The Third person

Don't you think it's time to add a new member to our meetings? 

Does that mean I am not good enough in what I do here?

Comrade... None of us is free from the fate of being ourselves. 

If we can be anything or everything, that would be confusing and scary.

The sad thing is that we get bored even with the very best. It is boredom that we find at the root of so-called 'change of heart.' 

On one hand, we need stability and reliability. On the other hand, we want novelty and excitement.

We have concluded before that one way to attain both is to keep on growing as persons. 

The problem, then, is that the two may grow apart. 

That is not as bad as one stunting the development of the other. I have seen many couples becoming more like the other, but for some reason, often in undesirable ways. 

Don't you think that we are essentially 'bad,' and having a partner who is already 'bad' serves as an excuse to be so? In other words, the 'bad' trait that is manifested in our partner brings out the same 'bad' trait in us that had been dormant?

Tidy and well-organized versus messy and ill-organized. Reliable versus flaky. Sociable versus anti-sociable. Fashionable versus unfashionable. Considerate versus self-centered. ... Well, it is not always the bad overwhelming the good, but I do think we tend to slide toward the least energy requiring and that is often the 'bad' rather than the 'good.' 

We sometimes see one trying hard to change the other, such as asking her/him to put the cap back on the tube of toothpaste when done, taking her/him to a rockclimbing trip that s/he does not care for, etc.

Some seem to convert, but when they break up, we hear that the conversion had not been a genuine one. 

'I went along, because he insisted.' 'She was really adamant, so that's why I did it.'

Why is happiness so elusive? 

Well, you're the one who implied that I'm no longer fit for this role.

I did not suggest replacing you with someone, simply adding a new member. 

That's what all adulterers say. They claim that they have no intention to abandon their wife, husband or steady lover. They say that they love their spouses/lovers as much as they did before.

Calm down, comrade. First of all, our relationship is not of that kind. Second, I realized that having another person would bring out the elements of who we are that two of us have not been able to by ourselves. 

But it does not mean that the third person is going to sit with us at the table and do nothing.

You are right, s/he has to participate in our talk. 

I still don't understand your proposal. You have been of the opinion that we are capable of understanding each other best when tête à tête.

I have become less sanguine about it lately. The trigger event was the meeting with Rainbow Trout and Red Herring. 

Rainbow Trout and Red Herring...? You must then be a Polka-dot Blowfish.

Sorry to disappoint you, comrade, but I quite like the sobriquet that you are giving me. Gaudy and poisonous! Honestly, what more can I ask? 

You're trying to act tough...

It's true, you can call me Pol-Blo from now on. Anyway, Rainbow Trout asked me some time ago what I thought about the film, "Deep Sea Rendez-Vous." 

What kind of movie is it?

Don't think hard, because it's another random nickname. I told Trout that it was not bad, but not great either. A good entertainment perhaps, but I could think of better ones. Trout told me then that Herring liked it very much.

So far, so good.

A week later, the three meet. Trout has a long history with both Herring and Blowfish, but Herring and Blowfish know each other little, only through Trout. In the middle of the conversation, Trout asks us how we thought about "Deep..." Trout has not seen the movie. I was surprised, because Trout knows our opinions. Trout also knows that I know what Herring thinks. Plus, Trout knows that mine is negative and Herring's positive. What do you think this is all about? 

Was an angel flying around?

Absolutely not. There had been no moment of silence, thanks to Trout who likes to have the ball rolling. 

Could it be that Trout wanted you two to have a debate?

It's not something you can talk about at length, though. Trout seemed to have wholly believed my take on the movie when two of us talked, but Trout was uncertain what to think of it, facing Herring's enthusiastic endorsement once again.

Isn't it natural?

It is. The question is: why did Trout choose the topic, knowing that it would divide us? 

Perhaps Trout thought 'Nobody else is providing conversation fodder, I've got to do something before we come to an halt' and made a hasty decision, or it could be that Trout had realized that s/he shouldn't have agreed so much with you earlier and wanted to correct it.

In any case, I no longer know what Trout thinks. It does not only concern "Deep Sea...," but everything else. Trout and I have had an almost exclusive relationship and that may be why Trout had agreed to and appeared convinced of what I had said most of the time. 

And that is why you have lost faith in tête à tête?

I used to think that people show their true selves when they are alone with me, but... 

I'd say that's arrogance on your part. Did you think anybody would be so comfortable with you to show who they are?

I didn't exactly think so, but I have to admit that it comes down to that. What I believed was that I get to know someone better through one-on-one conversations. What I did not know was that the person would, consciously and unconsciously, adjust to who I am. That means, for better or worse, s/he becomes more suited to my framework, or turns her/himself into something that is easier to incorporate into my thought system.

Which gives you an illusion that you understand that person better than through other types of interactions, but that is not equivalent to knowing the 'true' nature of that person.

Bravo, bravo, bravo... 

You see, I'm worth keeping as your sole collaborator in this project.

Comrade, I told you that I am not questioning your adequacy in that capacity. 

Don't you think that some kind of politics would creep in when there are three of us?

Bravo, again. Even in this current setting, we cannot avoid politics. We sensor our talk depending on how we think we would be perceived by the other. I hate doing so, but I cannot escape it altogether. 

The scary thing about the third person is that s/he is an observer when two of us are talking. We cannot but notice that s/he is watching and hearing us and forming a view of how we are. S/he also gives rise to the possibility of inconsistency in our behavior.

I may employ non-aggressive mode with you, but not with the third person who happens to be terribly manipulative. I would hate seeing myself acting so differently in a few seconds about the same subject, sitting in the same chair. It goes to show that it is never a good idea to say or do something that we would not, had someone of the opposite opinion been around. That way, we can maintain our integrity, but it comes at the price of being a bore. 

Think about the highs that we reach when all of us can bash something or someone to the hilt!

It is possible to do so with agreement that all involved are staging it, but then, we could be misunderstood by someone who is unaware of that unspoken condition. 

Some fish are slashing the photographs of Polka-dot Blowfish with their fins, tearing up some others and throwing the pieces into the fire.

Fish and fire...? Are they thinking of grilling themselves?

They are not terribly fond of Blowfish, but they don't hate so much as to annihilate it. They think they are having a bit of fun.

Red Herring passes by, sees the scene, and tells Rainbow Trout how much Polka-dot Blowfish is detested. 

Terrified, Rainbow Trout informs Polka-dot Blowfish, who, upon hearing the news, blows her/himself up from anger and trauma...

Think also about the change in pecking order. Trout may not mind being No. 2 with Blowfish, but wishes not to portray her/himself so to Herring. Herring, on the other hand, wants to be No. 1 most of the time. 

Consequently, Trout becomes aggressive, more so than Blowfish has known...

The biggest problem for me is: how do I know a person? I thought I would find out who s/he is by talking and listening to her/him with nobody else around, but I now understand that it is not so. When I dig through my memory, I realize that I have had such experiences earlier as well. The impression the person gives me can be quite different when I see her/him with another person.

Which is her/his true self?

Somewhere in between. I am very unhappy with this ambiguity. 

Just don't say you can't trust anyone, Pol-Blo...

Taking it personally

So, it's all dependent on the instructor whether we become interested in and good at something.

Like it or not, strong emotions are catching. If someone is passionate about what s/he teaches, that rubs off on the students. Plus, if the instructor is deft at guiding the uninitiated through the thickets, it's almost guaranteed that even the apathetic students start thinking about the subject.

It will first be about this strange instructor who loves something that looks awfully boring.

Gradually, that would make them think about the subject that s/he teaches. It is up to each student, whether that interest is sustained after the departure of the instructor. Not all students in a class would become, for example, historians even if they had an exceptional history teacher. But a good instructor can make students interested in something, at least for a while.

The movie, "Dead Poets Society," is about what a charismatic instructor could do.

Instead of being drawn by charisma, it could be a crush on a cute instructor, fresh out of school. In general, some kind of personal admiration would work.

We shouldn't forget that it goes the other way around, too. It could be quite detrimental when you sense that the instructor does not like you and you are clueless as to why.

How grades are determined is crucial, too. They're akin to prices. We are ever ready to change our actions, depending on relative prices. In the US where oil used to be cheap and abundant, the sudden increase in the price of oil of late is affecting travel, housing size and location.

More people are ready to take public transportation, live in a smaller house and not purchase one in the suburbs where hours of driving is required to get to work.

One day, my sister found out that her biology teacher examines only what is written as footnotes in the textbook.

How bizzare!

It is, but as a student, she responded to it by memorizing the footnotes and not much else. Exams are very personal anyway. It's all about how the instructor sees the subject, or education of that subject.

It's all personal...

On that note, the scary thing is that attraction to a person can make you do almost anything.

Is it about romantic love?

That's the most obvious example, but we have the tendency to give into personal cult.

Personal cult as in many of us trying to imitate the way a movie star dresses?

You got it. A person becomes prominent for her/his talent in one area, and then, other aspects of that person's life increase in value.

I know that one. A cookbook by a famous actress is much more likely to be published than one by an unknown author with good recipes. That happens even when there is no evidence that a well-known actress cooks well.

Think about the big photographs of authors that occupy the entire back covers of bestseller books. The value of the writing is not dependent on how the writer may look, and yet, many people are interested in the writers' appearances.

Another instance of personal cult.

I think monotheism has the same element.

How so?

The followers of that religion believe in whatever its founder said and did. Every act, even the trivial ones, are interpreted to have some meaning. I think ultimately everything in this world is deeply influenced by the personalities and the looks of the persons involved.

Another sweeping generalization of yours.

Why has monotheism taken over polytheism? It's because we are into personal worship. Think about this one. What if Ron and Maggie were repelled by each other?

I think the Berlin Wall would have come down anyway.

Their mutual admiration for shared political convictions encouraged the two in implementing them.

That's about their politics and not about how they thought about each other personally. As far as I know, Ron could not function without Nancy.

That certainly doesn't mean that he thought all other women were equally worthless. If both Ron and Maggie thought "Yikes! I don't know what it is, but I can't stand this person,'' they would not have had contact in the way they did.

Do you think Maggie served him tea with scones, while Ron showed her one of his movies that he had tucked into his suitcase?

They're lucky, because one of them could tell clotted cream from white and grey matters that the other must have been carrying around in a jar and put on the table... If there had been no encouragement from the other side of the Atlantic, their zeal for smaller governments with bigger military budgets and lower income taxes could have been curtailed.

Do you really believe so?

I do. Another example is Richard Nixon and Zhou Enlai. When Nixon visited China in 1972, Zhou took him around to show the country. What if Nixon just couldn't stand Zhou's manners or his face? Or what if Zou had had no respect for Nixon and did little hide it?

Whether Zhou and Nixon were disgusted by each other or not, Nixon must have realized how much money there is to be made if every Chinese household were to buy a TV, a fridge, a car, etc. He could still see that it was politically wise to normalize the diplomatic relationship. Zhou must have liked it that it was the Americans who were courting them and not the other way around.

No doubt, money can mask certain smell and some other inconvenient, unpleasant aspects of people. Let me bolster my argument by referring to many women who wield power through their politician husbands. It is their personal relationships that make the wives' consultation valuable to the husbands. Some of them even inherit the official titles after the husbands' death.

Of personal likes and dislikes, this world is made...