Anything and anybody interesting

All of us are forever in search of something interesting.

Are you sure? I know some people who are content that today is almost exactly the same as yesterday. They will be unhappy if tomorrow turns out to be dramatically different from today. They are satisfied with little variation in the people that they see, the food that they eat, the clothes that they wear, the work and the entertainment that they engage in.

They do allow well-scripted blips in life. In fact, they need them, because they have an idea of normal course of events and wish to follow it: schooling, employment, marriage, children---and their schooling, employment and marriage. And finally, retirement.

They know the major events, and accept them as they are. Those aside, life is a quiet, long river.

Don't you think they make great monogamists?

They ought to, but even they are sometimes overtaken by the biological urge to let their own genes dominate over others'.

Aha, so that is why Mr. Nextdoor who looks so sedate and boring one day runs away with his secretary who is half his age, abandoning his wife of twenty years, children and an Alaskan Husky...

Let's say that many of Mr. Nextdoor toy with a similar idea and are ready to take off as soon as they find a willing accomplice.

Most simply cannot fulfill the crucial requirement of finding that mate for lack of what they can offer. That is, the privilege is available almost exclusively to the rich and the powerful. Conveniently, they are the ones who have stronger desire to have more mates. Their main motive in life is to control as much as possible.

In other words, there are several reasons why people want different partners. One is purely biological. Some others are psychological: the need to have diversity in life and the desire to conquer.

Many also want to prove to the world that they can attract people, and for some, that desire becomes stronger as they age. Of course, the younger the partner, the better. I understand the mechanism behind, but I can't say that it's fun to watch the process or the result.

Politicians are characterized by their excessive wish to be in charge of the world; they are endowed with above-the-norm desire to control people, including those who could be their sexual mates.

It is ironic, because their lives are more in the public domain than others', and they risk losing the very source of their power by fulfilling the urge to attract and conquer mates.

It looks like the stacks are squarely against monogamy, both biologically and psychologically.

An agreed and fixed partnership is indispensable for child rearing, but that only says anything long-term would suffice and does not exclude polygamy and polyandry.

Is there any reason why we should adhere to monogamy?

If the parties involved had made an agreement to a monogamous relationship, they are morally obliged to remain committed to each other. The question is: what are the grounds for agreeing to such a relationship in the first place.

Especially if you declare not to conceive and/or rear children...

The only reason that I can think of is to avoid chaos in this world. People may make such declarations, but they may well change their minds once in a relationship.

The problem then would be if one wants a monogamous union for the child and the other doesn't.

Keeping partnerships monogamous means keeping it simple, and it helps when it comes to dissolution. Usually partnerships entail division in labor, and the fruits of that labor must be divided in a fair manner. If there are many people involved and if it is unclear who they are, we would be spending quite a bit of resources on this issue. Termination of partnerships are usually unhappy moments and people become quite passionate about obtaining their fair share.

So, the argument for monogamy is minimization of chaos and bickering... It's a rather weak one, isn't it?

We started our conversation today about amusing ourselves. Can you describe what is interesting to you, by the way?

Anything that stimulates my mind and senses.

Do you know what does so?

Anything that is beyond what I have experienced so far.

We know that we don't appreciate just about anything. We also like to be surprised by being pushed beyond our boundaries, and if you have not been aware of where the boundaries lie, all the better.

Not all, but many of us, you mean.

Enlarging your territory of appreciation happens easily when you are not conscious of your limits. You are presented by something that you have never experienced, and only when you begin to appreciate it, you realize that your sense of appreciation had been more limited earlier.

Because you are unaware of your limits, you don't reject outright what is in front of you.

Precisely. The rewards are larger when you do not know at first how the new experience fits in your world.

Which further means that we cannot describe what would greatly pique our interest.

Brilliant, comrade.

It's just that I happened to say what you had in mind, I know...

It's the same with attractiveness of a person. If you meet someone whom you know you wouldn't like, you would not make attempts to see her/him again, unless, of course, it is under some unavoidable circumstances.

Such as when s/he happens to be your boss, right?

If the person is different from those that you have known, but if you do not know how to place her/him in your world, you would not avoid her/him. And if you come to appreciate that person, you like her/him more than you would a person who belongs to your group.

Let's say that it is a possibility. The attraction may become strong, but it can wane quickly, too. After all, s/he is from a different universe.

If we succeed in making that other universe ours, we feel the relationship is rewarding. If that universe happens to be something that contributes to your positive image, the attraction can be quite strong.

A person who did not know anything about opera learns to appreciate it and acquires knowledge in that domain, for example.

Many of us are in need of being exposed to something new, and one person cannot be the gateway to a new territory all the time.

Just as one author cannot provide a reader with all the variety s/he needs in reading?

I have a wonderful cookbook that contains hundreds of recipes from all over the world. Anything from the book comes out great, but I get bored if I cook from it all the time. I get the urge to try something else, something seen through a different pair of eyes.

Isn't that another thumb down for monogamy as you implied last time?

Alas, you are right. And you know, after a period of infidelity, so to speak, I go back to that reliable cookbook.

Almost everything we considered seems to point in the direction of the graveyard for monogamous relationships, but I feel we should try our best to sustain it.

Why?

In order to avoid chaos and to use our resources for something more productive than finding an acceptable separation scheme for partners, as you said.

Well done, comrade. In my opinion, staying attractive is an important everyday goal, in particular vis-à-vis people whom we spend a bulk of our time with. The more often we see a person, the more likely that we bore her/him and vice versa. And, the more important that we do not do so, because we have to see her/him anyway.

What can I say... The most important turns out to be the most difficult.

If we are to keep the monogamous system, we need to constantly renew ourselves. We have to evolve.

But you said there are some people who like to have the same food every single day.

Yes, so here is already a source of friction for a couple. It sometimes happens that one is an evolving type and the other is not. Even if both are evolving types, it could be that their interests and outlooks on life diverge. I know a person who had been very much into opera, but it gradually ceased to move him. He now listens only to bluegrass music and let go of his massive opera recording collection.

You have been living with Plácido Domingo, and one day you realize you want to live with Bill Monroe instead? It's... it's scandalous!

That can happen, you know. We all need to evolve to keep the attention of others, especially the attention of those who are important to you, while retaining the aspects that make you likable and attractive to them.

I'd say it's like a store. In order to have customers visit and spend some money at regular and frequent intervals, you need a set of staples that make you reliable as well as something new for a nice surprise.

That is true if there are more stores than necessary for biological survival. We talked about our desire to have both the familiar and the unfamiliar some time ago. The problem here is how to change yourself in a way that is interesting to your partner and preferably to other friends and family members as well.

Obviously, you can't be a Kiri Te Kanawa married to a Plácido Domingo and change your career into one of a country singer's.

Unless he decides to be a Del McCoury at the same time...

Didn't you say that when you are forced to change in the most unexpected direction, your attraction to that person is the biggest?

I did imply so. But for that, you have to perceive that change as positive or interesting. Otherwise, it would not work. So, our question is again: what do we mean by interesting?

Didn't we agree that it is beyond description by definition? But some idea about it is necessary so that we know how to be interesting or find what is interesting.

Therefore, there is nothing but serendipity that we can rely on for this matter.

What about recommendations by others?

I'm sure you have experienced disappointments when you read books recommended by friends, although they also liked the books that you liked.

That's more of a rule than an exception, I'm afraid.

Or, a friend of a friend for some reason does not become your friend.

That happens, too.

Think about the effectiveness of the algorithms that churn out recommended items based on your previous purchases.

Once I ordered on behalf of a friend a black cape with special pockets which double as sleeping bags for bats, and ever since I have been receiving promotional messages for coffin openers, garlic detectors and so on.

And remember, the bigger the surprise of the good kind, the bigger the attraction.

What is your concluding message for monogamists?

Stay vigilantly hopeful! Boredom kills you, your mate and the relationship! Surprise is a double-edged sword, but...

I don't know if it is necessary to raise your fist, comrade... But hey, shall we make socialist-art posters with those slogans? I have a good example. Look, "Hasta la victoria siempre."

To victory, always!

Be nice, or be bored

It has occurred to me lately how small our mental worlds are.

Isn't that another case of hasty generalization? You should know by now that the world is inhabited by people quite different from you.

I am very aware of that, but many others do not seem to be. Quite a few think I know what they are thinking without their telling me. The only opportunity to find out their thoughts is when I happen to do something they don't want me to.

The usual ritual for such occasions is to be showered with scolding, accusation, name calling, saliva, bits of food that have been stuck between their teeth...

Anyway, even the great minds are rather small.

The statement is as meaningless as saying that even the small minds are great. In fact the two may mean the same.

We occasionally witness children show understanding of the world that is more encompassing or deeper than we expect. The same happens with people who are mentally ill or retarded. This is what is meant by small minds being big.

Their levels of understanding in different areas are uneven compared to an average adult, and we tend to think that their overall comprehension of the world is low.

Oftentimes they do not have the means to express what they understand, so we assume that they do not know or understand.

Tyranny of verbalization...

That is how the "civilized" world formed the view of the "primitive" world, by the way. When the West discovered what is outside world to them, it was behind in terms of weaponry and did not share the language and mode of communication. Hence, they thought they found savage beings.

It goes to show the importance of being able to attack physically and verbally. Without them, we cannot preserve our dignity.

I maintain that the level of civilization is measured by how much energy we devote to what is not strictly necessary for biological survival and by how we tame and tweak our animal instincts. They could make us nasty in situations which are not life threatening and hence unnecessary to be so.

But a civilization of higher level can be wiped out by one of lower level if the latter happens to be equipped by superior means of destruction.

Think about Vasco da Gama's barbarism against Calicut. He attacked the city when his demand to expel the Muslims was denied. Of course, Calicut must have had economic and political reasons to accommodate people of different religions, but he tried to destroy peace and commercial wealth with brutal force.

The Portuguese succeeded, as evidenced by the cities that they colonized along the coast.

Ranking various civilizations would be tricky, but I think we can say that the ones that spend more of its resources for activities beyond pure survival are more humane.

What about the people who had been labeled "primitive"? They spend more time and energy to survive compared to the people who labeled them so, but they tend to have more hands-on knowledge about nature and live in much better harmony with it. Isn't that a civilization of a better kind, at least in terms of taking care of the environment?

Very true... What if I say a civilization which spends less of its resources for destruction of any sort is preferred?

What about racial segregation? For people who are happy with it would think that they live in a peaceful world and that anti-segregationists are trouble-mongers, even terrorists.

True again. But segregationism is based on the idea that human beings should be conferred with different sets of rights and that the biological features determine which set. The anti-segregationists are for a society that has nothing to do with such erroneous idea of human beings.

But then, the segregationists would say that keeping the superior apart from the inferior is the better for the society as a whole.

The anti-segregationists would retort that the superiority is the result of unfair distribution of society's resources.

The segregationists would say that it is fair because the superior do the important work and thus deserve more.

And the anti-segregationists would say that because of such patterns of redistribution the inferior lack education, opportunities, etc. and are locked into menial jobs.

And the segregationists would demand the anti-segregationists to name a person of the inferior kind who is worth giving up some of what they have.

The named person may well fail to live up to expectations, and...

We'll hear remarks like, "You see, I told you, they're good for nothing."

The problem here is mistaking what has been caused by external factors as something inherent.

But then, we hear lines such as, "It's because they lack will that they cannot go beyond their lot."

It's not fair to have to exert much more effort to achieve the same goal, just because your biological features are less favored by people in power.

They would say, "Nothing is fair in this world."

We would point out that they did not want redistribution of wealth because it is not fair. Hence, they are contradicting themselves.

Comrade, the anti-segregationists won!

I hope so... Getting back to the importance of being capable to destroy physically, that is why nations still build up weapons. If you don't want others to attack you, you have to show that you can attack them.

Preferably better than they are able to.

Think about what we can do with all the money that we spend on destroying each other or trying to do so. We even attempt to restore something after destroying it.

The Iraq War, for example. I know that some people say the bad was destroyed and the good is to be restored, but there is no denying that it is physical destruction followed by resuscitation.

Do you think we would ever overcome the lack of goodwill and trust that permeates our world?

We first need to do away with hypocrisy that surrounds it.

Yes, hypocrisy, my favorite word of the moment! How can you preach others to act with goodwill and trust when you are not doing so yourself?

Comrade, I know that you are envisioning someone, but calm down, he is not with us here, and besides, we are talking about nations.

Anyway, it is important to demonstrate our capacity for physical attacks, but so is our ability to threaten in words.

The problem here is that verbosity is often taken as a sign of intelligence...

As I pointed out earlier, if you don't have the means to express your complicated thoughts, you may be taken as an idiot.

In a way, that's not so odd, because if you know what your thoughts are, you should be able to communicate it.

Precisely. And we don't know many of our thoughts.

Are you sure about that?

I am. I would not say all, but many of malicious acts originate from base emotions and thoughts which we are not so conscious about.

Such as, "I don't like her/him, and I am going to make her/his life miserable," "I am jealous, and I want her/him to be even more jealous," "Let her/him know who is the boss," "I am very unhappy, and therefore, I am going to take it out on her/him," ...

Those are the emotions and thoughts behind the acts, but not so well articulated in our minds. Most people would deny that it was what they were feeling or thinking. I would say verbalization is the first step toward being able to analyze our emotions and thoughts and to decide whether we should carry out actions based on them.

Put differently, ethical behavior is not possible without consciousness.

I agree with qualification. It is possible to be disciplined so that we have stock reactions that are ethical. However, we may not be able to match the situation that we face with what is in our instruction book. Moreover, some situations we encounter may not be in it. It means that we need the ability to analyze and arrive at what we think is appropriate reaction. For that, we need at least some consciousness of what we are feeling, thinking and doing. This is not to say that reactions that come to us unconsciously are useless.

You mean it is useful to touch the tip of your nose with your thumb and wiggle your hand?

Unconscious acts do not involve questioning and they come to us as if they were reflex. That is, we engage in them with very little effort. It is natural, built-in, and thus, consumes very little energy. Different cultures have different sets of such autonomous responses. That is why many of us marvel at people in various countries dealing smoothly with what we consider difficult situations.

Could we say that articulation in words is required for out-of-the-box situations, but it is taxing on our minds?

I think so. Good examples of that may be religious converts. They change their religion from one that they grew up with into another which they decide to adopt consciously later in their lives. What the first religion taught them comes to them more easily, and they tend to fight it off by saying out loud the tenets of the newly embraced religion. We can tell that they are trying hard. Since they have to be explicit about the second one, they are in great danger of being hypocrite.

Comrade, your eyes are shining with anger...

It's hard to have too good examples around, you know... Let's talk about great minds being limited.

You have to admit that you are jealous.

I admit that I am, but that does not make the statement false.

... True...

Remember, even Uncle Isaac said that he was merely standing on the shoulder of the giants.

But he was a physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, and theologian. Many consider him to be one of the greatest minds in history!

Okay, that was not a very good example. But I have been noticing lately that usually an artist has one theme, especially writers. They have one truly good work, and the rest is of a similar theme and/or so-so in quality.

What about writers like Uncle Leo?

He has two great works, "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina," both of which are about love and family life in the Russian upper crust.

Did you expect him to write about an auntie practicing Vodou in Haiti or about the Andromeda Galaxy at war with the Tirangulum Galaxy?

No, it was good that he wrote what he knew best. My point is that we cannot live on Tolstoy alone, just like we cannot on Pirozhki alone.

We can change the filling. In fact, most people do live on Pirozhki alone and with various fillings, because they read only a handful of authors each of whom produces based on one formula.

In a way, authors have to have a formula which can be more kindly called style. For most artists, we can recognize whose work it is from its 'style.' That means they all have a 'formula.' But even people who like repetitive story lines---or motifs in general---want some variation.

Otherwise, they can read the same story or look at the same painting over and over again and be satisfied.

Readers who are fond of a certain formula want several formulas with slight differences. The catch is that one author cannot produce those small variations to satisfy a reader.

One reader needs more than one author, then.

Yes, even if the reader is happy to have some repetition. In other words, we are capable of absorbing much more than we as individuals can produce. A person owes to more than one another person to satisfy her/his cerebral needs. That is true not only in writing, but also in other arts. It is also true for human relationships.

Hurray, here is an incentive to be nice to many others!

It is a motivation for infidelity, comrade...