Why do people get married? Why is there a requirement for commitment that really, at a basic level, just doesn't make sense? Marriage suddenly makes a relationship contractual - not only are you claiming to know that the feelings you currently feel will never change, you're saying that if they do you'll stick it out anyway.
Forget why you'd ever want to make a commitment like that - why would you ever want to do that to your partner? Why would anyone ever choose to force a person to stay in a relationship they did not want to be in? That's the basic issue with relationship commitments: it's like you want a promise from the other person that their feelings won't change, that they'll stay with you. Relationship commitments are grounded in insecurity and selfishness...because the simple truth is that there's no reason to ask a person to stay committed to you who doesn't feel committed to you.
What's the right way to do it? Recognize that relationships are a choice. Recognize that both partners should be free to live and do as they wish - remove obligational commitments and instead accept that a relationship should only last as long as both people involved want it to.
Am I living in some ideal world again? Yes, I'd say so. The marriage institution is helpful in forcing people to stay together which can be helpful for children. I can't say for sure whether it's more damaging for the children to not only live near these unusual forced relationships (first by making things uncomfortable for them, and second by planting the idea in them that this is how relationships should work), but it seems to me that it's generally a good thing if a child is raised with two parents.
My problem is not with lasting relationships or relationships at all, it is the attitude that a contractual agreement is necessary or beneficial. My choice is to recognize that if I'm in a relationship, it's because it's a relationship I want to be in (and I choose to be in). Idealist or not, I'm not interested in staying in a relationship I'm unhappy with, and I don't expect any partner of mine to do the same.
------------------
This is partially inspired by some recent reading in Conversations with God, Book 3. I've been citing Conversations with God often recently. I'm going to go ahead and officially recommend it to anyone with an interest in self-improvement. It will be a difficult read if you have a particular faith - for the most part, it's very anti-religion as most religions are currently constructed. It was also very difficult for me to begin due to the premise...but if you believe that most answers on how to live life can be found by looking internally for the answers - that is, if you use your own logic and intuition to make decisions - I highly recommend the trilogy.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Sunday, June 03, 2007
New layout
I think I'll try to use this picture to create my new blog layout (click for larger version)
Syriana
I watched Syriana. It was a good movie, but I feel it unfortunately failed in an important area:
It failed to make things clear to people who have a hard time understanding world politics or similar issues.
Syriana is a confusing movie. Ebert was one of the few critics who thought this trait was laudable - the confusion, he claimed, was representative of how the characters felt. The movie was arranged in such a way that it was almost intentionally difficult to follow. I made a distinct effort to pay close attention to the movie, and I turned on the subtitles so as not to miss subtleties in speech when I realized the movie would not be easy to follow, and I still rushed online after the movie was over to verify that the movie was about what I thought it was about.
Perhaps the difficult delivery makes the movie a better movie, a more entertaining movie out of a movie that's meant to entertain. It's just that...it doesn't seem the sole purpose of this movie is entertainment. Syriana isn't preachy and it doesn't try to force an agenda down your throats, rather it does a fairly good job of synthesizing the information about how things got the way they are now, and how people can become the way they are when it seems so inexplicable. I'm not going to jump to cliches and say that Syriana wants to explain the inexplicable: it's just that it's an informative and insightful and mostly unbiased depiction.
One theme in Syriana is that there are no evil people, just people who do what they believe is right. It's our moral systems that become deranged, the sense of right and wrong: not the desire to do right or wrong. On some level, I have to agree. I've been labeled naive for expressing this viewpoint before, but in my experience it seems that on some basic level we all do what we believe is right - there are just different levels of awareness and different perspectives that turn right and wrong into a relative (not absolute) issue. No one lives a life doing things they know are wrong. In Syriana, a very normal - perhaps the most likable character in the movie - young Arab ends up joining a right-wing fundamentalist Islamic group. Why? He thinks it's the right thing to do. He wants to help his mother, his father, and he recognizes the unfairness of the life situation he is in.
Coming back to my original point, I'm disappointed in the movie because while the issue is complicated, I feel that if things were presented more clearly the movie may have done a better job of promoting awareness. I won't argue that the way to attract the attention of the general American populace is with entertainment - if this had been an informational documentary, I wouldn't be talking to you about it because I probably wouldn't have even heard about it. It's just that I wish the information had been conveyed in a simpler, clearer way. As it stands it appeals primarily to pseudo-intellectuals like myself or to other people who already have a basic understanding of the issue.
There are huge problems in the Middle East. By consuming oil, we are indirectly sanctioning the practices involved in retrieving said oil. But instead of looking at the atrocious situation and understanding that the practices for retrieving oil are not OK, are not acceptable...we hide behind claims that it's too complicated to understand. Or we convince ourselves that because it's not our country, it's somehow not our problem.
It's not that no one cares, it's that not enough people care. It's that the power is in the hands of people who place a premium (har har pun intended) on profit and American economy rather than humanitarianism and world economy. I fear that history books will not have nice things to say about 21st century America and it's policies: both domestic and foreign.
Edit:
One extra thought I have to add to this is the ironic self-contradiction I'm committing here. While I wish the movie had been "dumbed-down" a bit, I find myself constantly annoyed at how I can't stand most popular culture precisely because of how dumbed-down it is. Mass entertainment needs to cater to the lowest common denominator, and people tend to be much willing to "step down" as far as things being intellectually challenging than to step up.
It failed to make things clear to people who have a hard time understanding world politics or similar issues.
Syriana is a confusing movie. Ebert was one of the few critics who thought this trait was laudable - the confusion, he claimed, was representative of how the characters felt. The movie was arranged in such a way that it was almost intentionally difficult to follow. I made a distinct effort to pay close attention to the movie, and I turned on the subtitles so as not to miss subtleties in speech when I realized the movie would not be easy to follow, and I still rushed online after the movie was over to verify that the movie was about what I thought it was about.
Perhaps the difficult delivery makes the movie a better movie, a more entertaining movie out of a movie that's meant to entertain. It's just that...it doesn't seem the sole purpose of this movie is entertainment. Syriana isn't preachy and it doesn't try to force an agenda down your throats, rather it does a fairly good job of synthesizing the information about how things got the way they are now, and how people can become the way they are when it seems so inexplicable. I'm not going to jump to cliches and say that Syriana wants to explain the inexplicable: it's just that it's an informative and insightful and mostly unbiased depiction.
One theme in Syriana is that there are no evil people, just people who do what they believe is right. It's our moral systems that become deranged, the sense of right and wrong: not the desire to do right or wrong. On some level, I have to agree. I've been labeled naive for expressing this viewpoint before, but in my experience it seems that on some basic level we all do what we believe is right - there are just different levels of awareness and different perspectives that turn right and wrong into a relative (not absolute) issue. No one lives a life doing things they know are wrong. In Syriana, a very normal - perhaps the most likable character in the movie - young Arab ends up joining a right-wing fundamentalist Islamic group. Why? He thinks it's the right thing to do. He wants to help his mother, his father, and he recognizes the unfairness of the life situation he is in.
Coming back to my original point, I'm disappointed in the movie because while the issue is complicated, I feel that if things were presented more clearly the movie may have done a better job of promoting awareness. I won't argue that the way to attract the attention of the general American populace is with entertainment - if this had been an informational documentary, I wouldn't be talking to you about it because I probably wouldn't have even heard about it. It's just that I wish the information had been conveyed in a simpler, clearer way. As it stands it appeals primarily to pseudo-intellectuals like myself or to other people who already have a basic understanding of the issue.
There are huge problems in the Middle East. By consuming oil, we are indirectly sanctioning the practices involved in retrieving said oil. But instead of looking at the atrocious situation and understanding that the practices for retrieving oil are not OK, are not acceptable...we hide behind claims that it's too complicated to understand. Or we convince ourselves that because it's not our country, it's somehow not our problem.
It's not that no one cares, it's that not enough people care. It's that the power is in the hands of people who place a premium (har har pun intended) on profit and American economy rather than humanitarianism and world economy. I fear that history books will not have nice things to say about 21st century America and it's policies: both domestic and foreign.
Edit:
One extra thought I have to add to this is the ironic self-contradiction I'm committing here. While I wish the movie had been "dumbed-down" a bit, I find myself constantly annoyed at how I can't stand most popular culture precisely because of how dumbed-down it is. Mass entertainment needs to cater to the lowest common denominator, and people tend to be much willing to "step down" as far as things being intellectually challenging than to step up.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Love, Work, and Religion
Well, it's Memorial Day '07. You all know what that means - time for my once-per-decade triple blog post! I'm not one for excessive fanfare and hype, so let's roll right into things.
- Love -
I think that perhaps I mis-portray my feelings on love to those geographically close to me. I've got a set of Winter Sonata calendar pages hanging up in my room and I end up watching cheesy Asian romance drama with my younger brother from time to time, and perhaps these actions imply some acceptance or agreement with the type of love most commonly portrayed in these dramas.
Well, I hereby renounce any faith or acceptance of said love-view. It's not only that I don't have faith, I am disgusted and I actively dislike the portrayal of love in these "love stories". A friend asked me last night what I thought about the idea of pursuit: "Is it a guy's responsibility to chase after a girl? Do you think he should keep try-". I rudely cut him off mid-sentence to start a rant similar to what you find below.
Asian drama is a little worse than American pop culture, but there is a serious problem with how love is portrayed in the media. It raises false expectations and I think promotes what is already a fairly high divorce rate. First I'll start with "the pursuit", most often displayed in Asian drama.
Oh god, I don't want to explain. Let me just say...men should have no responsibilities (in starting a relationship) that women do not have. It's time to move on from the archaic notions of fixed roles. It's not romantic or endearing to continue trying to "win a girl" who's not interested, it's wrong. Personally, if a woman wants to be coy or to play games to test my interest, I'm not willing to waste my time. Then again, I do spend a lot of time single.
More important is the portrayal of limerency (it's ironic and telling that this word has worked it's way into my everyday speech. Commit the idea to memory)as an example of lasting love and of true love across all forms of media. Love isn't and can't be a source of eternal uninterrupted happiness, and love doesn't make you blind to your partner's faults or problems.
I believe in love, but only in the sense that I believe we all define love for ourselves, and I choose to define it in the realm of what I believe is possible. I've got a simple indicator for what I believe to be a positive relationship, a love barometer if you will. Is your life better or worse because the other person is in it? Even more simply, are you made more or less happy because of the fact the other person is involved in your life?
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but you have to be somewhat selfish. If the relationship is making your life worse, it's not a good relationship. It's difficult to explain (and beyond the scope of this blog post)...but selfishness can be a virtue. For additional reading, I suppose you could check out this. The idea of selfishness as a virtue is not just a Randian/objectivist idea though, and I would say that I have a slightly different take on it. Regardless, it's a decent introductory text.
- Work -
I'll likely be starting a very busy schedule at the end of June. All my current work and the standard 40 hour/week job as well (I'll be doing 6 months of on site contract work). I wonder where I'll find time for other important things in life, with such a busy schedule. I suppose I'm just thinking about how I'll probably be very tired, and it's hard to focus or to want to read or write in those scenarios. I think what brought the worry to the forefront of my mind was a statistic I overheard that the average American watches 4 hours of TV/day. First...holy crap. Second...I suppose I can understand. Why not relax after spending a day at work?
Anyway, I'm certainly not going to start with TV...but we'll see how I do with a different life arrangement. Wish me luck.
- Religion -
Return to spirituality. Forget about religion...because it is not good for you. Understand that in order for organized religion to succeed, it has to make people believe they need it. In order for people to put faith in something else, they must first lose faith in themselves. so the first task of organized religion is to make you lose faith in yourself. The second task is to make you see that it has the answers you do not. And the third and most important task is to make you accept its answers without questions.
If you question, you start to think! If you think, you start to go back to that Source Within. Religion can't have you do that, because you're liable to come up with an answer different from what it has contrived. So religion must make you doubt your Self; must make you doubt your own ability to think straight.
...
So many of your men are just like your nations. Power hungry. They do not like to share power, merely exercise it. And they have constructed the same kind of God. A power hungry God. A god who does not like to share power but merely exercise it. "Yet I tell you this: God's greatest gift is the sharing of God's power.
God would have you be like himself.
From Conversations with God, Book 2
-
I don't know that I believe in a God - certainly not in an interventionist God who interacts with the world with some kind of supreme power and unknown agenda. What I like about this passage is the power given to the self. What I like is the concept that it's time we grow up, stop doubting ourselves, and trust that we can find important answers within. I like the recognition that we are powerful beings with the capacity to control our own lives. I like the recognition that we are not children who must look to their father for answers, but adults who can find answers within.
- Love -
I think that perhaps I mis-portray my feelings on love to those geographically close to me. I've got a set of Winter Sonata calendar pages hanging up in my room and I end up watching cheesy Asian romance drama with my younger brother from time to time, and perhaps these actions imply some acceptance or agreement with the type of love most commonly portrayed in these dramas.
Well, I hereby renounce any faith or acceptance of said love-view. It's not only that I don't have faith, I am disgusted and I actively dislike the portrayal of love in these "love stories". A friend asked me last night what I thought about the idea of pursuit: "Is it a guy's responsibility to chase after a girl? Do you think he should keep try-". I rudely cut him off mid-sentence to start a rant similar to what you find below.
Asian drama is a little worse than American pop culture, but there is a serious problem with how love is portrayed in the media. It raises false expectations and I think promotes what is already a fairly high divorce rate. First I'll start with "the pursuit", most often displayed in Asian drama.
Oh god, I don't want to explain. Let me just say...men should have no responsibilities (in starting a relationship) that women do not have. It's time to move on from the archaic notions of fixed roles. It's not romantic or endearing to continue trying to "win a girl" who's not interested, it's wrong. Personally, if a woman wants to be coy or to play games to test my interest, I'm not willing to waste my time. Then again, I do spend a lot of time single.
More important is the portrayal of limerency (it's ironic and telling that this word has worked it's way into my everyday speech. Commit the idea to memory)as an example of lasting love and of true love across all forms of media. Love isn't and can't be a source of eternal uninterrupted happiness, and love doesn't make you blind to your partner's faults or problems.
I believe in love, but only in the sense that I believe we all define love for ourselves, and I choose to define it in the realm of what I believe is possible. I've got a simple indicator for what I believe to be a positive relationship, a love barometer if you will. Is your life better or worse because the other person is in it? Even more simply, are you made more or less happy because of the fact the other person is involved in your life?
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but you have to be somewhat selfish. If the relationship is making your life worse, it's not a good relationship. It's difficult to explain (and beyond the scope of this blog post)...but selfishness can be a virtue. For additional reading, I suppose you could check out this. The idea of selfishness as a virtue is not just a Randian/objectivist idea though, and I would say that I have a slightly different take on it. Regardless, it's a decent introductory text.
- Work -
I'll likely be starting a very busy schedule at the end of June. All my current work and the standard 40 hour/week job as well (I'll be doing 6 months of on site contract work). I wonder where I'll find time for other important things in life, with such a busy schedule. I suppose I'm just thinking about how I'll probably be very tired, and it's hard to focus or to want to read or write in those scenarios. I think what brought the worry to the forefront of my mind was a statistic I overheard that the average American watches 4 hours of TV/day. First...holy crap. Second...I suppose I can understand. Why not relax after spending a day at work?
Anyway, I'm certainly not going to start with TV...but we'll see how I do with a different life arrangement. Wish me luck.
- Religion -
Return to spirituality. Forget about religion...because it is not good for you. Understand that in order for organized religion to succeed, it has to make people believe they need it. In order for people to put faith in something else, they must first lose faith in themselves. so the first task of organized religion is to make you lose faith in yourself. The second task is to make you see that it has the answers you do not. And the third and most important task is to make you accept its answers without questions.
If you question, you start to think! If you think, you start to go back to that Source Within. Religion can't have you do that, because you're liable to come up with an answer different from what it has contrived. So religion must make you doubt your Self; must make you doubt your own ability to think straight.
...
So many of your men are just like your nations. Power hungry. They do not like to share power, merely exercise it. And they have constructed the same kind of God. A power hungry God. A god who does not like to share power but merely exercise it. "Yet I tell you this: God's greatest gift is the sharing of God's power.
God would have you be like himself.
From Conversations with God, Book 2
-
I don't know that I believe in a God - certainly not in an interventionist God who interacts with the world with some kind of supreme power and unknown agenda. What I like about this passage is the power given to the self. What I like is the concept that it's time we grow up, stop doubting ourselves, and trust that we can find important answers within. I like the recognition that we are powerful beings with the capacity to control our own lives. I like the recognition that we are not children who must look to their father for answers, but adults who can find answers within.
Friday, May 25, 2007
On Portland
A southern Florida newspaper ran an article on the beautiful city of Portland recently. Want to read about how great Portland is?
Then click here!
Then click here!
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Life Lessons: Accepting Diversity
Is it useful to make public lessons I think may only be understood through experience? I'm not sure how I feel about it.
At the ripe old age of 26, I'm still maturing. In fact, I haven't really noticed a truly significant slowdown in the "growing up" process in maybe 10 years. Am I especially immature? I like to think not.
I'm not sure when I realized it, but I'm naturally very dismissive of other views. I now believe that this is really just a form of immaturity. Part of maturing, part of "growing up" (as the idiom goes), is shedding irrelevant paradigms we develop when we're younger. The paradigm to shed is "when I've found the right way to do/think about/view something, it's the right way." Life isn't some hard science, it's dynamic and diverse: there are multiple methods to reach any solution.
I'd think that traveling abroad might open your eyes to this. Perhaps in America we're especially prone to this particular immaturity due to our somewhat unique situation. We have a fair degree of diversity in our culture (usually), perhaps we fall into a trap where the norms of our culture are accepted as absolutes: we're alright with diversity, as long as it falls within a certain range of behaviors.
So what does this all mean? Potentially nothing to you, reader. To me, it means an attempt to catch myself when I find myself looking down on another's viewpoint or ideas, dismissing it without thought because it falls outside the range of what I feel is "normal". If I catch myself, I'll take a deep breath, and consider the idea, consider how the person arrived at their conclusion, and think about its relevance and how best to react.
Of course, if the idea is still ridiculous, I reserve the right to laugh at it.
At the ripe old age of 26, I'm still maturing. In fact, I haven't really noticed a truly significant slowdown in the "growing up" process in maybe 10 years. Am I especially immature? I like to think not.
I'm not sure when I realized it, but I'm naturally very dismissive of other views. I now believe that this is really just a form of immaturity. Part of maturing, part of "growing up" (as the idiom goes), is shedding irrelevant paradigms we develop when we're younger. The paradigm to shed is "when I've found the right way to do/think about/view something, it's the right way." Life isn't some hard science, it's dynamic and diverse: there are multiple methods to reach any solution.
I'd think that traveling abroad might open your eyes to this. Perhaps in America we're especially prone to this particular immaturity due to our somewhat unique situation. We have a fair degree of diversity in our culture (usually), perhaps we fall into a trap where the norms of our culture are accepted as absolutes: we're alright with diversity, as long as it falls within a certain range of behaviors.
So what does this all mean? Potentially nothing to you, reader. To me, it means an attempt to catch myself when I find myself looking down on another's viewpoint or ideas, dismissing it without thought because it falls outside the range of what I feel is "normal". If I catch myself, I'll take a deep breath, and consider the idea, consider how the person arrived at their conclusion, and think about its relevance and how best to react.
Of course, if the idea is still ridiculous, I reserve the right to laugh at it.
Van Gogh, Starry Starry Night
A Slide Show Double Tribute to Vincent van Gogh and Don McLean. Interesting, if you're a fan of Van Gogh's art or even just curious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
