Numbers One and Two: the devil and the deep blue sea

I'm feeling really hungry today, so I am ordering a panino.

Showing off your knowledge of Italian, huh?

Let me see... The first panino sounds good. Have you ever had Number One?

Number One!

... or Number Two.

Number Two!

Both sound attractive. Do you have any recommendation? ...What's the matter?

How can I possibly choose between Number One and Number Two?

It's not that dramatic, is it? If I order Number One today, I will order Number Two some other time, and vice versa.

Why do you think Number One ever gained that status?

I guess that's the most attractive one, in terms of content and/or price. It could well be the simplest among all.

And, Number Two?

That's the second most attractive one in the same sense. What is this fuss all about?

I can't stand being a Number One.

Lucky that you have ever been a Number One. We all need somebody who thinks we are the best in the whole wide world, but it is often difficult to support such irrationality.

Whatever our conclusion may have been, it would not hold, if there is no Number Two, or Number Three, or Number Four, or Number...

You must be quite something, if you manage to give so little hope to any other candidate.

You see, I have a friend who has no friend other than myself.

If you are happy with the friendship, I don't see why that could be a problem.

It's not that I don't appreciate the friendship. But it becomes a great burden when I am the drinking friend, the hiking friend, the literature-and-art-discussion friend, the let's-drive-to-the-beach friend, the movie friend, the fashion-advisor friend, the gourmet-and-gourmand friend, the tango friend, the Galois-Theory friend... the wise friend, the funny-and-silly friend, the deadpan-humor friend, the optimist friend, the pessimist friend, the liberal friend, the conservative-manners friend...

I get the picture. You just can't be everything to your friend, but that is what becomes required of you.

And what if this friend calls up for just getting together, without any specific activity or topic of discussion in mind, and that for every other week?

It sounds like your friend is about to lose his/her only friend.

No, that's not my plan. But the sense of desperation does shave off quite a bit of attraction from a person.

You know, when you make a commitment to a person based on a monogamous relationship, that is precisely what happens.

I have to be everybody and everything to my partner...!

And your partner has to be everybody and everything to you. Some people do it effortlessly---for example, Meredith Brooks. Do you recall her song, "Bitch"? In that song, she manages to be everything to her lover and she is confident that her lover would not want it any other way.

Ahhh, you're making me feel totally inadequate!

I didn't know that you are for polygamy and polyandry.

I acknowledge that there are both psychological and biological minuses to them. But there are pluses, too, you know. But based on the fact that the numbers of males and females are approximately the same when they reach puberty, it is only fair that commitment is allowed on one-to-one basis.

Not necessarily. What if every man is committed to every woman, and every woman to every man? We can be fair by practicing both polygamy and polyandry.

That's no longer commitment!

In conclusion, we all need a Number One, who shoulders almost impossible responsibility.

Lately, I haven't been having a great time as a Number Two, either. I have friends who start calling me up much more frequently when their partners are away.

Oh, oh...

Mind you, they come in all combinations of gender and sexual orientation. The problem I have is, why do I have to serve as some kind of a substitute, or the next best thing.

The agony of Number Two! In short, Number One entails too much work and pressure, while Number Two does not satisfy your pride and needs.

By the way, may I recommend Number Six in the panini section?

Finding fault is a musical chair

Don't say that to me again!

Are you hearing voices? I am just drawing my chair, and haven't said anything after the greeting.

I'm regurgitating a conversation I had yesterday.

I'd prefer eating fermented food to letting food ferment in my stomach. But why do you need to recall unpleasant talks and feel agitated again? It doesn't make sense to me, unless you want your life to be more difficult than it is.

I tend to give the benefit of the doubt, ilico. That means I usually take the blame myself rather than put the blame on the other party.

I didn't know that you are so insecure.

It is not insecurity. For me, committing the error of blaming the innocent is far graver if the wrongly accused happens to be someone other than myself. Scrutinize myself first for any faux pas or unethical deed, only then move on to examining others.

Do you always think that way?

I am pretty confident that I do. Placating myself is several magnitudes of order easier than placating others, and I naturally choose the easier.

Do you have to look that grumpy if you have placated yourself?

The problem arises from my concession during a conversation that there is something I could have done or do better. As I mull over it afterwards, I often can't help concluding that I have been taken advantage of due to that approach.

It's natural that whoever admits his/her fault is the one to be faulted.

I am strongly against that modus operandi.

If someone confesses wrongdoing, why should we look further? Our desire to protect ourselves is so fundamental that if someone makes a move that is contrary to that desire, we'd better accept it as truth.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

Excuse me, didn't you just say that you always blame yourself first?

What you said is as erroneous as claiming that the sun rises in the west! Okay, you accept that nothing in this world can be described in terms of black and white, correct?

Excepting some photographs and zebras.

Agreed. If nothing is black and white, all parties concerned contributes to the outcome in more than one way; everyone makes both desirable and undesirable contributions.

It's a matter of proportion, you mean.

Proportion is not of great importance, here. What matters is the gesture for achieving justice for all.

But there is always someone who is more culpable than others.

I don't disagree with that. But if you want to move on with as much positive legacy as possible, the best is to reach a consensus that all of us did good things, as well as bad.

That's not effective in curbing undesirable behavior, though.

Certainly not if the most culpable party does not realize and appreciate the leniency.

How is this related to your taken advantage of?

Someone has to start the "truth and reconciliation" process. Someone has to admit in public the undesirable contribution of hers/his so that others are encouraged to admit theirs, and at the same time, appreciate the desirable bits of all parties.

You are saying that you are often the first one that goes through that admission.

Yes.

I don't think it would be such a big problem if you also point out your positive contribution.

I can't do that.

So, you are the one to be blamed!

Again, wrong! Self-preservation and self-lauding are our animalistic core which any civilization has to overcome. Based on that principle, my aesthetics dictate that I be self-effacing.

In other words, you are shifting that preservation responsibility onto others and expecting them to say, "No, no, no, you did some good things. Besides, we did things wrong, too."

And that does not work in this... milieu.

We all need to adapt to our environment.

I refuse to let anyone drag me down to the level of...

It's fine to stick to your approach, but if you do, you should be prepared to take its consequences, too. Now, wipe that foam off your mouth and sit back, because I am ordering glasses of Shiraz.