Let's not talk about Nobel Medals, or about bargains for that matter

After we parted last time, it came back to me that you once had said your paternal grandfather had been self-employed. Do I remember correctly?

Good memory. He had his own practice.

Practice... You know that's business.

Profit maximizing wasn't his goal. As a proof, he left little upon his death.

In other words, he failed as a businessman.

Hush! He engaged in professional activities loftier than fleecing, and in his spare time, he drank at home and wrote poetry. It's a mystery to all of us how he ended up with so little for his children and grandchildren.

I can tell it's a bad idea not to talk about money. What about your other grandfather?

Ah, he chose to be unemployed.

Another poetry writing type, making no money?

Kind of. You see, business and poetry do not blend well.

I'm afraid very good counterexamples exist. Tsujii Takashi, a.k.a. Tsutsumi Seiji in corporate circles, is well known in both business and literary worlds. Better known is Wallace Stevens who was a lawyer and Pulitzer Prize winning poet. Another Pulitzer poet, William Carlos Williams, was a medical doctor. Federico García Lorca was not in any business, but if he went down in history as a poet, painter, pianist, and composer before dying at the age of thirty-eight, he must have had awesome marketing skills.

What can I say... I'm blessed to have failures on both sides of my parentage!

Now, now, don't be so maso...

I mean it. When I was about ten years old, my father told me how lucky I was that he wasn't a Nobel Prize winner.

He said that?

Yes. He happened to know a scientist whose son could not bear the expectations as an offspring of a Nobel Prize winner.

Counterexamples! Marie Curie, Pierre Curie, Irène Joliot-Curie and Frédéric Joliot-Curie: parents, daughter and son-in-law in physics and chemistry. Niels Bohr and Aage Niels Bohr: father and son in physics.

... Mediocrity runs in my family. A wonderful excuse not to be outstanding in anything! What more can you ask from your parents?

One more piece of evidence against what you said earlier. May I?

Go ahead, another punch in the face wouldn't matter at this point.

The other day, I saw you coming out of what you would call a fancy and glitzy store, with bags seemingly full of purchased items. If I am not mistaken, you took advantage of a big sale.

Some activists like to be seen on the street in style, you know.

You who criticize consumerism, materialism, labor abuse and...

At least, I'm a formidable bargain hunter!

You who claim to have been disciplined not to talk about deals and money...

Trust me, I entirely avoid talking about prices.

And pretend that whatever you own is expensive!

By instinct, I'm into bargains. By lineage, I am not supposed to talk about deals. By nature and upbringing, I am drawn to beautiful, artsy and high quality objects and goods. By conviction, I am not for buying more than I need to survive. Have pity on me, I get totally confused sometimes!

I'm glad that I have a much better reason than you do to celebrate Mother's and Father's Days.

Mother's Day approaching---Father's Day, too

You look considerably better than last time!

I went to a meeting for animal-rights activists last night, and felt lifted up by the charged air. Watching the people made me feel good, too. The participants carried themselves in a very similar way. They even owned the same kind of paraphernalia.

I've been telling you---you shouldn't spend your time pressing your nose against the windows of upscale stores or lounges. They lure you in with their glitz and make you faint with all the zeros and the commas on the little tags and the menus.

Amid the abundance and the glitter, I get worked up about consumerism, materialism, genetically modified cotton, labor abuse and exploitation, environmentally unsustainable development, globalization, digital divide, political and economic hegemony, Gini coefficient, and...

Remember the year 1999? You had a newspaper clutched in one hand, fresh with the smell of ink, and made a fist with the other.

Ummm, November 30, Seattle... Yes, all I need is a cause! It is my anti-authoritarian streak, inherited from my mother.

She's more petite-bourgeoise than activist, as I understand her.

Well, she professes to have blue blood circulating inside and striped with red and green outside.

Is that why she never participates in a demonstration, but watches it on TV with a glass of wine in her hand and cheers on?

Lately, she has been attending a watercolor painting class, and one day the instructor said, "Religion starts from believing, whereas philosophy begins with..."

Defining religion and philosophy in a painting class?

Believe me, she often finds herself in such rather unreal situations. Back to the religion-philosophy sentence, my mother continued, "Philosophy begins with casting doubt." She reports that the instructor was delighted.

Ah, she gave you some of her smart-alec talent as well.

She's not always that quick, so I asked her whether the exchange was exactly like that. She said, "It was! I like that kind of masculine talk." The volume was one notch higher when she said that.

I shall respect your mother, and not get into the discussion of whether it is a sexist remark or not.

Isn't it funny that I, too, feel most comfortable in a high-school debate team atmosphere? I hadn't thought about it consciously until she told me this story. I didn't know either that she and I share androgyny.

It's all your mom's fault, huh, that you are such a monster?

I'm amazed, almost daily, how much influence my parents had on me. It usually starts with the realization that I am so different from my colleagues.

Let's say it's enough that there is only one of you.

When I examine how and why, it always boils down to how my parents lived when I was growing up: the books that they owned, the magazines that they subscribed to, the art that they liked, the conversations that they had, the places that they took us, and so on. My ethical values, too, are basically theirs with some updates.

I know that you've got siblings, so that means...

Of course, our personalities are very different. But in the grand scheme of things, we are pretty much alike.

As kids, we think all families are just like our own. It often takes years before we realize that, for example, the uropods of fried shrimp are normally not eaten.

You eat shrimp tails?

One time when bunch of us went out to dine, we noticed that there was nothing left on the plate of one of us, who ordered breaded and fried shrimp. We were astonished that she ate the whole thing. When we questioned her, she was shocked that none of us had heard of eating shrimp tails. "My dad eats them, my mom does, my brother does... You guys don't?"

I helped a friend prepare a meal, who was strongly against putting broccoli next to pork cutlets on the plate. He insisted that they be accompanied by shredded, raw cabbage and that was what his mother did for any pork cutlet.

Weird!

My parents think it vulgar to discuss money making and saving schemes, often or in detail. My grandparents go even further. In their world, "business" is almost a curse word; you shouldn't think about money at all. I still have difficulty talking about money.

Your family is strange!

Isn't that why we celebrate Mother's Day and Father's Day?

Spilled? No, no, I poured... onto the floor

Look at you!

I can't---there isn't a mirror around.

You're lucky. Your looks would send anybody to a railroad track, including yourself!

I hope it's TGV or the like, not Amtrack or sorts. It would be a real tragedy if you only get mangled.

I see, we are ready to discuss the source of every conceivable unhappiness in the world.

I'm not sure...

Oh no, is it really that bad? Tell me, what is it about this time?

Lost and...

You often leave your key in the key hole. I'd say, check the doors.

I have all my keys. It's something else, lost and... never found again.

I'm afraid that's an important fact of life that you have to accept. Innocence lost, Paradise lost... The only thing that can be done and undone repeatedly is your shoelace.

Hey, I thought you were here to cheer me up!

You may have to hit the very bottom to surface back---like when you have a hangover, you try to overcome it with a serving of strong eggnog.

Never heard of that! By the way, did you know that the very bottom can crack?

I was not aware of your pessimism par excellence.

Well, I didn't invent the metaphor. It was used for the Japanese economy few years ago.

Ah, your creativity has been exhausted as well... It's true, we realize the value of something only when it is no longer in our possession. I'm afraid that's human nature. We take what we have for granted, and always desire more.

Once the aircraft loses contact with the tarmac, my longing for the place that I left behind starts.

That happens to me, too. It can be any place, almost any person and anything.

You're quite possessive.

I don't know whether "possessive" is the right word. But I do know that I always have a fear of losing and destroying something beautiful.

Do you get that feeling when you are in an art museum?

I do. I get worried that I may become deranged and smash the exhibited objects. As long as they are intact, I have to fight against the possibility of momentary lapse of sanity. I also know that once they are destroyed, I don't have to worry about it. What has kept me at bay is that I know too well that a strong sense of remorse would hit me immediately and torment me forever.

I'm afraid you are not unique in that sense.

How disappointing---I am not?

No, you belong to the category of people who are afraid of engaging in anything new for the fear of failing or losing.

I think my case is slightly different, because it concerns something that already exists. But okay, perhaps close enough, dread of destruction and failure. Baron de Montesquieu comes to mind... "C'est un malheur de n'être point aimée ; mais c'est un affront de ne l'être plus."

"It's sad not to be loved, but it's insulting to be no longer loved." You know, people say we become wiser as we age, but isn't it just that we learn so much about failure that we become excessively cautious, to the point that there is no room for failure?

We will be forever unhappy if we do not accept the status quo.

So far, you've said we have to accept the permanency of loss and also whatever the circumstances that you are in. If those are so-called wisdom of life and we live to learn such things, I don't know if life is worth much.

I agree. But don't worry, we all come to terms with life by rewriting histories. I already told you so some time ago.

Life is all about fooling yourself, then.

You have met people who manage to justify everything that happened in their lives, haven't you?

That's why I advise against vacationing on a long-haul cruise, especially if the point of departure is Miami.

Let me point out the counterforce to our tendency for justification. Everything looks better from afar, that is, things you cannot obtain, have lost, etc. are more alluring than what you have.

There could be a balance, you mean.

Rejoice, a happy ending to our discussion that started with your awful face!

Mediocrity for world peace

I've further thought about the proliferation of self-help books, and I don't think it is a problem at all.

But it's like fast food! Easy to purchase and consume, but hardly good for you.

Do you think people would read Friedrich Nietzsche if self-help books become suddenly unavailable? I bet they wouldn't.

What do you think they would be reading then?

Not Arthur Schopenhauer for sure. Probably one of the holy scriptures, or more likely, nothing. You see, most of us do not enjoy thinking on our own.

That contradicts my daily experience. I see too many people wanting to boss around others.

I'd say that's slightly different. Bossing around means imposing one's will on others without giving sufficient consideration to theirs, but it certainly does not mean thinking independently. Confidantes of powerful people come in the guise of vice-presidents, wives, etc. and are well known to give crucial advice. They provide the ideas, the ones in power pick among them and force others to follow that choice.

How can we avoid fascism when all of us are not thinking hard?

In my opinion, the proportion of population which is inclined to engage in independent thinking does not change dramatically over time. Sure, with the technological progress, we have more of excess time and energy that could be devoted to thinking. With universal education, more of us have access to formal knowledge. So, the proportion must have increased in the past century, but not by a whole lot.

Universal suffrage used to be a stimulus for political thinking, but no longer so in many countries.

Don't you think it would be a problem if every one of us engaged in independent thinking?

For example, your neighbors could be John Locke and René Descartes. Every time they meet on the street, they would have a great empiricism versus rationalism debate. John challenges, "Show me your prior," and René replies, "Only if you show me your posterior!"

What if we throw in Bayesian and non-Bayesian statisticians to this verbal mayhem? And, suppose Immanuel Kant lives across the street and tries to bring John and René together by saying that both have a point: that we acquire knowledge from both experience and rational deduction.

Of course, David Hume lives around the corner and tells Kant that he should get lost because what Kant says is impossible. What fun!

We shouldn't get too excited, though. Think about John's inviting his neighbors for afternoon tea.

True, I think René would hate John even more for his cucumber sandwiches. I guess we need leaders and followers.

Just like we can't all be full-time poets.

What if your grandmother happens to be Emily Dickinson and your brother Allen Ginsberg? Would you look forward to a family reunion?

It would be something like this. The grandmother says, "Water is taught by thirst. Land---by the Oceans passed. Transport---by throe---Peace---by its battles told---Love, by Memorial Mould---Birds, by the Snow." Upon hearing, the brother snorts and says, "Kissass is the Part of Peace, America will have to Kissass Mother Earth, Whites have to Kissass blacks, for Peace & Pleasure, Only Pathway to Peace, Kissass."

Unspeakable horror!

We contribute to world harmony and peace by our very mediocrity...

Talented or not, I don't understand people who happily submit themselves to be bullied. Plus, how can we have a truly democratic society if most people are willing to follow others just like that?

What if others aren't exactly others?

I am you, and you are me?

Yes, we are them, and they are us: a society in which everybody is the same.

That defeats the purpose! It means that democracy works perfectly only in a situation where you do not need it.

Barring such society of clones, the closest we can get to true democracy is when we coalesce around several thoughts, I imagine.

Perhaps it's just like companies. Perfect competition among firms results in devoting too much resource to fend off competitors, and monopoly means power abuse. The best would be somewhere between the extremes.

Road to totalitarianism is paved with self-help

Let's talk about something that interests every person on earth.

If you want my opinion on Panino numero sei, I can assure you that it was pretty good.

No, it's not about food.

It must be about your visit to Monte Carlo, then.

Wrong, not about money or gambling.

Oh, oh, does it start with the letter 's'?

Don't be hypocritically prudent. What I have in mind does not rhyme with "regression of y on x."

I'm lost! Tell me what interests me and everyone else, but I am unaware of. It must be something very special.

Self-help books.

It starts with the letter 's'! But I swear, I've never read one.

If you don't want to admit it, that's fine.

It's not a matter of admitting or not, I am speaking the truth and only the truth.

If you indeed haven't read any, I am pretty sure you will be reading one soon.

How can you be so confident?

Recently, I have been noticing the conspicuous growth of self-help publication industry around the world. What I thought was a typically American phenomenon has been transplanted in countries with long traditions of literature, be it Europe, Asia or the New World, and is doing well in new soil.

You mean writings on how to lead a satisfying life, how to have a fulfilling relationship, how to grow rich, how to raise children, how to deal with annoying people, how to retire comfortably, and so on?

Yes, they are sometime called "how-to" books.

Fear not, such books have existed for a long time. It was in 1922 that Emily Post wrote "Etiquette in Society, in Business, in Politics, and at Home." We can even go back further in time. Niccolò Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" in 1513 and "The Art of War" around 1520. Probably already in the thirteenth century, "Book of the Civilized Man" was penned by Daniel of Beccles. We may say that "Kama Sutra" that came to be in the present form around the second century is also a self-help book.

If you stretch that far, we can say that all Sutras, Torah, the Bible and Qur'an, too, belong to the genre. They tell you how to behave.

Older is the Analects of Confucius, which was written sometime between 480 BC and 220 BC, and "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, written in the 6th century BC. I think any conduct guidance, if in a written form, is a kind of self-help manual. I don't see anything new here.

The problem may have existed from time immemorial, indeed.

So, what is that problem of yours with self-help books?

They give us short-cut answers to life's challenges.

Hurray! I now know why I should be reading one.

Almost in any language there is an adage that says the seemingly shortest route is in fact the longest one to your goal, remember?

Hmmm... I don't see why reading a book on how to write your will would lengthen my time to write a good will.

You are right. Do-it-yourself manuals are justified for issues which require a fair amount of factual information. I am thinking more of topics on life in general.

I don't see anything wrong with, let's say, "Marriage for the Thick-skulled."

That is a borderline case, I would say.

I know that you would not put "Physiologie du Mariage" or "Scènes de la Vie Conjugale" by Honoré de Balzac in your self-help category. But I don't see any fundamental difference between "For the Thick-skulled" and "Physiologie."

How insolent! Philosophy tackles with life's problems, even practical ones such as marriage, but refrains from dishing out detailed what-to-do lists.

Balzac says in "Physiologie": a lover not only gives her life everything, but also makes her forget about life, whereas a husband gives nothing to her life.

He does not say a wife should or is allowed to have an affair. By the way, he ended up marrying his lover.

"The psychology of adultery has been falsified by conventional morals, which assume, in monogamous countries, that attraction to one person cannot coexist with a serious affection for another. Everybody knows that this is untrue." From Bertrand Russell's "Marriage and Morals," as you may have recognized.

But he does not say you should or are allowed to commit adultery. He does not say how to start an extra-martial affair either.

Based on that criterion, they are not self-help writers, but philosophers?

You can say that. The biggest problem with contemporary self-help books is that they exist to minimize your own analysis of your problem. Philosophers write books to present their views of life. You may agree or disagree, and it is up to you to decide what to do with the information. Present day self-help books, on the other hand, very often include a guided analysis of the reader's character. In that sense, most of the books that we cited as self-help books from the old times are more philosophy than self-help.

An analysis of your character... Are you an extrovert, an introvert, a school clown who chews on nails after dark in the backyard, a saint who would not kill an ant, but eats pork chops, a professor in ethics who moonlights as a drug dealer... that kind of a thing?

You and your perversity! Anyway, self-help books not only tell you who you are, but also based on that information, what you should be doing and that in practical terms.

Isn't that awfully helpful?

I agree and there lies the problem. We are asking the self-help gurus to do the thinking for us. But a great deal of the value of solutions to life's problems is in the process of reaching a solution.

In other words, "no pain, no gain"?

I believe so. It may sound easy to memorize a self-help rule, such as "always lend a willing ear to your partner's problems." If it is not a conclusion that you have reached through self-examination, however, you wouldn't be acting according to that rule when you are caught up in the situation.

That may be why there are so many self-help books. People read one, expecting that it would be a panacea, but because of the drawback that you pointed out, their life problems remain as they are; they have to buy another self-help book.

Thinking on your own is extremely important... I think! It should be emphasized more in education.

We don't want rowdy dissenters, you see.

But think about populism, or worse totalitarianism and fascism. Constituents who shirk from thinking on their own are breeding grounds for them.

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.