I saw a billboard on I-15 today. It read, "REMEMBER 9/11. No Ground Zero Mosque." This text, written in red over a background of 9/11 rubble, was the most Un-American and Un-Christian thing I've ever seen. (As if such an act would indicate our forgetfulness. How presumptuous of this ad.)
Now, I don't normally get too riled up about politics, even when it gets positively insane. But I've had about enough of this.
Let's forget about how the "Mosque" is mainly a community center to which all are welcome. Let's forget about how this building, although only two blocks away, cannot even be seen from Ground Zero. Let's forget about how the almighty terrible "Mosque" will include a basketball court and a culinary school. Let's forget the government's own neglect of Ground Zero still leaves a gaping scar on the face of New York, which is an even bigger disgrace to those that died there. And finally let's forget about the other Mosque, the one that has been open for over thirty years, Masjid Manhattan, that is only four blocks away from Ground Zero.
Let's forget about all of this and focus on some other things. First, that this is Un-American action and ignorant bigotry. And second, this is an Un-Christian sentiment. I'm not saying that rallying against a "Ground Zero Mosque" means you hate America or Christianity. I'm saying that it makes you a hypocrite.
First, for all the Glenn Beck worshipers, let's focus on the Constitution, the thing that made America, America. For all who don't know what the First Amendment says, here you go, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." You are welcome. "But," you protest, "Congress isn't making a law against them worshipping!" Maybe it's the Democrat in me, or maybe just the rational human, but am I the only one who sees this case going to the Supreme Court if their building permit is denied? Preventing them from building would violate this Amendment on two counts. One by prohibiting the free exercise of their religion and two by preventing the people to peaceably assemble. (I know 'assembly' is usually interpreted as a protest, but the language remains ambiguous and can be interpreted either way.) If you want them to move it somewhere else, why do you suddenly take interest now when two blocks further you could protest a Mosque right now for the insensitivity of their worship? Is this a matter of timing? It seems a pretty fickle reason to stop them now, when for the last nine years (since 9/11) no one has said a word against the other Mosque. This is also Un-American because didn't our ancestors come to America for this exact reason? To escape religious persecution? Now suddenly it seems a little crazy when we have fought and died for the last nine years in Iraq, we deny that same desire to those who we went to war to "rescue." As a nation founded by people who desired religious tolerance, we sure have a funny view of tolerance. Or did the founding fathers just mean tolerance for Christian religions?
Second, shame on all of you Christians out there. And ESPECIALLY you Mormons. If you are against the building of this "Mosque" please don't call yourself a Christian, because I don't want to share anything in common with you.
Matthew 18:21,22 "Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven." (Seventy times seven was a holy number and inconceivably large to Jews of the time. Infinite.) I guess Jesus forgot the special addendum, "Unless he is a Muslim extremist then it's OK not to forgive."
We could talk for hours of passages all about loving thy neighbor as thyself and so on, but you know the Bible right? It goes without saying that even if these were the very men who flew the planes into the Trade Centers who were trying to build this Mosque, we as imperfect, regular people are required to forgive them. If you don't like this idea, find a new religion, for this was Christ's message. The fact remains that these aren't the terrorists that flew the planes. These are Muslims. Americans. Children of God. We cannot punish them for the acts of others. Which brings me to my last point. As Christians, why are so many so intolerant of Muslims? They are concerned with the mote in the Muslims eyes and cannot see the beam in their own. The Bible is just as extreme in its wording as the Qur'an. Many criticize Muslims for principles relating to Jihad and yet are more than willing to overlook the treatment of women, and adulterers in the Bible. The Old Testament is very clear, adulterers are to be stoned and women cast out of the city for weeks at a time during Menstruation. We see these as a fulfilled law and archaic, and still see the book as the word of God. Yet many are unwilling to grant this same luxury to Muslims and their book of scripture. The intolerant Christian attitude seems to say, "If it's in the Qur'an, then they believe it." How intolerant and bigoted.
And in conclusion, to all you LDS people out there, it's time to think long and hard about what I will say next. How can you expect others to separate the mainstream LDS church from those RLDS wackos down in Southern Utah when we refuse to separate Muslims from their extremist groups? The Reorganized church believes in Polygamy, a practice that was discontinued over 180 years ago by the LDS church. These break-away groups are not affiliated with us and we disagree with their practices, and we bristle when others try to group us together with them. These groups are radical extremists of our faith. Likewise the terrorists are extremist Muslims, and it is unjust to lump the two together. How can we expect others to separate our church from our radical practitioners if we refuse to do the same for Muslims?
Do not give in to misunderstanding. It breeds contempt. Stop listening to T.V. pundits. Remember that Jesus saved his most scathing rebukes, not for prostitutes or murderers, but for hypocrites. And finally, practice what you preach.
[Keep following. That's all I have to say about that.]
30 August 2010
21 August 2010
The General Rules #2 - The Necessity of "The Game" (Part 3)
Remember Candy Land? It's everyone's favorite board game.
If you don't remember or had a deprived childhood there was a main path that lead a winding and colorful road to the finish line. But if you drew special cards or landed on the right spaces you could take shortcuts. The shortcuts sped the game up and allowed the player to skip out of the rigmarole of some of the candy cane curves.
"What we say about love and what we do about love are generally two very different things." (So reads a favorite quotation of the always sage-like Sierra.)
Whence arises this discrepancy? "The Game" may be the cause. We all say we want undying affection, but we aren't willing to pay the price. (Myself included.) We say we can fall in love and that we want to. But we always have a tailor-made excuse ready as to why we don't date as much as we should. Why we don't open our hearts more. Why we don't let people in.
But I believe that this is mostly because we get caught playing the game in a never-ending cycle. Too often we see the mini-heartbreaks turn into massive ones. And it becomes easier and easier to stay in the cycle. The game then becomes a lifestyle. A safe place. A sanctuary from real commitment. We make a home in the molasses swamp. It becomes easier to say we want commitment and affection, that we wish for eternal marriage, that we desire undying love, all while we thwart any attempts with our static behavior. And our words become half-hearted coinage thrown into an empty well. An atheists faith.
Like Professor Young, we find it easier make our own worst fears come to pass rather than work actively and have our efforts disappointed.
All too often the game becomes life, rather than an event in it. It's easier to be pessimistic about love because we will either see our ideas continually validated or be pleasantly surprised. We can easily fulfill our own dark prophecies about never finding Mr. or Mrs. Right. And if we let the game rule us at least we can always say, "I told you so."
Remember when I said there is more than one path to true love? What I left out is that there are also more preferable paths to true love. Shortcut paths. Gumdrop Passes and Rainbow Trails. The best being the destiny path. This has only recently been drawn to my attention with the recent marriages of my best mission friend and my brother and the engagement of my sister. They have all told me that it "just worked out." God put someone in their path and once the ball got rolling it never stopped. The love took root and has grown everyday. I still will never think it is in any way easy.
I think this is because it hurts. Barring the worst case scenario of a breakup, heartache can never truly be avoided, even when destiny uses its wild-card. It hurts immensely to let someone into our two-sizes-too-small hearts. There is an awful sort of realization that happens after we commit to someone; we must now share everything about us. Even the secret corners that we have gone to such lengths to disguise. But in this process of opening and being vulnerable and progressing, we grow. The tandem upward growth trajectory is true love.
A general authority said recently "True love necessarily includes some degree of permanence." And, "[Love] is actively seeking someone else's happiness." Herein lies "The Game's" biggest flaw. And not only because it incorporates neither of those things. Love looks out to others and is always constant, whereas "The Game" consistently looks inward and is ever-changing. It is selfish. It always asks, "How will this make me look?" Whereas love asks, "How will this make someone else feel?"
I've said this before, the very name is at once a perfect definition and a misnomer. It's just a game. While it may be useful sometimes, it will usually never end well, or at least where and when we want it to end. At its best it is a tool, and at its worst a nefarious ruse meant to trap the weak willed and poison them with virus-like commitment issues. It can be exciting sometimes, but I would rather take the short-cut route through candy land. Wouldn't you?
[Keep following, hilarity will ensue.]
If you don't remember or had a deprived childhood there was a main path that lead a winding and colorful road to the finish line. But if you drew special cards or landed on the right spaces you could take shortcuts. The shortcuts sped the game up and allowed the player to skip out of the rigmarole of some of the candy cane curves.
"What we say about love and what we do about love are generally two very different things." (So reads a favorite quotation of the always sage-like Sierra.)
Whence arises this discrepancy? "The Game" may be the cause. We all say we want undying affection, but we aren't willing to pay the price. (Myself included.) We say we can fall in love and that we want to. But we always have a tailor-made excuse ready as to why we don't date as much as we should. Why we don't open our hearts more. Why we don't let people in.
But I believe that this is mostly because we get caught playing the game in a never-ending cycle. Too often we see the mini-heartbreaks turn into massive ones. And it becomes easier and easier to stay in the cycle. The game then becomes a lifestyle. A safe place. A sanctuary from real commitment. We make a home in the molasses swamp. It becomes easier to say we want commitment and affection, that we wish for eternal marriage, that we desire undying love, all while we thwart any attempts with our static behavior. And our words become half-hearted coinage thrown into an empty well. An atheists faith.
Like Professor Young, we find it easier make our own worst fears come to pass rather than work actively and have our efforts disappointed.
All too often the game becomes life, rather than an event in it. It's easier to be pessimistic about love because we will either see our ideas continually validated or be pleasantly surprised. We can easily fulfill our own dark prophecies about never finding Mr. or Mrs. Right. And if we let the game rule us at least we can always say, "I told you so."
Remember when I said there is more than one path to true love? What I left out is that there are also more preferable paths to true love. Shortcut paths. Gumdrop Passes and Rainbow Trails. The best being the destiny path. This has only recently been drawn to my attention with the recent marriages of my best mission friend and my brother and the engagement of my sister. They have all told me that it "just worked out." God put someone in their path and once the ball got rolling it never stopped. The love took root and has grown everyday. I still will never think it is in any way easy.
I think this is because it hurts. Barring the worst case scenario of a breakup, heartache can never truly be avoided, even when destiny uses its wild-card. It hurts immensely to let someone into our two-sizes-too-small hearts. There is an awful sort of realization that happens after we commit to someone; we must now share everything about us. Even the secret corners that we have gone to such lengths to disguise. But in this process of opening and being vulnerable and progressing, we grow. The tandem upward growth trajectory is true love.
A general authority said recently "True love necessarily includes some degree of permanence." And, "[Love] is actively seeking someone else's happiness." Herein lies "The Game's" biggest flaw. And not only because it incorporates neither of those things. Love looks out to others and is always constant, whereas "The Game" consistently looks inward and is ever-changing. It is selfish. It always asks, "How will this make me look?" Whereas love asks, "How will this make someone else feel?"
I've said this before, the very name is at once a perfect definition and a misnomer. It's just a game. While it may be useful sometimes, it will usually never end well, or at least where and when we want it to end. At its best it is a tool, and at its worst a nefarious ruse meant to trap the weak willed and poison them with virus-like commitment issues. It can be exciting sometimes, but I would rather take the short-cut route through candy land. Wouldn't you?
[Keep following, hilarity will ensue.]
The General Rules #2 - The Necessity of "The Game" (Part 2)
A few quotes, you've heard all of these at some point. "How come nice guys never win?" or "How come the pretty girls are always with the cocky jerk in the center of the room?" or "I just want a guy who is sweet!" (As she gravitates toward the next guy who will treat her like dirt and break her heart.) or "Why isn't he/she calling me back?"
At this point in this extended blog post we should all know the answer. Still, it may be helpful to try and give a short definition of what exactly "The Game" is. And what it is not. The watered-down and painfully simple definition is: the set of techniques or actions that a pursuer or the pursued takes to demonstrate a high social value, thus increasing desirability. The more complicated and cruelly frank version of the definition probably goes something like this: the things that boys and girls do to weed out the unfit objects of our affection. In very short terms, it is modern courtship. (This is why this is a three part post. Trying to define this is like trying to grab a slimy toad.)
"The Game" is not intended to be mean-spirited and cruel. (Though sometimes it may be used, wrongfully, to do so.) "The Game" is not your recent boy/girlfriend cheating on you. "The Game" is not meant to consistently break your heart. (Though sometimes it may feel that way.) "The Game" is not easy.
"The Game" functions in different capacities. Sometimes it may be used gain the object of our desires. Othertimes it can be used to tell someone "no" in a subtle manner. And finally, it is not the only path to everlasting love.
To focus in on a narrow complaint about the game, why DO girls end up with guys who consistently treat them like crap? Certainly no girl wants this. They aren't attracted to jerk guys. They are attracted to some of the qualities that most jerk guys have in common. For example, confidence. The love of your life may sit behind you in class for an entire semester, but if he has no confidence to ask you out, there will never be an opportunity. Girls like confidence. Most nice guys aren't as confident as cocky jerks. Thus, most nice guys won't get as many girls. This is one example out of many factors.
So for guys, "The Game" is focused around building these qualities that will help attract girls. For girls, "The Game" consists mostly of playfully denying the men that pursue them. This process is very circular and emotionally exhausting. A "good game" consists of not knowing what is going on. That confusion, those moments of mini-heartbreak, the late nights, the regrets, the coulda-shoulda-woulda thought process, the frustration, all make success so much sweeter, if it ever comes.
Some give up. They experience these mini-heartbreaks and they become so disheartened that they stop trying altogether. They relinquish all hope because it is easier that way. To quote Professor Young again, "...we are afraid our hopes will be disappointed. We don't want to be fooled, and so we create a life or a way of viewing life that is 'fool-proof' --so limited, so empty of vision, that there is nothing to be disillusioned about. Sometimes we even choose to offend those who could be our friends [or lovers], or we choose to demonstrate our own incompetence or irresponsibility, or we choose to imagine a life of intractable pressures, conflicts, and miseries, because we would rather lose everything we can and choose the worst we can imagine than hope for anything and have our hopes disappointed. ...I have always seemed able to make my life miserable and then say to myself, 'At least this is real.' And for some reason it seems that we find it easier to create what we fear and be done with it than to wait in awful suspense until what we fear comes of its own volition."
I think to some degree all of us share the same fear: that one day we will wake up and our partner will not love us anymore. Or that we will wake one morning and inexplicably not love our partner. This fear is deep insecurity manifesting itself. We all share this fear because, at its heart, is the simple fact that we can NEVER be exactly sure how someone feels, about us, about anything. I believe that even when we are in love, we are afraid. We are afraid that someone may be motivated by some strange sense of duty, rather than undying love. That someone may in fact simply feel obligated to love us back. That someone simply is saying one thing, and thinking another. This happens because on the battlefield of love, the lines of communication are badly flawed. We clutch the receiver with white knuckles and hope to receive some validation of feelings, and all we get are words. Words that are so fickle and fragile in their ability to communicate true meaning. Words that leave us wanting. And often do more harm than good.
I will admit, that the higher the level of dedication, the stronger the signal gets on the receiver. With marriage being the ultimate affirming step that both parties understand and want the same thing, and most importantly feel the same way. But even then, the only way to be really, beyond a shadow-of-a-doubt sure is probably through some metaphysical process, two spirits communing without spoken words. It may be good that we distrust words so much, because words can be used nefariously.
The point of all of this is to more fully explain why "The Game" exists. It exists because in those fragile first moments of contact and communication, in order to form a stronger bond later, we need to know what the other side feels like. We need to feel what the other person's rejection of us feels like. We need to experience their (seeming) apathy towards us, we need to feel what it is like to have that person break us. And then when those three feeble words, "I love you" are exchanged, they will have some small meaning behind them. Some honesty. If "The Game" was played, we will know more strongly that they mean what they say, because we know what the opposite feels like, and it isn't this.
[Keep following, I know it was a lot of hard reading. It's like homework.]
At this point in this extended blog post we should all know the answer. Still, it may be helpful to try and give a short definition of what exactly "The Game" is. And what it is not. The watered-down and painfully simple definition is: the set of techniques or actions that a pursuer or the pursued takes to demonstrate a high social value, thus increasing desirability. The more complicated and cruelly frank version of the definition probably goes something like this: the things that boys and girls do to weed out the unfit objects of our affection. In very short terms, it is modern courtship. (This is why this is a three part post. Trying to define this is like trying to grab a slimy toad.)
"The Game" is not intended to be mean-spirited and cruel. (Though sometimes it may be used, wrongfully, to do so.) "The Game" is not your recent boy/girlfriend cheating on you. "The Game" is not meant to consistently break your heart. (Though sometimes it may feel that way.) "The Game" is not easy.
"The Game" functions in different capacities. Sometimes it may be used gain the object of our desires. Othertimes it can be used to tell someone "no" in a subtle manner. And finally, it is not the only path to everlasting love.
To focus in on a narrow complaint about the game, why DO girls end up with guys who consistently treat them like crap? Certainly no girl wants this. They aren't attracted to jerk guys. They are attracted to some of the qualities that most jerk guys have in common. For example, confidence. The love of your life may sit behind you in class for an entire semester, but if he has no confidence to ask you out, there will never be an opportunity. Girls like confidence. Most nice guys aren't as confident as cocky jerks. Thus, most nice guys won't get as many girls. This is one example out of many factors.
So for guys, "The Game" is focused around building these qualities that will help attract girls. For girls, "The Game" consists mostly of playfully denying the men that pursue them. This process is very circular and emotionally exhausting. A "good game" consists of not knowing what is going on. That confusion, those moments of mini-heartbreak, the late nights, the regrets, the coulda-shoulda-woulda thought process, the frustration, all make success so much sweeter, if it ever comes.
Some give up. They experience these mini-heartbreaks and they become so disheartened that they stop trying altogether. They relinquish all hope because it is easier that way. To quote Professor Young again, "...we are afraid our hopes will be disappointed. We don't want to be fooled, and so we create a life or a way of viewing life that is 'fool-proof' --so limited, so empty of vision, that there is nothing to be disillusioned about. Sometimes we even choose to offend those who could be our friends [or lovers], or we choose to demonstrate our own incompetence or irresponsibility, or we choose to imagine a life of intractable pressures, conflicts, and miseries, because we would rather lose everything we can and choose the worst we can imagine than hope for anything and have our hopes disappointed. ...I have always seemed able to make my life miserable and then say to myself, 'At least this is real.' And for some reason it seems that we find it easier to create what we fear and be done with it than to wait in awful suspense until what we fear comes of its own volition."
I think to some degree all of us share the same fear: that one day we will wake up and our partner will not love us anymore. Or that we will wake one morning and inexplicably not love our partner. This fear is deep insecurity manifesting itself. We all share this fear because, at its heart, is the simple fact that we can NEVER be exactly sure how someone feels, about us, about anything. I believe that even when we are in love, we are afraid. We are afraid that someone may be motivated by some strange sense of duty, rather than undying love. That someone may in fact simply feel obligated to love us back. That someone simply is saying one thing, and thinking another. This happens because on the battlefield of love, the lines of communication are badly flawed. We clutch the receiver with white knuckles and hope to receive some validation of feelings, and all we get are words. Words that are so fickle and fragile in their ability to communicate true meaning. Words that leave us wanting. And often do more harm than good.
I will admit, that the higher the level of dedication, the stronger the signal gets on the receiver. With marriage being the ultimate affirming step that both parties understand and want the same thing, and most importantly feel the same way. But even then, the only way to be really, beyond a shadow-of-a-doubt sure is probably through some metaphysical process, two spirits communing without spoken words. It may be good that we distrust words so much, because words can be used nefariously.
The point of all of this is to more fully explain why "The Game" exists. It exists because in those fragile first moments of contact and communication, in order to form a stronger bond later, we need to know what the other side feels like. We need to feel what the other person's rejection of us feels like. We need to experience their (seeming) apathy towards us, we need to feel what it is like to have that person break us. And then when those three feeble words, "I love you" are exchanged, they will have some small meaning behind them. Some honesty. If "The Game" was played, we will know more strongly that they mean what they say, because we know what the opposite feels like, and it isn't this.
[Keep following, I know it was a lot of hard reading. It's like homework.]
16 August 2010
The General Rules #2 - The Necessity of "The Game" (Part 1)
"Could I trust you with my heart if I was sure you wouldn't break it?" (Yes, I just quoted myself).
This is a touchy subject and I am quite positive that I won't handle it as delicately as most of you would prefer. I also want to re-emphasize rule #1 when I started this segment. There are exceptions. Some of us know people who fell in love at first sight in High School and have been together ever since. This is not that story. This is what happens to the rest of us.
I start by quoting a sage Professor Young of BYU, "Our hopes are not always fulfilled. That, we have been told, is the nature of our existence here. And though good things can happen to us, though peace and joy are assured us according to our faith, the good things must often come through a process of struggle and disappointment and patient waiting." I'd like to take this idea a step further, and suggest that, "struggle, disappointment and patient waiting" are essential to the process of finding "true love."
We all have the same story somewhere in our early childhood. For me it was a CD player. For others it may have been a bike or a video game or a Barbie. I wanted a CD player when I was 12. It was a Philips 45 second anti-skip jogproof CD player and it was $25. It was this one:
Beautiful isn't it? But the problem with being 12 is that you have no money. Or job by which one may ascertain said funds. So I saved. I begged. I mowed lawns. I did extra chores. And slowly but surely I saved enough and the day came when I triumphantly marched into Target and bought my prize. I took amazing care of this thing. I kept it clean, avoided dropping it, and never went jogging with it. And it rewarded me with TEN years of faithful service before being irrevocably replaced by my iPod. (Which is still running strong after almost six years.) The point of this story is that I worked for this CD player. I put sweat and long hours of waiting and daydreaming into earning this CD player. I treasured it because I earned it. And it rewarded me by going the distance.
Most of us also have a sad story that runs in an opposite vein to the story above. It goes something like this: we asked our parents for something and they got it right away for us, and we played with it for a total of twenty-four hours before the infatuation rubbed off and it sat in a box somewhere for years only to be sold for 120% off at a garage sale. Horrible isn't it?
Before I get into the meat of this post, I'd like you all to remember that old cliche that reminds us, "We all want what we can't have."
Like my CD player, boys and girls will obsess about each other. We will wait for months or maybe years harboring a small, flickering hope that that special someone will eventually want, need, or even notice us. We all have that hopeless crush. That original person that never knew we existed. Oh Megan, how your flaxen locks will forever haunt me. Ironically, the thing that keeps this perversely ridiculous hope alive is the fact that it will never be fulfilled. Read that last line again. I'm proud of it. Why do we do this to ourselves? Why can't we be happy with what is given to us? Why can't we be satisfied with the toy our parents bought us on a whim? Why can't we be satisfied with a "game-free", simple, no-nonsense, straightforward, forthcoming, easy relationship?
The answer is pride. We simply view ourselves and our worth as humans kind of like a university is rated by how many applicants it turns away. There is something grossly satisfying about turning away applicants for our love and affection. It makes us feel wanted. Important. Worth more than we actually are. From this elevated self-view we draw our lacking self-esteem. No one, I repeat no one, wants to be easy. We want to be more complicated than we are. We want to feel as though we are the best around. In love we do not want to be cheap recipients. Nor do we want to earn the love of someone else at no cost. For, in either situation, we feel like less than we are worth. No one wants the cheaply attained gift. We want the challenge. We live for the challenge. When all is said and done and love is deemed mutual, neither party wishes to look back upon the road leading to this junction and think, "My, that was easy!" because this would inevitably lead into thoughts of, "Why did I end up with this person no one else wanted? What is wrong here?" And like many things, at that point we will create the evidence to support the belief. We will start making things up in our minds to get out.
To avoid this thought process, "The Game" was invented. Its very name is laughably ironic. Because the nature of a game usually includes fun. And this Game is only fun if you are winning. And I will tell you right now, in this specific game, there are very few winners. Though the Game is hard and confusing and at times wrenches on our heartstrings. It is a necessary evil. For it alone will help us look back upon our road and be able to say, "I did it. I did it when no one else could. I am in love with a person who is in love with me alone. And while everyone else wanted what we have, only I got it. Now I can trust this person with my heart. Because I know for a fact that they can break it."
[Keep following parts 2 and 3 are coming soon to an internet near you.]
This is a touchy subject and I am quite positive that I won't handle it as delicately as most of you would prefer. I also want to re-emphasize rule #1 when I started this segment. There are exceptions. Some of us know people who fell in love at first sight in High School and have been together ever since. This is not that story. This is what happens to the rest of us.
I start by quoting a sage Professor Young of BYU, "Our hopes are not always fulfilled. That, we have been told, is the nature of our existence here. And though good things can happen to us, though peace and joy are assured us according to our faith, the good things must often come through a process of struggle and disappointment and patient waiting." I'd like to take this idea a step further, and suggest that, "struggle, disappointment and patient waiting" are essential to the process of finding "true love."
We all have the same story somewhere in our early childhood. For me it was a CD player. For others it may have been a bike or a video game or a Barbie. I wanted a CD player when I was 12. It was a Philips 45 second anti-skip jogproof CD player and it was $25. It was this one:
Beautiful isn't it? But the problem with being 12 is that you have no money. Or job by which one may ascertain said funds. So I saved. I begged. I mowed lawns. I did extra chores. And slowly but surely I saved enough and the day came when I triumphantly marched into Target and bought my prize. I took amazing care of this thing. I kept it clean, avoided dropping it, and never went jogging with it. And it rewarded me with TEN years of faithful service before being irrevocably replaced by my iPod. (Which is still running strong after almost six years.) The point of this story is that I worked for this CD player. I put sweat and long hours of waiting and daydreaming into earning this CD player. I treasured it because I earned it. And it rewarded me by going the distance.
Most of us also have a sad story that runs in an opposite vein to the story above. It goes something like this: we asked our parents for something and they got it right away for us, and we played with it for a total of twenty-four hours before the infatuation rubbed off and it sat in a box somewhere for years only to be sold for 120% off at a garage sale. Horrible isn't it?
Before I get into the meat of this post, I'd like you all to remember that old cliche that reminds us, "We all want what we can't have."
Like my CD player, boys and girls will obsess about each other. We will wait for months or maybe years harboring a small, flickering hope that that special someone will eventually want, need, or even notice us. We all have that hopeless crush. That original person that never knew we existed. Oh Megan, how your flaxen locks will forever haunt me. Ironically, the thing that keeps this perversely ridiculous hope alive is the fact that it will never be fulfilled. Read that last line again. I'm proud of it. Why do we do this to ourselves? Why can't we be happy with what is given to us? Why can't we be satisfied with the toy our parents bought us on a whim? Why can't we be satisfied with a "game-free", simple, no-nonsense, straightforward, forthcoming, easy relationship?
The answer is pride. We simply view ourselves and our worth as humans kind of like a university is rated by how many applicants it turns away. There is something grossly satisfying about turning away applicants for our love and affection. It makes us feel wanted. Important. Worth more than we actually are. From this elevated self-view we draw our lacking self-esteem. No one, I repeat no one, wants to be easy. We want to be more complicated than we are. We want to feel as though we are the best around. In love we do not want to be cheap recipients. Nor do we want to earn the love of someone else at no cost. For, in either situation, we feel like less than we are worth. No one wants the cheaply attained gift. We want the challenge. We live for the challenge. When all is said and done and love is deemed mutual, neither party wishes to look back upon the road leading to this junction and think, "My, that was easy!" because this would inevitably lead into thoughts of, "Why did I end up with this person no one else wanted? What is wrong here?" And like many things, at that point we will create the evidence to support the belief. We will start making things up in our minds to get out.
To avoid this thought process, "The Game" was invented. Its very name is laughably ironic. Because the nature of a game usually includes fun. And this Game is only fun if you are winning. And I will tell you right now, in this specific game, there are very few winners. Though the Game is hard and confusing and at times wrenches on our heartstrings. It is a necessary evil. For it alone will help us look back upon our road and be able to say, "I did it. I did it when no one else could. I am in love with a person who is in love with me alone. And while everyone else wanted what we have, only I got it. Now I can trust this person with my heart. Because I know for a fact that they can break it."
[Keep following parts 2 and 3 are coming soon to an internet near you.]
11 August 2010
Fruits Of My Labor
I have recently been on the hunt for rad t-shirts. I think I called them appropriately ironic t-shirts on facebook. And I just wanted to share with all of you the bountiful harvest which I have experienced. I braved the sweet sickly smell of Savers and Deseret Industries. I braved the crying children and harsh fluorescent lighting. I braved the unhappy cashiers and mustard-stained clothing racks. I braved the wash of cold, odd guilt that came over me as I realized that I have the money to shop elsewhere. I braved the unorganized ruddy shelves and piercing sideways looks from observers in my furious quest. All for these gems. The beacon and source of artesian hope. I had a large budget, yet this is probably the best $2 I have ever spent.
Ok, Donny and Marie Osmond are cool enough in their own right, right? But what about the Osmonds you've never heard of? The coolness is simply exponential. They are even clad in 90's regalia. The 2nd Osmonds have a phallic 'G' as their symbol. It is a symbol of prowess, kinda like The-artist-formally-known-as-Prince. The color scheme is a delight to behold, as are their shining, quasi-toughguy faces.
There isn't much to say about this one. Maybe it is the unintentional play on words, that makes us read: "Right on! Freedom!" Or maybe it is the fact that everything is starred and striped, but the fact remains, this shirt made my day. I don't know if Lady Liberty has ever ridden a Chopper. But maybe she should consider it. After all, she looks dang good. This shirt also makes me want to Ride On Freedom. I also ride on the fact that America will continually ruin its own patriotism with strange mash-ups of revered symbols. I love freedom just as much as the next guy, but now I can wear it on my chest. Right on!
[Keep following children, I'm saving for a motorcycle.]
Ok, Donny and Marie Osmond are cool enough in their own right, right? But what about the Osmonds you've never heard of? The coolness is simply exponential. They are even clad in 90's regalia. The 2nd Osmonds have a phallic 'G' as their symbol. It is a symbol of prowess, kinda like The-artist-formally-known-as-Prince. The color scheme is a delight to behold, as are their shining, quasi-toughguy faces.
There isn't much to say about this one. Maybe it is the unintentional play on words, that makes us read: "Right on! Freedom!" Or maybe it is the fact that everything is starred and striped, but the fact remains, this shirt made my day. I don't know if Lady Liberty has ever ridden a Chopper. But maybe she should consider it. After all, she looks dang good. This shirt also makes me want to Ride On Freedom. I also ride on the fact that America will continually ruin its own patriotism with strange mash-ups of revered symbols. I love freedom just as much as the next guy, but now I can wear it on my chest. Right on!
[Keep following children, I'm saving for a motorcycle.]
10 August 2010
Poena intus est.
I'm thinking of changing my name to Lucian Gogonel.
And moving to Kiev.
[Keep following]
And moving to Kiev.
[Keep following]
07 August 2010
It's a nice day for a... white temple wedding.
So I have been to more weddings in the last month than I have been to in my entire life. And while seeing live sealing ceremonies has been a major spiritual highlight, it also gets me thinking. Too hard. (This is a bad thing.) I get all introspective-y and I produce stuff like this. I promise the next post will make you laugh or something...
I have wondered all my life how it will be to hear violins play.
One day I'll look up into someone's face and the chords will match,
a duet and steps in tandem,
constructive waves will stand still in the moment of met glances.
One plays, the other compliments, notes compile and structure harmony;
Our lives come together and in the most beautiful sense, we will make music.
Whatever my thin tune had sung throughout my solo existence,
she pairs her own into a song I have never heard and yet know.
Sometimes I question if I have heard that song, but have jarred the
rhythm so thoroughly that it has unraveled in my hands.
Still, one day it will happen, the most beautiful chords will resonate
with both our souls and we will feel like we deserve joy.
For the first time.
[Keep following, it's like meth for your brain.]
I have wondered all my life how it will be to hear violins play.
One day I'll look up into someone's face and the chords will match,
a duet and steps in tandem,
constructive waves will stand still in the moment of met glances.
One plays, the other compliments, notes compile and structure harmony;
Our lives come together and in the most beautiful sense, we will make music.
Whatever my thin tune had sung throughout my solo existence,
she pairs her own into a song I have never heard and yet know.
Sometimes I question if I have heard that song, but have jarred the
rhythm so thoroughly that it has unraveled in my hands.
Still, one day it will happen, the most beautiful chords will resonate
with both our souls and we will feel like we deserve joy.
For the first time.
[Keep following, it's like meth for your brain.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)