Dignity, and nothing else

Do you remember talking about relationships based on intimidation and fear?

I do. Your assessment was that some people are so used to the mode that they do not see it as anything bad.

It is convenient for many---which is rather scary, in my opinion---because it spares people from making judgments on their own. Some others have done the thinking for them, and they are willing to follow suit without careful consideration.

I'm afraid such people will always be with us. It does not necessarily have to be intimidation and fear; it could be crowd psychology which has its uses. Without it, we may never reach some kind of consensus.

I beg to differ. Every one of us can think independently, and still reach agreement through compromises. That is what democracy is all about. If we do not discourage crowd psychology, that amounts to allowing seedlings of totalitarianism to grow among us.

What about the problem of personality, though? You have implied that, in the end, what matters is personality, and that the strong ones dominate the others. We have to learn to live with that imperfection.

I agree. In other words, the problem is how to deal with strong characters which tend to steer the system to their liking. We should be equipped with penalties for dictator types.

Ah, that sounds like another avenue to totalitarianism, though, because in the ideal situation, nobody should be dominating or dominated, which suggests that everyone should be alike.

What we need is diversity and value criteria that do not favor the loud and the manipulative over the rest.

I can see that the loud is obviously so, but detecting the manipulative may not be as easy. It will be similar to asking a liar if s/he lies.

Talking about manipulative persons, I have noticed that most people don't mind being friends with them. First of all, manipulation requires intelligence, and that can be useful to the manipulated.

The manipulated is so, precisely because they are less cunning or smart than the manipulating. The manipulating can use their intelligence to the true good of the manipulated, if they wish so.

In other occasions, they use the intelligence to do damage. The interesting thing is that the manipulated count the manipulating as friends, even good friends.

Oh, s/he is sometimes not so nice, but other times s/he is. Is this how the thinking goes?

I presume so. They take it as a fact of life that people are not nice all the time.

But it is.

That may be so, but the problem here is that the manipulating is in total control of the emotional ups and downs of her/his targets.

Isn't that one of ignorance-is-bliss cases?

Could be. For me, it is painful and frustrating to see that some people's happiness is subject to the whims of the manipulating, who belong to the category of the wicked and the evil.

When you are smarter than others, it's difficult not to be manipulative, even if you are against such behavior. We know that one, right?

Children are manipulated by grown-ups, I think we can say that.

I'm not sure whether manipulation is a good term. We make use of child psychology, and that is different from manipulation.

On paper, they are not the same, but in the real world, there are many borderline cases.

Borderline cases... your favorite!

Think about a parent who wishes her/his child not to take up horse riding. The parent can complain about the bad smell---existent or nonexistent---after riding lessons until the child is totally convinced that s/he should stop going to the stable if s/he wants to keep her/his friends.

But then again, isn't the outcome dependent on the personality of the parent versus that of the child?

It is, but that does not take away the fact that there is manipulative element in what we call education and discipline. Recommendation alone can be used to encourage or discourage children to think in certain ways.

Well, education and discipline are, after all, imposing on children what adults think best; we cannot get rid of what could be considered manipulation.

We should, however, recognize that factor and try our best not to force any idea down the throat.

It sounds almost impossible. How can you teach ethics, for example? Usually, our minds are not negotiable when it comes to what is good or bad.

You could present your ethical values as the best possible system that you know, which could be improved upon. Certainly, it should not be taught as the universal truth.

Isn't that rather weak?

I think not. It is always good to know that your thoughts may have some unknown shortcomings. And, it is possible to openly admit so while maintaining firm belief in them.

Are you trying to tell me how to graciously change my ideas, if need be?

Not allowing leeway for yourself could put you in a quite awkward or ugly situation. Plus, it is difficult to trust people who go from one extreme to another, I think.

But extremes are attractive because of their simplicity.

Certainly. Extreme positions are often crowned with the adjective, 'pure'... Getting back to relationships, it surprises me that most people seem to think that slighting and hurting each other is a normal element in any relationship.

If people could stand psychological manipulation, it's not so surprising, is it?

True, the biggest surprise for me may be that people fail to recognize the manipulative and the abusive motives. They are also ready to go on as if nothing had happened after they hurt each other. That astonishes me as well.

Let me guess, you do not want any slighting or hurting, needless to say manipulating. That's not quite possible, you should know that.

In my mind, slighting, hurting, abusing, manipulating, etc. preclude close relationships if they know what they are doing. What if someone puts you down because s/he wants to feel better about her/himself?

That one again...

If someone is capable of doing so even once, trust for that person cannot be re-established, I would think. Consider a rather complicated case in which a friend of yours and you talk about relationships and you agree that such an act would destroy any relationship forever.

Good that we have like-minded people around.

What if that very person engages in that act of taking out her/his insecurity on you?

If we have talked about it explicitly, that is indeed serious.

What if s/he happens to be one of your best friends?

Does that change how wrong the act is?

It doesn't, but the impact is bigger, because it is someone whom you trusted. There is another case which happens, I suspect, more specifically to me.

Which is...?

They start with an assumption that I am ignorant and stupid.

What can I say---who can blame them?

In my mind, they have made an inexcusable mistake at that point already, namely, they have violated the rule of treating every person so as to preserve her/his dignity.

Tell me the next offense.

They are very aggressive toward or dismissive of my opinion, until one day, they realize that I am not that dumb and start treating me a bit more nicely.

Shouldn't they be forgiven then?

I would say this is a variant of intimidation and fear. Only after they learn that I have the mental capacity that is equal or superior to theirs, I emerge as a full human being in their world.

At least, they acknowledge it.

There is another problem. If they happen to put me in their very-smarty category, they start taking my views as the best without examining them.

From one extreme to another, eh?

We do more or less the same with the information that we have no means of verifying. We all have favorite television and radio programs, newspapers, and websites, and we take what they present as accurate, unbiased description of the topic, most of the time.

How can we be absolutely sure that it wasn't Bill's double who went to Pyongyang? The rumor has it that the one who talked to Kim Jong-Il did not crack a single joke.

Comrade, that is not worth pursuing... Anyway, if the concern is something to which we have roughly equal access in terms of relevant information, we should not cede our right and duty to think and make a judgment on our own.

I see, they turn unnecessarily submissive from being wrongly dismissive. In short, they commit three grave crimes.

There's more.

Oh, no!

What if they become frustrated because I do not want to be friends with them?

You may have to forgive, you know.

Forgive? Should I be friends with people who turn nice only after I was able to appear---and that in their eyes---not as a total idiot, and who are most likely to commit the same crimes against others?

Perhaps some of them have changed for good.

The soul of a three year old until a hundred. What is learned in the cradle is carried to the grave. Ce que poulain prend en jeunesse, il le continue en vieillesse. Lo que se aprende en la cuna, siempre dura.

Shhhh, calm down. Shall we talk about experience, learning and all that next time?

It's about dignity, the most important thing in our lives. How come that most people don't care, their own or others'?

That may be because dignity as the most important aspect in life is your universal truth, and not the universal truth, you see...

Dictated by internal math

It looks like you survived another session of personal details.

After all, we all eat, sleep, and play, work or study. Most of us have friends and families. Our experiences ought to be similar. In turn, it means that we should be able to identify and sympathize with almost anyone on earth.

If I remember correctly, you could no longer bear listening to what you just described as common experiences of humanity.

I can explain myself better. It's the dose...

The very best food stays that way only if you stop eating it while you still want more of it.

...and the perspective that are crucial.

The view, the light, the angle... Anything can be interesting when its picture is taken by a gifted photographer, put on stage by a talented company, performed by an artistic musician, or told by a skillful storyteller. Come to think of it, the adjective, oblique, means indirect or evasive.

If something is not of an oblique angle, it is of a right angle or a multiple of a right angle.

I don't think it implies that being direct is correct.

It certainly depends on the situation, but I am of the opinion that insinuations are much more effective in the long run than making your thoughts too clear.

Think about the chill that runs along the spine when the message is finally understood!

That chill can be from joy or... It is effective, because it makes you realize that you had stayed ignorant up to that point. In other words, you have made a fool of yourself. Since the message is indirect, you start examining the situation yourself, and that gradually. It is almost like taking slow-working medicine/poison unknowingly before going to bed every night.

And one day... Quelle horreur ! Ah non, quelle joie ! It could be that, too, I hope.

It is powerful, because you reach the conclusion on your own.

We would not want to put a good friend in that position if the message is negative, do we?

That is true, but there are limits, as always. I don't want to tell a person that I get tired of listening to the-tip-of-my-cat's-tail-hasn't-been-quite-right, I-am-spending-too-much-time-on-the-phone-but-I-don't-know-what-to-do, I-thought-Barber-A-was-decent-but-he-isn't-and-I-much-prefer-Barber-Z-now, all-my-neighbors-are-either-boring-or-nasty, my-distant-relative-who-lives-far-away-ran-away-from-home, etc., etc., etc. That would make me an evil person.

It's all about you, eh? Don't you care about the person to whom you would be saying that?

As I said, I would never say anything like that. I know that I would feel very bad, thinking about the psychological damage that I would have inflicted. And, that is the deterrent.

Put differently, you don't want to make someone feel bad, because that would make you feel bad---correct?

The most reliable source of our actions is biological impulses that directly concern ourselves.

Not again!

Sadly, we will always go back to that one. But don't get it wrong, it certainly does not mean that we are all destined to act like savages.

I thought almost everyone expect us was a savage...

The trick is to how to program morality into your biology.

How can you do that?

Emotions are based on biochemical reactions, and we can train ourselves so that we would feel psychological pain when we envisage engaging in immoral acts.

Do I have to sign up for a brain-washing camp?

Some of our psychological reactions are innate, but we can also experience an event that creates a response pattern to similar ones.

The stronger the emotions invoked by an event are, the more entrenched that pattern would be. If it is too negative, it can wreck you for good. Is this how it works?

In order to make use of our biological processes to meet our needs, conscious management of our emotions is required.

May I ask how you manage yours, ahem?

It may sound trivial, but just summarizing your experience in words in your mind reinforces your view of it.

This was good, I would like to do it again. That was bad, I hope I don't have to get into that situation any more. If I do, I would like to act differently. That kind of stuff?

Exactly, our thoughts are based on biochemical reactions, just as emotions are.

Thinking about what you want to do would help realizing it. I think we talked about this one.

That was more about life goals, but the principle applies to mundane acts as well. Anyway, are you now convinced that the very source of our behavior is biology, but the mechanism is alterable by our conscious efforts to do so?

Doesn't it mean, though, that we only do what brings us pleasure?

In effect, yes.

I know that I wouldn't feel good if I leave dirty dishes in the sink overnight, but I occasionally do.

I would say that the pain of washing the dishes immediately is larger than the pain of seeing them next morning still dirty. It may appear like a stupid act, but I don't think it is.

Really?

Lately, I have been amazed how complicated a calculation we carry out on deciding what to do.

Aren't the calculations sometimes wrong?

I used to think that way, but I no longer believe so. You may not be able to verbalize how you reached your conclusion, but your mind with all the biological inputs have done the intricate calculation for you. You choose to let the dirt on your dishes cake overnight if the biochemical output says so.

Where is my consciousness, then?

It is possible that on certain occasions you think, "No, I don't want to see caked food on my dishes tomorrow morning. I am going to do the dishes tonight." Your conscious thinking makes you overcome your unconscious thinking.

If both thinking are biochemical, shouldn't the result be the same at any time?

I guess your willingness to wash the dishes right away is weak. Not entrenched, so to speak. Sometimes the chemicals work to make that feeling strong, other times not. If you think about it more strongly, I am sure that you will be able to trigger that reaction every time.

What about drug addiction and such? Many people do want to quit, but many also do not manage.

We do need our will, but the environment affects it. For example, what if there is no prospect of finding a job, even for drug-free people? It is better to stay addicted and feel good. There is little incentive to quit, and that diminishes our desire to do so.

I'd say that is the same with people who engage in one crime after another.

I agree. Some people know that there is little to lose by engaging to criminal acts. They may not be able to explain it so, but their desperation is supported by nothing other than their biochemical reactions in their mind. We all do intricate math in our heads without knowing its precise mechanism.

We can run without being able to explain how to move which muscle at a given moment. It's akin to that.

We also know people who remain in so-called bad relationships. I'd say that they have done their calculations, too, and the outcomes tell them to keep the relationships.

You can listen to others' complaints and pretend that you are a nice person, as long as you can complain to me about them---is this what you are implying?

Liberté, égalité, fraternité

I thought we were about to celebrate New Year's Day and Independence Day.

Which Independence Day are you talking about?

Haiti, of course. It was immediately followed by another Independence Day on January 4th, and...

Which country now?

Myanmar, of course. After a while, I thought Cinco de Mayo was fast approaching, and then in a rush, came July 4th and 14th.

I know why you remember all these dates--it's because you make them an excuse to eat and drink beyond what is needed for survival.

We are here to live, not to survive.

But some people do not have that choice. Only when our survival is guaranteed, we can start thinking about living a life.

I used to think that it was mainly in developing countries that biological survival is on everyone's mind, but now I think developed countries without social safety nets are just as bad.

I agree. Lack of good social welfare system means that, at any moment, you may be thrown into a situation where basic food and shelter become an issue.

And yet, the developed countries set themselves apart by the name 'developed.' Quelle audacité, je dirais.

Well, they've got the latest technology.

According to that criterion, the capacity to construct a functional nuclear bomb makes a country developed. What do you think about the case of Pakistan?

All right, I concede that it is has to do with the standard of living as well.

We are back to our starting point. If a citizen of a certain country has to worry about whether s/he would be able to find food and roof the following day, we cannot say that the standard of living in that country is high. In other words, social welfare system is necessarily linked to standard of living, and hence, how developed that country is.

The countries with meager social welfare systems often have weak public infrastructure, I have noticed.

Some of us are unaware that blackouts should not happen if we want to call ourselves developed. What good are all these electronic gadgets and devices when electricity is not guaranteed?

If they stick to their get-it-if-you-think-you-deserve-it principle, everyone should be generating electricity on her/his own.

I sense great reluctance, even refusal, among certain circles to admit that societies work best when there is cooperation, and that any cooperation entails give-and-take elements. You can't have everything your way, because if everyone behaves for her/himself alone, we all lose in the end.

Tragedy of the commons!

I think that applies not only to resources which are limited or non-renewable. It has a wider application, in fact, to all facets of life. Isn't it ironic that Garrett Hardin was a Texan? Anyway, the reason why I referred to the days for commemorating countries' independence is that...

Every clock and watch you own is letting time pass like a maniac, and you just don't know where it is disappearing---right?

The last time when I thought life was too slow, I was nine-years old. I was anxious to engage myself in marvelous undertakings, similar to or greater than what I was reading.

For instance?

To establish a theory that is more powerful than the general theory of relativity.

Some others had the same idea, and because they were considerably smarter than you, they came up with the superstring theory. I hope you are aware of that.

It's very hard for me to get over that one.

Do you have an alternative to propose, you mean?

No, I am bad at physics, but I do know that something that attempts to explain everything does not explain anything.

Rather lame, my comrade! I would not go that far, but it is true that generalization may pale in front of a specific example. At the same time, only through generalization we can make use of our experiences and knowledge, because that is a necessary step for extrapolation.

... We got sidetracked. I was thinking about Independence Days, because my experience of late has led me to conclude that it is extremely difficult to live by the principle of liberté, égalité, fraternité.

Some may not want to live by liberty, equality, and fraternity. By the way, July 14th is not an Independence Day, mind you.

Don't you think very few would deny its greatness, though?

Ah, talk to Confucianists. Surely they would disagree that parents and children are equal.

You may be thinking that the principle does not go down well in traditional societies, but the ones without social safety nets are also transgressing it.

How so?

How can one's liberty be guaranteed when the society turns away as you lose your job? Or equality, for that matter? What kind of fraternity is it, if a company cuts thousands of workers, but the executives have the same pay that is several times more than that of employees who are laid off?

Indeed. Power should come with responsibility, and if the companies are not doing well, that must be because the ones at the helm are not making the right decisions.

Put differently, they are the ones who should shoulder the burden, but instead, they let go of the people who worked for them in the way they ordered to... We got sidetracked, yet one more time! What I wanted to talk about is liberté, égalité, fraternité on a personal basis.

I take it that you still want to.

Suppose what you say does not interest a certain person, and what s/he says does not interest you.

That happens more often than I care to admit.

Further suppose that you two are family members or friends.

I understand that it happens among family members, but friends? I wouldn't become friends with such a person to start with.

What if it is gradually revealed that you two cannot carry out a conversation that is interesting to both, but at that point, it is too late to call off the relationship?

Are we talking about some kind of an old-fashioned courtship?

No, if it were courting, calling off wouldn't be difficult. I'd simply say that I am no longer in love.

It's again your problem, eh? How did you get into that kind of situation?

Well, I happen to be a good listener.

That's a very bad joke. I hope you realize that.

I babble away when I am with you, but with others, I am more restrained. It is my strategy to listen to the other party and find out which thoughts of mine could be blurted out.

And?

What happens in the cases that I am concerned about is that I listen and listen and listen. As they found out that I am good at empathizing, they started unloading everything onto me. The reward is that I have become one of their best friends.

What's wrong with that?

Judging from their stories, there is little of my thoughts that would be appropriate to discuss.

Have you tried?

I have. They don't cut me short, but only give acknowledgment that they are listening. I can even tell that they are waiting for me to finish so that they can relaunch their own stories. Some of them give me blank stares, and some others make a face. Some even said that I must be crazy.

Shouldn't you exercise eloquence to make your stories more attractive?

What if I understand them, but they do not understand me?

I thought you didn't want anybody to understand you.

It's different from your not understanding me. Theirs is at a more fundamental level.

Is that supposed to be a back-handed compliment?

The problem is that, if they think I am a good friend of theirs, I feel I should not let them down. I am also made to feel guilty for not being as eager as they are to see each other. My-spouse/partner/lover-did-this, my-mother/father/sibling-did-that, my-neighbor-did-what, my-child-did-this-and-that, my-in-law-is-terrible-beyond-belief, my-boss-is-a-nightmare, my-dog-is-the-only-consolation-but-she-too-can-be-from-hell, my-health-and-weight-are-blah-but-can't-do-anything-about-them, my-car-had-to-be-fixed-and-imagine-what-I-had-to-go-through, and so on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and... Please, I can't take it any more!

You may not like talking about personal details, but that is why people think you are stuck up, even secretive, you know.

It's not that I don't want to talk or hear about such subjects. It is only that they should not be the main topics. It would certainly be unfair to say that they do not say anything interesting. Sometimes they do.

Are you aware that you are insulting them?

But it's mutual! Anyway, the point is: however marvelous liberté, égalité, fraternité may sound, it is difficult to practice it, even at personal levels. In the relationships that I described, there is no equality and little liberty. I don't dare think about fraternity.

Has it ever occurred to you that they may be thinking exactly the same about you?

I truly wish they were. I will be freed of my guilty feelings.

May I deduce that you are not going to introduce me to them?

I told them about you, but they have completely ignored the information.

How can anyone count you as a friend without acknowledging the existence of our project?

... You see?

Peter Pan, why did you leave me?

I have been feeling cheated lately.

How big is the damage?

Very big. It's about life in its entirety.

Well, nobody guaranteed you anything marvelous and fabulous. I don't think anybody has been promised such things.

What about people who are born with silver spoons in their mouths?

Or, those born in a crib made of gold?

Can be both, if you are half Anglo and half Portuguese...

If you happen not to be born under such circumstances, just remember what the Georgians say. Better your own copper than another man's gold. By the way, any idea on the perpetuators who inflicted that horrible damage on you?

I know exactly who they are.

Can you give away their names?

Of course. Madame d'Aulnoy, Charles Perrault, Jeanne Marie Le Prince de Beaumont, Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen, J. M. Barrie...

They are all authors of fairy tales! Do you mean to say that they gave you wrong ideas about life?

Yes. For example, they inculcated in me that the good triumphs over the evil. You know how disappointing it can be when you cannot let go of that belief when you have become a grown-up.

Their stories are world famous, so if it is their fault that you believe in such a false idea, other people must suffer from the same consequences. However, we all know that the vast majority of us does not. The inevitable conclusion is that it is your problem that you cannot shed that misconception about the world we live in.

They also told me that being good will eventually make you nice-looking.

I'm not sure about that, although it is implied that correct people are always handsome.

Anyway, why did they try to deceive me in the first place?

Many of the contes de fées were written initially for adults, but were watered down for children. They were changed to meet their demands.

But that's like giving them a candy whenever they ask for one!

I guess you can say that.

I think it's a plot by the adults to keep the children innocent and simple so that they are easy to manipulate.

Just as we discipline them to be honest for our purposes? Isn't it true though that children prefer stories meant for children to those for adults?

That's the issue that I just raised. Should you feed them candies instead of other more nutritious food for dinner, just because they prefer candies?

Do you want them to start thinking early in their lives that the truly good guys are not necessarily meant to win in real life? Or, life may not turn out to be as glamorous as one wishes it to be?

Well, we can say that we overdose children with optimism so that they can survive through this arduous process called life. If we already turn pessimistic as kids, it would be harder to deal with difficulties which are to come.

Yes, we can do with some optimism, ahem.

It puzzles me that I haven't heard some kind of an apology as I turned into an adult, something to the effect of: "All these years we enchanted you with fairies, pirates, and talking pigs and bears. We also told you stories in which the good guys beat the bad ones hands down. Sorry kid, those were plain lies. Forget about them. We just wanted you to believe that you are one of the selected few and look forward to what life could offer to those few, because..."

It's not that bad, I'd say.

Let me finish, please.

All right, go ahead.

"Because if you die before you procreate, there will be a big problem with passing on the genes, you see, and that is something we want to avoid at all cost."

You've reduced it to a biological problem again!

We are living organisms. We can't get away from that, I'm afraid.

It may be so, but can't we say that the grown-ups are genuinely helping the children in facing hardships in the future?

Optimism is one thing, mispresentation of life, another. Don't you remember the shock that you experienced when you found out that a Captain Hook does get his way in reality?

For me, it wasn't a big bang. The realization came slowly, so when I became fully conscious of that fact, it had been quite some time that I had suspected it.

I think it is a crime against humanity. Everyday, I struggle with the discrepancy between what we were told we should be doing and what people actually do. If we do believe in what we teach, we should at least try to practice it. But most people go about as if they have never heard of honesty, fairness, morality, integrity, dignity, correctness...

The first one to abandon the gentlemen's code in the gentlemen's world is the one who manages to snatch away more than her/his fair share.

Those guys wouldn't understand what "more than fair share" is. They think they deserve it all. Life becomes a competition to shed decency, because that is the easiest way to have it your way. Do you know what such an attitude is called?

I know what you are thinking, capitalisme sauvage, right?

Bravo, my dear comrade! Let me add that authoritarianism, totalitarianism, fascism, etc., are all guilty of the same, namely, abuse of the less powerful.

And precisely in such a world, a silver spoon and a golden crib can be of great help...

Think about it, the ones who believed in the ideal world as presented by adults lose in the end, and those who didn't give a hoot win. If this is not a conspiracy, what is?

Another way to put it is that the children who are smart enough to realize the scheme get ahead. It's all about smartness and gullibility.

The fact remains: you should have never trusted the adults who told you and made you to trust them.

Going back to the stories for children, don't you think your childhood could have been less joyful if it had not been for the authors that you mentioned, plus Astrid Lindgren and...

Pippi! Karlsson! Rasmus! Where are you?

Michael Ende and...

Atréju!

Eleanor Farjeon and...

Martin Pipppppppiiiiiiiinnnn...!

... Are you still there?

Bored, but nothing too new, please

People differ in what leads them to happiness. Do you remember saying that last time?

I certainly do. If you are not entirely convinced of that proposition, just look around and see what kind of people are sitting together. Some look like they are in long-term relationships. Considering what and how they are talking to each other, and how they look, do you think you may have locked yourself into a relationship with any of them?

You mean they are lucky that they found each other. It's a matter of taste, isn't it?

We are very fortunate that we differ in our tastes, because if not, only the selected few would find company.

In your case, the unwanted suitors are the ones who fail to understand that there exists such difference which can be sometimes---all right, I rephrase, "very often"---enormous, huge, humongous...

You have understood it all!

I thought I wasn't supposed to... By the way, are you sure that we are so different from one another? Many people claim that they want to meet 'interesting' people, but when you bring an interesting person to a gathering, most of them complain that s/he is eccentric or crazy.

I would take that as further evidence of how different we are, or more specifically, how different you are from others.

I see it as a manifestation of our desire to have it both ways, similar and different. We all want something different, once in a while, but within limits.

The problem is that people complain as if they were not constrained by such limits, whereas in fact their admissible range of variation is quite small. The true reward comes when you succeed in understanding and appreciating something you did not before, but that requires quite a bit of effort.

Plus, we all need something to hate, or at least, dislike.

We cannot possibly love every person in the universe and everything under the sun. It is a matter of how you deal with your feelings of hatred, disgust, repugnance, dislike, aversion, or how you fulfill your need to dislike something or somebody in a way that is not destructive.

I have also noticed that we desire both the old and the new.

Something familiar can be boring, but at the same time, reassuring. Something known to have persisted for generations feels imposing, because most of us accept it without question. It is comforting to know, however, that what you are made to believe in has withstood the test of time and is likely to endure after your lifetime.

To complicate matters, what we think is tradition changes.

It is a contradiction in terms, but since nothing in this world is static, that seems inevitable. Tradition must adapt to changing circumstances, if it were to survive.

Dishes that were traditionally prepared with a mortar and a pestle are nowadays made with a food processor---for example, pesto and almond milk. Taste is sacrificed for convenience, because we have so little time for cooking compared to the old times.

Not all traditions need to be modified for the worse. Occasionally, simple, new interpretations revive what has been known for the longest time, but had fallen into the category of obsolete. What was old becomes new, so to speak. That way, the new is not too new, and meets the needs of the masses.

The Occident's interest in Hatha Yoga has boosted its domestic popularity, I heard.

I would like to think that it is not just because of the endorsement by the West, but also because of the recognition of the greatness of the culture, made possible by coming into contact with other cultures.

Organic food is what we had in prehistoric times, but we are going back to that for ecological and health reasons. We may say that that latest furoshiki fad is also motivated by our concern for the environment.

At some point, it was nothing but a proof of greater affluence if the number of private cars per capita was larger. Today, it's a sign of environmental irresponsibility and short-sighted city planning.

Don't you think that it is a great irony that we go back to what we abandoned earlier?

There is one type of tradition that must continue to evolve in order to survive, and that is language. It has been demonstrated many times that languages fall into disuse and eventually become extinct when they lose the capacity to describe our daily lives. That is, to keep up with the times.

What about Latin?

You're right, that one is still popular among aficionados of language, history, theology, philosophy, etc., but it has been dead as a vernacular for so long. It will be difficult to bring it back to life if it could not describe what we can do with our personal computers, for example.

Doesn't it mean that the survival of languages other than English is threatened?

To put it strongly, yes. When new terms are coined so frequently, we cannot leave it to the public at large until their equivalents are invented in other languages. We consciously need to come up with a translation before the word in English---for example, e-mail---becomes established as the word in other languages.

If I am not mistaken, Jean-Benoît Nadeau and Julie Barlow said something to that effect in their book, "The Story of French."

In fact, a language never stays exactly the same, even without advances in technology. We constantly come up with new words and expressions, sometimes merely to substitute those that already exist and have served us well.

Or, some of us dig out words that have been forgotten for centuries. Wasn't Jacques Chirac known for that? It fits your formula of old disguised as new.

True, there is some kind of revival in languages, too, and their history is not strictly one-way, as I may have ended up asserting a moment ago.

Anyway, adjustment to modernity is a convenient reason---or excuse---to amend some customs and habits that persisted under the name of tradition and religion.

Indeed. How can you otherwise convince people to give up their judgment systems which they are brought up with? You cannot appeal to rationality, because we operate under different systems, all of which are considered rational by their adherents. I think the only way that may come close to convincing them to change their ways is to emphasize the necessity of adaptation to the modern times.

If J.C. and M.A. were alive today, they would have wholeheartedly approved of homosexual priests and female truck drivers, right?

Love is not almighty

Love is better than hatred.

Certainly. It seems to me that the expression, "better than," is too weak for the comparison. Love should be the way of life, and not hatred.

I essentially agree with you, but there are all sorts of love, you know. Some can be as harmful as hatred.

Do you mean something like obsessive love?

That's one, but there are others. To love is an act that can be conducted without the recipient's consent. In other words, there are kinds of love that the recipients do not appreciate.

When you love a person, you wish her/him to be happy, but instead, you make her/him unhappy. How do we come to that?

It's well possible, because we are different in what leads to happiness. "[T]he person whose affection is satisfactory to us must not merely wish us well but must know in what our happiness consists."

Bertrand Russell, this time? I suppose you have in mind suitors who shower their targets with unwanted gifts and invitations.

Such people are pure annoyance to the receiving side, and must terminate their pursuits immediately.

Isn't it true that in this asymmetric world of male and female, men do not change their minds in the course of being pursued, but women often do?

Do you want to say that women start enjoying the attention if it persists? If so, you are dead wrong.

A sweeping statement from a small sample, I take it.

We only need one counterexample to falsify your hypothesis. Karl Popper would have approved of its formulation.

But I thought your all-time favorite movie was "Cinema Paradiso." In that film, Elena gives Salvatore a cold shoulder at first, but is won over by his, let's say, tenacious affection. She eventually leaves him after what looks like a very happy period for both of them, but afterwards, he does not quite manage to forget her.

Ah, l'amooooore!

Do I have to praise your pronunciation?

Anyway, I'd say the reality is far uglier. If you truly care about a person and s/he does not enjoy your attention, let alone company, you should back off. In most cases, the suitors do not.

What do you think about Paul Simon's "Still Crazy After All These Years"?

A nice song, but such a case in the real world can be terribly irritating. Besides, the song is about an old lover, and not a rejected suitor from long ago.

I thought ever-lasting love was a great compliment under any circumstances.

I tell you, it can be goose-bump generating, nausea inducing, mucus producing...

No exaggeration, please.

I am not exaggerating at all; unilateral love can lead to hatred from the other party. How would you feel if you find out that a person who is inferior to you in all aspects wants to be in an exclusive relationship with you?

Are we talking about lice, or perhaps mosquitoes?

I prefer lice and mosquitoes, because I can squash them flat with my slipper.

You don't have to kill them, do you? Anyway, some people like to be dominated.

I take display of such wishes as an unpardonable insult.

Now, now...

It is also a sign of stupidity for not seeing what I want and that s/he is incapable of giving it to me.

We have been talking about you, eh? They are overly optimistic as if to compensate for your pessimism---isn't that a good match?

I did not say that I was talking about my own experience! By the way, optimism in excess, or pessimism for that matter, can get ridiculous, and we should realize that.

What about being on the other side of the river----haven't you committed the crime of pursuing someone unsuccessfully?

You know that I am too proud to do anything like that.

I'd say you are too proud to admit to anything like that.

What about you? I'm sure you have had unwanted quests as well as unrequited ones.

Let's move on to another case. Consider a mother who sends her drug addicted son to a rehabilitation center. Clearly, she has long-term welfare of her son in mind, but her act may not be appreciated by him. In the same vein, unappreciated suitors may believe that they can guarantee their targets' happiness forever.

What if the pursued suffers from itchiness all over body when s/he thinks about the unwanted suitor? What if the drug addicted son does not even want to think about drug-free life?

What if a child does not want to do her/his homework, and play outside instead?

What if parents push their children into carrier choices, marriages, etc. against their wishes with the righteousness that they had for homework?

All right, it looks like there is a gray zone, even in the domain of parental love.

Contrary to what most parents think, parental love is not unconditionally good for and beneficial to the children. The phrase, "Because I love you," should not be used by any party to force their will upon others. The other phrase, "If you love me," is blackmailing, plain and simple, if you ask me. And you must have guessed already---what constitutes a gray zone differs from person to person.

Perhaps we can say that our happiness should not be sought at the expense of others'? For example, the drug addicted son may be uncontrollably violent and harm innocent passers-by, when there is not enough drug in his bloodstream. If so, he should be cured of addiction.

What if your suitor sends you a suicidal note, because you are not interested in her/him?

I will have to sacrifice my happiness for that person's, or s/he for mine.

As I said earlier, it all boils down to understanding what the person of your interest wants. To love someone in a way that you see fit, but does not meet the other party's desires and needs, is an instance of selfish love. I don't even know if we should be using the word, love, in this case.

Hmmm... It looks like we cannot save the world with love of the loosely defined kind.

"The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge."

Bertie again!

You see, he agrees with me that, in order to understand something, we have to like it first, and that love is not a panacea.

Aren't we thrown back to the issue of compromise and a battle of personalities, though?

Heaven can be deadly boring

Your ultimate goal is to be understood. In the meantime, you wish others to acknowledge that they have not understood, and continue making efforts to understand you better. However, when they think they have understood you and give you the assessment of who you are, you are going to flatly deny it whatever that may be.

Did I say all that last time?

It came to nothing more and nothing less than that.

Hmmm... You may be right.

I am sure that I am, and I also know that you'd rather not admit it because it's selfish.

Why is it selfish?

You are asking for so much efforts on your behalf, which are at the end to be punished, no matter what.

As a member of any community, we have the duty to keep, or at least attempt to keep, relationships in a good condition. That means we have to try to understand each other. At the same time, I'd say anyone who thinks s/he understands another person in totality must do away with that illusion, because it borders on arrogance.

It's getting worse! Why does it bother you so badly if someone thinks and says s/he understands you?

In most cases, they have several types of people in mind and force me into one of them. It becomes awfully inconvenient when that becomes clear to me and we get into a situation where I do not feel like acting along that type. They either do not see my deviation from it, or become convinced that I do not fit any type known to them. In the latter case, I am labeled a monster.

Hey, who can blame them?

Seriously, it's a non-trivial problem, because when people totally give up understanding me, they invariably assume that almost every aspect of me is negative. Whenever their implicit assumptions are revealed, they do not fail to appall me. I feel like almost shouting, "Do you think I would ever do that? Haven't you seen enough evidence that I would never do such a thing?''

Remember, the only occasions that deserve shouting are emergency situations. If you want to stay civilized, that is.

Isn't what I described an emergency?

Well, I'm not sure what your 'such a thing' refers to, but I suppose it's something more important than wearing a pair of socks that does not match with each other.

The point is that it underscores the importance of differentiating the aspects of persons we understand from those we do not, and be conscious about it. Would you agree that it is much less selfish if I do the same for others, namely try my best all the time to understand them better?

It would be, I guess. But you know, the problem is that you are imposing your philosophy onto others.

Hurray! I now rank among the world's biggest religious leaders, like J.C. and...

Calm down, the followers are around.

Anyway, I can't imagine any alternative to living along your own principles.

If everyone has her/his own principles, most likely they would not coincide. That means, we need to compromise.

When personal principles happen to be exactly the same, that is when someone is not thinking and blindly following someone else. It could be sheer laziness, lack of capacity, or even willingness to be bullied.

A corollary of Arrow's impossibility theorem?

You can say that. I am willing to compromise, but within reasonable bounds.

That's what people say when they are not going to compromise at all.

Isn't it true, though, that if you keep on compromising, the end result is being pushed over?

How do we find middle ground then?

Sadly, it is not found through rational and amicable discussions.

I knew it, it's one of your "brutal facts," right?

Yes, and it's a battle of personalities.

Tell me, what do you think would happen if J.C. were engaged in his gig in one village and M.A. doing his in the village nearby? Do you think they would have a civilized debate when their paths cross? Would they resort to a thumb wrestling match, or something violent?

Religious leaders, especially founders, have extremely strong personalities, so it could be pretty gruesome. If they had met, we would not be here to peacefully prattle our time away.

Poor Robert! If the two had had come face to face, neither would he have had the chance to engage in the Manhattan Project, nor would have been born to start with.

In more realistic and mundane settings, too, the one who has the stronger personality tends to prevail. However, if her/his behavior and attitude stir negative emotions in people, s/he could be merely tolerated, or even shunned. Consider a person who believes that everyone is out to get her/him. We would be obliged to interact with her/him, because we are all interdependent in this society, but very few would be willing to go along that way of thinking.

It means that the one with a strong personality, but who positively affects others, gets her/his way in the end. Which, in turn, means that the good triumphs over the evil.

Only if it were so simple...

I simply rephrased what you said!

Throw into the equation some factors like money, social standing, esthetics, and carnal desires.

They are what gives the evil the look of the good, and vice versa.

Only if it were so simple...

What now?

In "La Trilogie marseillaise" by Marcel Pagnol, Fanny is a beautiful woman, aged 18, and in love with another nice-looking 22 year-old, Marius. He is in love with her, too, but he is not giving her what she needs. In this picture is another character, a 50 year-old, Honoré, who does not have the attractiveness of Marius, but is very much willing to provide Fanny with what she needs: financial support and stable affection.

Even a cover for Fanny's unwanted pregnancy... It's a classic case, isn't it? It's more fun to be with the young guy, but the old guy provides security in all aspects.

Pagnol solves the problem by killing Honoré just before Marius shows up in the scene again.

That is not a stretch, because Honoré is a lot older than the other two.

Marius, who has become more mature, and Fanny are reunited, and they are left with a nice sum from Honoré and the child from the unwanted pregnancy whose father is, in fact, Marius.

You have to tell me how this fits with personal philosophy of the good kind squeezing out the bad kind.

The general direction of the world is indeed just as you described, but what is good and what is bad are not so clear in many cases.

I think the good won in Fanny's case, because Honoré gave her what she needed at the right time, and so did Marius.

Suppose Marius suddenly grows up to face off Honoré before Fanny marries him?

And if Marius does not dig out a coffer of gold coins from the harbor sledge...

It becomes a matter of passion versus tranquility, not exactly the good versus the evil. So many stories have been written about it, and still many more are coming out.

I told you already; it's a classic, almost yawn-inviting, dilemma. If we did agree unanimously to which we should give more weight, your corollary says that someone may be bullied into thinking so.

The nature of things is that the good eventually tramps the evil. But because the character of anything in this world is a function of multiple variables, nothing is purely good or evil. Moreover, we are born with various temperaments and tastes that, unless we are forced, we tend to think and perceive differently. That is why we see diversity around us, I think.

In other words, there is more than one that could be labeled good, and so is the case with evil.

We are innately different from one another, and the differences are never erased even when the culture is to make everyone alike.

Although the good is to triumph, nobody's "good" wins hands down.

Rejoice my dear comrade, we are saved from boredom!

Doesn't it mean that it can get pretty boring in heaven?