’t really mind these people much, they’ve really done nothing wrong.
Some people have more blatantly self-centered drives, and act only for themselves. This is also exceptionally common, though more often overlooked in the United States. If someone would help another person, it is only so that the helped may return the favor when the helper needs it. This is the backbone of many relationships, families, and even most organized religion. In some cases, these are still good people, only preservationists.
Some people are kind to others because they don’t want others to suffer. This is much less common, but perhaps the most questionable rationale. It could be perceived as selfless for the sake of ending suffering without an immediate reaction, but some would say the desire not to be surrounded by suffering is still ultimately self-serving when it’s boiled down. Obviously I dig these reasons, even if it sometimes conflicts with others.
Another group believes strictly in the relative abstracts of justice and law. These people aren’t really wrong in their thinking and actions, they’re just blinded in their anal retentive adhesion to something that might not always apply. I’m not saying to embrace beldam, but in various situations it can be in poor taste. An old man jaywalks to get to his bus on time, and a cop disciplines him for it the same as he would a young person playing chicken with an SUV. Besides the cop being an asshole, he’s enforcing the law to an absolute without any gray areas. This doesn’t make him wrong, but it does show that his convictions are stronger towards the system of organization than they are to human decency.
There is another category of people too, I call them “Confused Blenders.” They’re the most common sort of people, motivation-wise. Usually they have mixed motives, and lie about which is more dominant. If an action would help one individual, but hurt others that you don’t like, it is doubly serving. That individual can receive both praise for helping someone, and take sick satisfaction in knowing they’ve harmed others and come out the victor. This example is not for all, it can be a blend of any of the other types. Someone who believes in the law for the sake of removing suffering is just as conflicting as someone who believes in the law and acts out of selfish motives, as also to someone that wants praise while remaining empathetic. They all conflict.
Also, just because someone has a general type they will adhere to, it does not mean that they will not have actions that break these barriers and fall into others as well. A cop that would let off a shoplifter that’s stealing food to feed his children is breaking their own conviction to reduce human suffering. It’s entirely relative, and situational.
I’m sure there are others that I’ve overlooked as well. Remind me if I have. And try not to be selfish (unrelated thoughts, just in case you were confused).
Sunday, February 14, 2010
On Love.
DICTIONARY DEFINITION.
love
/lʌv/ [luhv] noun, verb, loved, lov⋅ing.
–noun
1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3. sexual passion or desire.
4. a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.
5. (used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like): Would you like to see a movie, love?
6. a love affair; an intensely amorous incident; amour.
7. sexual intercourse; copulation.
8. (initial capital letter) a personification of sexual affection, as Eros or Cupid.
9. affectionate concern for the well-being of others: the love of one's neighbor.
10. strong predilection, enthusiasm, or liking for anything: her love of books.
11. the object or thing so liked: The theater was her great love.
12. the benevolent affection of God for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to God.
13. Chiefly Tennis. a score of zero; nothing.
14. a word formerly used in communications to represent the letter L.
The dictionary's partially correct, but sadly misses almost everything that matters about love.
ATTEMPT IN BRIEF.
A friend of mine asked me how she'd know when she was in love, and I told her she'd know. I foolishly tried to explain love, and fell flat on my face. How can I possibly expect to explain love when no one in the world can properly? There are literally millions of poems, movies, stories, and songs about it. Fuck, The Beatles built an entire career on it. All they needed was love.
Love isn't really an emotion, not a singular one anyway. Someone said that love was essentially controlled madness. Can't remember who (maybe I'm making them up and it's something of mine. Who knows.) This is partially true. When in love one will find themselves willing to do a number of things they never would when in sound mind. When in love, people are more willing to do things both astounding and frightening.
Love is a hybrid of every emotion humans can feel, I believe. Everyone sings and writes about the happiness, contentment, and trust associated with love. That's dandy. Some write about the pain and humiliation associated with it. Swell. Few ever remember that with love comes a degree of concession. One will find themselves willing to give up things they adore in daily life to make the prospect of love work. Maybe that's why it works so well with relationships.
Love comes with a degree of lust usually, though it is not required. It serves mostly as garnish for a main course with significantly less tangible substance. It's common to say that you want to "make love to" someone, but really you're probably just having sex with them. Making love is something very different, even though the mechanics of it are essentially the same. The difference is on a psychological level (and obviously emotional), in the fact that you feel a connection with someone beyond what you could just feel bumping uglies.
Love is anger and pain, love is happiness and contentment. Love is unconditional trust and conditional (but voluntary) freedom.
POLYAMOROSITY.
All that said, I feel that all people are capable of loving one another on a genuine level, especially people we don't normally even like on a day to day basis. Love is a little like scent in this way, it is unique to all people. This means that all people are not only capable but actually expected to love more than one person at any given time. Not all are romantic loves (I love my best friends as much as my girlfriend, but I'm not looking to move in and sleep next to most of them for the rest of my life), but at any time we all love many people.
In this way, we are all polyamorous, even if we are monogamous. I have a small theory that monoamorous people are actually usually insane and become either stalkers or shut-ins.
LOVE IS NOT OBSESSION.
This header is half a lie. Obsession is sometimes tied to love, but obsession alone is not love. Many people get caught up with the concept of one person as everything they love (possibly something about the way attraction works), even though this is not love either. Having the compulsion to follow people online, in person, or anywhere else without them wanting you to/knowing you do is not healthy, nor is it love, nor is it legal. If you have trouble with this, please get professional help.
On the same note, one can feel a "deeper connection" physically without being in love or making love. All they need is to have an obsession with the other person to the point where they develop dependency. Dependency (or codependency, more importantly) is not love. It is a personal issue.
CONCLUSIONS.
I'm failing at describing love. Shit.
Love is something beyond words, even though I just wasted a few hundred trying to do so. It just is.
love
/lʌv/ [luhv] noun, verb, loved, lov⋅ing.
–noun
1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3. sexual passion or desire.
4. a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.
5. (used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like): Would you like to see a movie, love?
6. a love affair; an intensely amorous incident; amour.
7. sexual intercourse; copulation.
8. (initial capital letter) a personification of sexual affection, as Eros or Cupid.
9. affectionate concern for the well-being of others: the love of one's neighbor.
10. strong predilection, enthusiasm, or liking for anything: her love of books.
11. the object or thing so liked: The theater was her great love.
12. the benevolent affection of God for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to God.
13. Chiefly Tennis. a score of zero; nothing.
14. a word formerly used in communications to represent the letter L.
The dictionary's partially correct, but sadly misses almost everything that matters about love.
ATTEMPT IN BRIEF.
A friend of mine asked me how she'd know when she was in love, and I told her she'd know. I foolishly tried to explain love, and fell flat on my face. How can I possibly expect to explain love when no one in the world can properly? There are literally millions of poems, movies, stories, and songs about it. Fuck, The Beatles built an entire career on it. All they needed was love.
Love isn't really an emotion, not a singular one anyway. Someone said that love was essentially controlled madness. Can't remember who (maybe I'm making them up and it's something of mine. Who knows.) This is partially true. When in love one will find themselves willing to do a number of things they never would when in sound mind. When in love, people are more willing to do things both astounding and frightening.
Love is a hybrid of every emotion humans can feel, I believe. Everyone sings and writes about the happiness, contentment, and trust associated with love. That's dandy. Some write about the pain and humiliation associated with it. Swell. Few ever remember that with love comes a degree of concession. One will find themselves willing to give up things they adore in daily life to make the prospect of love work. Maybe that's why it works so well with relationships.
Love comes with a degree of lust usually, though it is not required. It serves mostly as garnish for a main course with significantly less tangible substance. It's common to say that you want to "make love to" someone, but really you're probably just having sex with them. Making love is something very different, even though the mechanics of it are essentially the same. The difference is on a psychological level (and obviously emotional), in the fact that you feel a connection with someone beyond what you could just feel bumping uglies.
Love is anger and pain, love is happiness and contentment. Love is unconditional trust and conditional (but voluntary) freedom.
POLYAMOROSITY.
All that said, I feel that all people are capable of loving one another on a genuine level, especially people we don't normally even like on a day to day basis. Love is a little like scent in this way, it is unique to all people. This means that all people are not only capable but actually expected to love more than one person at any given time. Not all are romantic loves (I love my best friends as much as my girlfriend, but I'm not looking to move in and sleep next to most of them for the rest of my life), but at any time we all love many people.
In this way, we are all polyamorous, even if we are monogamous. I have a small theory that monoamorous people are actually usually insane and become either stalkers or shut-ins.
LOVE IS NOT OBSESSION.
This header is half a lie. Obsession is sometimes tied to love, but obsession alone is not love. Many people get caught up with the concept of one person as everything they love (possibly something about the way attraction works), even though this is not love either. Having the compulsion to follow people online, in person, or anywhere else without them wanting you to/knowing you do is not healthy, nor is it love, nor is it legal. If you have trouble with this, please get professional help.
On the same note, one can feel a "deeper connection" physically without being in love or making love. All they need is to have an obsession with the other person to the point where they develop dependency. Dependency (or codependency, more importantly) is not love. It is a personal issue.
CONCLUSIONS.
I'm failing at describing love. Shit.
Love is something beyond words, even though I just wasted a few hundred trying to do so. It just is.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
On Relationships.
I've received some feedback recently about my Nature of Attraction post, and was asked about the nature of love and relationships. I will not talk about the nature of love, outside of it as a necessity in a healthy relationship. Love is too fucking complicated to really describe in my own verbal capacity as of yet. Maybe after this weekend.
Relationships, however, are well within my ability.
A healthy relationship is more than just liking someone enough to bring them around in public and have sex with them. It's more than having someone to be comfortable around, or to write sappy songs about and regret two years later. A healthy relationship is built on trust, honesty, love, compromise, and commonality.
Trust and honesty are obviously linked, but not the same. Trust is something that must be earned in most situations in life. Without trust, a relationship can never actually happen. In this case, trust is conferred usually after a trigger event in the early stages of the "courtship phase," which is the time of exceptional stupidity between two people interested in one another.
Honesty is the way you keep trust. This doesn't always mean not lying when you go out drinking with your friends, or admitting when you forgot an important date (Note: admission does not earn forgiveness.) It also means showing genuine character without masking the things about yourself that you don't like. If you're hoping to share your life with this person, they're going to have to know how you are. Otherwise, you are not only doomed to fail in the relationship, but not even retain the (now) former lover as a friend. If you liked them enough to consider being with them in the first place, you probably still want to be friends. So don't be a dick.
Love's complicated. It alone is also not enough to save a relationship. Sometimes love alone can lead people to do many crazy and stupid things, but it should not be the only reason you're with someone. As love is also too big to put into words, it is also too big to always be there at the start of a relationship. It should grow into it. If anyone says straight away that they love you, they're probably lying to nail you or bat-shit crazy with abandonment issues. The most important thing to take away is that love is a definite must, but not too early on.
A lot of people say "love is give and take." Most of these people also live in Clicheville, and couldn't form an original thought if you threatened to torch their houses. Unfortunately, this one is situationally correct. There must be a degree of compromise between a couple, but not about the grand things that people imagine. Sometimes it's as limited as giving people time to themselves to gather their thoughts and de-stress. People that make jokes about developing a timeshare for who gets to drive the minivan are usually too pussy-whipped to really understand that they've lost all they really had for themselves. The same is said about people that refuse to leave the house whenever a show is on, even when their lover got tickets to a concert for that night. Neither example is really compromise or absence of it in a meaningful way, both are examples of a couple that will probably fight often.
Commonality is one of the most important, underrated traits a relationship must have. If you have nothing in common with your lover, then you probably saw a way to work your libido and love came by way of repetition. This can also change as a relationship goes on. When you started dating you both liked football, birdwatching, and painting. As time went on, your lover stopped liking painting, you stopped liking birdwatching, and neither of you liked football after watching your favorite team lose at the Superbowl... four years in a row. You both feel comfortable with the relationship, knowing that it is still better than you feel you could ever land otherwise. So you never split up, even though you fight all the time. This issue can be fixed relatively easily, even though it's one of the biggest reasons why couples fail. Find something you're both interested in again, and try to find out why you both grew away from the things you liked in the first place. Most couples can be saved in this way, even if they don't realize it. In essence it means relearning your lover's personality, but it's a small setback compared to ending the relationship and going on a drinking binge until you're broke and covered in your own vomit.
So the final recap:
DO Trust.
DO NOT Lie.
DO Love.
DO Compromise.
DO NOT Let comfort blind you.
If you do these things, your relationship should be much more healthy than others would be. It works best when applied to long term relationships, but it seems to be a good general set of rules on its own.
Relationships, however, are well within my ability.
A healthy relationship is more than just liking someone enough to bring them around in public and have sex with them. It's more than having someone to be comfortable around, or to write sappy songs about and regret two years later. A healthy relationship is built on trust, honesty, love, compromise, and commonality.
Trust and honesty are obviously linked, but not the same. Trust is something that must be earned in most situations in life. Without trust, a relationship can never actually happen. In this case, trust is conferred usually after a trigger event in the early stages of the "courtship phase," which is the time of exceptional stupidity between two people interested in one another.
Honesty is the way you keep trust. This doesn't always mean not lying when you go out drinking with your friends, or admitting when you forgot an important date (Note: admission does not earn forgiveness.) It also means showing genuine character without masking the things about yourself that you don't like. If you're hoping to share your life with this person, they're going to have to know how you are. Otherwise, you are not only doomed to fail in the relationship, but not even retain the (now) former lover as a friend. If you liked them enough to consider being with them in the first place, you probably still want to be friends. So don't be a dick.
Love's complicated. It alone is also not enough to save a relationship. Sometimes love alone can lead people to do many crazy and stupid things, but it should not be the only reason you're with someone. As love is also too big to put into words, it is also too big to always be there at the start of a relationship. It should grow into it. If anyone says straight away that they love you, they're probably lying to nail you or bat-shit crazy with abandonment issues. The most important thing to take away is that love is a definite must, but not too early on.
A lot of people say "love is give and take." Most of these people also live in Clicheville, and couldn't form an original thought if you threatened to torch their houses. Unfortunately, this one is situationally correct. There must be a degree of compromise between a couple, but not about the grand things that people imagine. Sometimes it's as limited as giving people time to themselves to gather their thoughts and de-stress. People that make jokes about developing a timeshare for who gets to drive the minivan are usually too pussy-whipped to really understand that they've lost all they really had for themselves. The same is said about people that refuse to leave the house whenever a show is on, even when their lover got tickets to a concert for that night. Neither example is really compromise or absence of it in a meaningful way, both are examples of a couple that will probably fight often.
Commonality is one of the most important, underrated traits a relationship must have. If you have nothing in common with your lover, then you probably saw a way to work your libido and love came by way of repetition. This can also change as a relationship goes on. When you started dating you both liked football, birdwatching, and painting. As time went on, your lover stopped liking painting, you stopped liking birdwatching, and neither of you liked football after watching your favorite team lose at the Superbowl... four years in a row. You both feel comfortable with the relationship, knowing that it is still better than you feel you could ever land otherwise. So you never split up, even though you fight all the time. This issue can be fixed relatively easily, even though it's one of the biggest reasons why couples fail. Find something you're both interested in again, and try to find out why you both grew away from the things you liked in the first place. Most couples can be saved in this way, even if they don't realize it. In essence it means relearning your lover's personality, but it's a small setback compared to ending the relationship and going on a drinking binge until you're broke and covered in your own vomit.
So the final recap:
DO Trust.
DO NOT Lie.
DO Love.
DO Compromise.
DO NOT Let comfort blind you.
If you do these things, your relationship should be much more healthy than others would be. It works best when applied to long term relationships, but it seems to be a good general set of rules on its own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
