It is mankind's greatest blessing and greatest curse that every decision is easier made the second time. I find it interesting where "the world" is headed. The world is a loaded word, a generalization for men in society, white men, American men, because I can only speak for them as far as I see it, and even then, only because I am one; thus, quotation marks.
I think Chuck got it right. We are the middle children of history. We are the the fast food generation. Ours is no noble battle, no fight for some righteous cause. We have no reason to live. At least a few hundred years ago men could still be men. Back then, being a man meant chopping down trees on a homestead to literally build a life for yourself and your family. Back then, your worth as a man was decided by how well you could protect and provide for a wife and offspring. Life had purpose, even if that purpose was simply to survive.
What do men build today? What decides a man's worth? Who do we protect? For whom do we provide? What is man's purpose? Why is the white male alive in America? With the easiness of modern life, what is left to live for? What do men have to value?
I can answer these questions, my religion gives me satisfying and fulfilling answers to all of them. But what do others say? (Take this next part lightly) It seems to me that all men build today are stock portfolios and bigger bank statements and beer guts. Man lives his life in a vain pursuit of what he pictures to be contentment. And for the first time in history, society's structure allows him to get at it. It was originally called the American Dream. But this dream is turning into a nightmare, for what does the white male find at the top of the corporate ladder but another rung? He finds that once he has all the things that he thought would bring him contentment, he still feels an empty bed where contentment should be sleeping soundly.
I once went to a party at a mansion in Alpine, UT. The house was enormous. It had everything. Hardwood floors, a library, a gigantic kitchen, a pool. Literally a modern castle. The owner was some lawyer in his late 50's, divorced, and alone. I later came to learn that he invited various groups of young kids to have parties and hang out there. Other people may have seen this as "such a cool thing" and "so generous," but I left feeling bad for the guy. Here was a man who had "everything": a ridiculous car, a giant house, and a boatload of money. He also had no one to share it with. Here was a man with all the trappings of the illusory "modern contentment" who slept alone in a little corner room of a gorgeous home. I couldn't help but feel like I had been used.
We as humans value that which is the hardest to get. For most people, happiness is hardest to get because they equate happiness or contentment with ethereal numbers, notions of wealth that are assured to you by banks and investment firms. They tell you how much money you have, how much you are "worth", but all those numbers will come and go without you ever setting eyes on them. And one day, one day in the near future, all that will collapse like some laughable house of cards we've built. The banks will tell you that you have nothing. When that day comes, you may find that you have nothing left to live for, and that you have squandered your days in frivolous pursuits. You'll wish he hadn't made the same decision the second time, and the time after that. And for all you who doubt the validity of my words, rest assured, Apple is working on a new iPad. So keep working at that job you hate.
[Keep Following.]
Showing posts with label It's authoritative because it's on the internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label It's authoritative because it's on the internet. Show all posts
27 July 2011
30 August 2010
.\ /. <----- These Are My Angry Eyes
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.]
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.]
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.]
30 July 2010
The General Rules #1 - Breaking Up
A strange thing. To begin with the end. But with this topic, as with many others, the process is cyclical. The beginning and the end are closer than we may think. Also, in light of recent events in my life, this is also a fitting place to start. And until we are taken out of this cycle (by getting married), one dare not speak of love without heartbreak.
Get ready. I’m about to flip your world on its head. Ready? Many think that the opposite of love is hate.
It isn’t.
This last semester in my Intro to the English Language course we discussed this concept at length. This is a semantic issue. When discussing opposites we learned how to make a binary grid to analyze the components of a word. It looked something like this:
RELATION Male Senior Directly Related
Father + + +
Mother - + +
Niece - - -
A binary grid uses randomly assigned components to examine what the chosen words have in common. Based on the features chosen we can conclude that the opposite of a father is in fact a niece. Or, if one were to assign a new feature such as “Animate” after “Directly Related” the opposite of a father would probably end up being a rock or something of the sort. In this particular example we find that the words father and mother actually share many common traits. They are differentiated by one degree. So it often is with what we call “Opposites.”
FEELINGS Positive Intense Concern
Love + + +
Hate - + +
Apathy - - -
From my cleverly devised Binary Grid, one may conclude that the opposite of “Love” is actually a state we call “Apathy,” which by its definition is a “state of indifference”. Apathy is by its nature a suppression of emotion. Love and hate are only separated by one degree: the positive nature of the feeling. Love and hate both involve a certain amount of intensity and concern (positive or negative) about a person. Apathy, on the other hand, involves nothing of the sort.
I tell you these things to tell you this: You can never “get over” someone without forgiving them. It does not matter in the least what that person has done to you. For if you presumptuously assume that you can banish your love by switching it to hate, in order to forget someone, you will never be able to fully let things go. The two are too closely related. Because of this bond, rousing one will also rouse the other. This would lead to years of pent-up emotion that is only softened by a very human forgetfulness. We can forget our feelings, but all it takes is one chance encounter or errant wedding invitation to stir up those old love/hate emotions.
I am not by any means suggesting that we must become apathetic towards someone we have formerly loved. (Because that would simply be a weapon of buried and harbored hate.) Only forgiveness solves this problem. Forgiveness erases hate and apathy and fills us with contented sincerity towards the other person. It cleanses us, not them. And allows us to move forward with hope rather than resentment.
But wait! you exclaim, what about those who have done the breaking up? I will tell you. Rest easy. A few thoughts can be comforting. First, always remember that no one starts dating someone else in order to hurt their feelings. (This is all assuming you have broken up with the person under amiable circumstances{as far as breaking up with someone allows}and not fickle or petty or evil reasons.) Second, take comfort in the things you felt. As my wise-beyond-his-years brother once said, “It is going to fail until it works.” It is as simple as that. The relationship was either right or it was not. Trust your feelings, though it may be the hardest thing you have ever done. And last, do not concern yourself with whether or not you can express what you feel. One shared attribute that could be placed on the end of the Feelings Binary Grid could be “Inexpressible.” This would be something that all emotions would score a plus on. Trying to describe what you feel would be like trying to describe a color to a blind person. Red is red, just as black is black, just as love is love, and knowing it’s right is knowing it’s right. It simply is. Or it isn’t.
This is one thing that is simple with regards to love. It is getting to this point during which all the confusion arises. But let’s save that for another time.
[Keep following. If it please you.]
Get ready. I’m about to flip your world on its head. Ready? Many think that the opposite of love is hate.
It isn’t.
This last semester in my Intro to the English Language course we discussed this concept at length. This is a semantic issue. When discussing opposites we learned how to make a binary grid to analyze the components of a word. It looked something like this:
RELATION Male Senior Directly Related
Father + + +
Mother - + +
Niece - - -
A binary grid uses randomly assigned components to examine what the chosen words have in common. Based on the features chosen we can conclude that the opposite of a father is in fact a niece. Or, if one were to assign a new feature such as “Animate” after “Directly Related” the opposite of a father would probably end up being a rock or something of the sort. In this particular example we find that the words father and mother actually share many common traits. They are differentiated by one degree. So it often is with what we call “Opposites.”
FEELINGS Positive Intense Concern
Love + + +
Hate - + +
Apathy - - -
From my cleverly devised Binary Grid, one may conclude that the opposite of “Love” is actually a state we call “Apathy,” which by its definition is a “state of indifference”. Apathy is by its nature a suppression of emotion. Love and hate are only separated by one degree: the positive nature of the feeling. Love and hate both involve a certain amount of intensity and concern (positive or negative) about a person. Apathy, on the other hand, involves nothing of the sort.
I tell you these things to tell you this: You can never “get over” someone without forgiving them. It does not matter in the least what that person has done to you. For if you presumptuously assume that you can banish your love by switching it to hate, in order to forget someone, you will never be able to fully let things go. The two are too closely related. Because of this bond, rousing one will also rouse the other. This would lead to years of pent-up emotion that is only softened by a very human forgetfulness. We can forget our feelings, but all it takes is one chance encounter or errant wedding invitation to stir up those old love/hate emotions.
I am not by any means suggesting that we must become apathetic towards someone we have formerly loved. (Because that would simply be a weapon of buried and harbored hate.) Only forgiveness solves this problem. Forgiveness erases hate and apathy and fills us with contented sincerity towards the other person. It cleanses us, not them. And allows us to move forward with hope rather than resentment.
But wait! you exclaim, what about those who have done the breaking up? I will tell you. Rest easy. A few thoughts can be comforting. First, always remember that no one starts dating someone else in order to hurt their feelings. (This is all assuming you have broken up with the person under amiable circumstances{as far as breaking up with someone allows}and not fickle or petty or evil reasons.) Second, take comfort in the things you felt. As my wise-beyond-his-years brother once said, “It is going to fail until it works.” It is as simple as that. The relationship was either right or it was not. Trust your feelings, though it may be the hardest thing you have ever done. And last, do not concern yourself with whether or not you can express what you feel. One shared attribute that could be placed on the end of the Feelings Binary Grid could be “Inexpressible.” This would be something that all emotions would score a plus on. Trying to describe what you feel would be like trying to describe a color to a blind person. Red is red, just as black is black, just as love is love, and knowing it’s right is knowing it’s right. It simply is. Or it isn’t.
This is one thing that is simple with regards to love. It is getting to this point during which all the confusion arises. But let’s save that for another time.
[Keep following. If it please you.]
23 July 2010
The General Rules
No this is not about the online auto insurance company. (Although don't get me started. Those commercials make me want to poke my eyes out with a stick.) This is not a declaration about how the military rules! This is about another type of battle organization. These are the General Rules. Love. Yes, I'm talking about love.
Some of you may remember my poll from awhile back about starting a separate blog about love. Due to the mixed reaction, I decided not to do it. Plus, two blogs is a bit much. So I'm starting a new segment called, you guessed it, The General Rules. But before I get into the meat of this new segment I'm going to lay down a few ground rules for the General Rules:
1. They are the "General" rules. This means that there are exceptions. There are always exceptions. Everyone knows someone who had a fairytale courtship, engagement, and subsequent marriage. This is an exception to the rule. For most of us, dating is more akin to a fight to the death in gladiatorial ring than a delicate dance in a palace. For most of us, getting engaged and married will require a herculean effort. For most of us, this whole "love process" involves more slogging through the mud than walking on clouds. That is why I titled the new segment the general rules rather than "The rules that are always true no matter what."
2. I am not an expert. Don't quote me on anything. In fact, most of you will be better off not reading any of these segments.
3. I cannot be held personally responsible for any actions you may take after reading my reflections and ruminations on the subject.
4. I am always right. Comments are welcome on these posts, but just know that any comments that disagree with my opinion will be subsequently laughed at and ignored.
Thank you for your consideration. And I hope you are looking forward to the forthcoming mindless blather about the most complex subject on earth as much as I am.
[Keep following. Actually don't. You may not like what you find.]
Some of you may remember my poll from awhile back about starting a separate blog about love. Due to the mixed reaction, I decided not to do it. Plus, two blogs is a bit much. So I'm starting a new segment called, you guessed it, The General Rules. But before I get into the meat of this new segment I'm going to lay down a few ground rules for the General Rules:
1. They are the "General" rules. This means that there are exceptions. There are always exceptions. Everyone knows someone who had a fairytale courtship, engagement, and subsequent marriage. This is an exception to the rule. For most of us, dating is more akin to a fight to the death in gladiatorial ring than a delicate dance in a palace. For most of us, getting engaged and married will require a herculean effort. For most of us, this whole "love process" involves more slogging through the mud than walking on clouds. That is why I titled the new segment the general rules rather than "The rules that are always true no matter what."
2. I am not an expert. Don't quote me on anything. In fact, most of you will be better off not reading any of these segments.
3. I cannot be held personally responsible for any actions you may take after reading my reflections and ruminations on the subject.
4. I am always right. Comments are welcome on these posts, but just know that any comments that disagree with my opinion will be subsequently laughed at and ignored.
Thank you for your consideration. And I hope you are looking forward to the forthcoming mindless blather about the most complex subject on earth as much as I am.
[Keep following. Actually don't. You may not like what you find.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)