The Trials of an American Dilettante

Monday, May 23, 2005

The Zen of the Slippery Slope

It must be the millionth time that I have pointed out contradiction in the universe. When Arthur Dent found out the answer to life, the universe and everything (it was forty-two), he searched and searched for the question. The question turned out being “What do you get if you multiply six by nine?” To that Arthur said “I've always felt that there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe”

Like Arthur, we have in our mind the concept that there is perfection. Each of us believes there is someone for us that will make us happy. But, when it comes to finding mister or misses forty-two, we are not really sure what to look for. Oh, we may say that we want someone that is attractive, smart, funny and kind in the abstract. Specifics, though, are rather elusive. I believe that one of the reasons for this is that our desires in relationships contradict each other and that imperfection itself is essential. (six by nine, indeed)

For example, Soulless Hedonist complains that the reason Big-Ass-African-Fucking-Pretentious-Girl dumped him is that he gave into too many demands. In the end, he did everything she wanted and appeared spineless. No one wants to be with someone who is spineless (save Shoffy’s bane).

Why so? Well, for several reasons really. First off, everyone is insecure (see December’s “Occasionally Nice Guys Finish First”). People judge their own self-worth by the confidence and presented self-worth of their significant other. Additionally, people don’t want to be part of club that would have them as a member.

Also, people want a challenge. It is often said that women want a “fixer-uper”. For the same reason that a video game becomes boring after saving Zelda, people become bored with relationships as well. At the same time, when one some tries and fails to get higher than 300,000 points in Ms. Pac-Man over and over, one also becomes disillusioned. The unyielding and unchanging mate is intolerable. Damned if you do, damned if do not, how can one achieve happiness in a relationship?

As it turns out, Arthur was wrong. Six by nine is forty-two. The solution takes some thinking outside the box. In a base thirteen number system, the answer holds.

Just as I have argued that happiness is nothing more than gradual fulfillment of needs, I would say that relationship happiness is nothing more than gradual concession of freedom (and thus fulfilling their needs). If one changes completely to fit one’s significant other, one will be dumped. If one does not change or change too slowly, one will be dumped. A constant challenge is needed, but not a challenge so great that that the companion gives up on the individual. One’s only hope is to change at a moderate rate in order to maintain the relationship. One must hope that they do not run out of concessions until after one has secured the relationship through marriage or kids.

Impractical? Perhaps, but not more than a base thirteen number system.

Friday, May 20, 2005

The Diseased Opposition Strategy

Like many others, I went to see Revenge of Sith yesterday. Naturally, people have been asking me how it was. Now, after Phantom, I said “well, that little kid stunk and the characters were flat, but there was an amazing light-saber duel at the end.” After Clones, I said “Wow, it is kind of creepy and really is a shocking movie with heads flying off and Yoda flipping around and shit” After Sith, I have been responding “It’s hilarious! It’s the most thinly veiled criticism of the Bush administration I have ever seen!”

Maybe it is from living in DC, maybe it is the person I have grown into or maybe it is the movie itself, but my response is rather telling. More striking than the fact that this was the ultimate Star Wars movie, more striking than the fall of the Republic and more striking than the long awaited battle between Anakin and Obi-Wan was the political overtone of the movie.

And the blogosphere and bulletin boards have been ablaze with discussion as well. (Did I just use the term blogosphere? Oh, what have I become?)

My fellow progressives also found the movie funny and the right, predictably, has their panties in a ruffle claiming the movie irrationally “Bush-bashes”. Calling Lucas a “Bush- basher” is a rather funny contradiction in my mind. I’ll explain.

Often when people are sick of dealing with issues or are unable to because they lack logic, they will resort to name-calling. There is a specific name-calling strategy that I have dubbed “the diseased opposition strategy”. Rather than recognize that the opposition has fair points or legitimate concerns, one uses a negative term that contains no information save its “inherent” negativity.

For example:

“Perhaps the Israelis should dismantle those settlements in the West Bank”
“You are just an anti-Semite!”

As if someone just wakes up and decides to irrationally hate something without any reason at all. Some individuals are so conceded that they really believe that the only way for one to be against their position is for the person to be diseased. The hobgoblin Charles Krauthammer even had the nerve to write an article about “Bush Derangement Syndrome” and accused the good doctor Howard Dean of having it.

Now back to the contradiction of calling Lucas a “Bush-basher”. Lucas never mentions Bush by name and denies (wink, wink) any connections in the movie to the Bush administration. Any connection or parallel is established through political issues, rhetoric or historical events. Therefore, “Bush-bashing”, the supposedly groundless act of attacking Bush, cannot be used since any parallel is on grounds and not Bush as an individual.

On a side note, when Obi-Wan was asked by Anakin why he was against the Sith, he said “because they’re evil”. I’ll give Old Ben a pass since he was in the middle of a lava flow and not in the mood for a logical discussion. Just this one time, though.

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Giving In

So, I have decided I am going to buy an I-Pod. Yes, I must admit defeat. There seems to be a natural progression when it comes to change and resistance to change and I have gone through the full cycle.

Stage 1: Intrigue and Puzzlement

What is it? What does it do? Why would people want it? What are the costs?

Stage 2: An Attempt to Rationally Criticize

The thing seems like it will break. It costs way too much. Do I really need to bring my music everywhere?

Stage 3: Irrational Criticism

Oh, it’s just so hipster. I’ll be another follower.

Stage 4: Realization That Society is Changing Around You

Many of my friends have them. My parents are even thinking about getting one.

Stage 5: Acceptance

Okay, it’s not really that bad. In fact, it seems fine.


Now, this progression seems to work for a number of things. Look at the banning slavery, voting rights for women, the theory of evolution, acceptance of homosexuality, legalization of abortion and cell phone usage. The progressive goes through the cycle to acceptance. The conservative either finds a legitimate concern in Stage 2 or gets stuck in Stage 3 reinforcing his belief with lies. Stage 4, though, is really the main influence. People around us condoning things is really the greatest influence when it comes to societal change.

Change, though, is not always good. Going straight to Stage 4 or Stage 5 without going through Stage 1 and 2 can lead to foolish actions (i.e. using drugs, following a religion, going to law school).

Friday, May 13, 2005

Understanding Duality

I often find myself arguing with conservatives. Most of my friends and family steer clear of these lesser people realizing that that engaging them is pointless and depressing. Being an idiot, I talk to them. I am not sure why. Perhaps I want to change their mind or understand how they can be so stupid. Perhaps it is just like picking at a scab. One knows it will only hurt, but one is compelled to anyway.

A while back, I was arguing about why Bush’s tax cuts were a bad idea and the conservative I was talking to said, “You’re a hypocrite. You took Bush’s tax cut. If you thought it was a bad idea, you should have sent it back.”

Now, I don’t want to go into how utterly moronic that statement was too much. Anyone who has taken any game theory knows there is a difference between individual choice and collective choice. Additionally, claiming I should give back my tax cut is the equivalent of saying I should get out a shovel and dig an inch down if I think the community needs a well. There are situations where an individual’s actions and resources are useless towards an endeavor that is too large. Those actions resources are better used on something else.

Anyway, it occurred to me what that conservative and nearly all other conservatives lack- an understanding of the dual nature of society as both a collective and a composition of individuals. The conservative does not understand that the actions and hopes of the collective can vary from the actions and hopes of the individual.

Let’s look at second example. Conservatives love to place their “Support Our Troops” ribbons on their cars and love accusing people against the war of being heartless traitors who want our boys to die. They believe supporting the actions of the military as whole is equal to caring about troops as individuals. They fail to understand that one can be against the actions of military (the collective), but still care about the troops (the individual).

Another example- homosexuality. Conservatives basically believe that because they find homosexuality creepy and do not want to practice it, society should eradicate it. They want homosexuals to conform to the status quo and become heterosexuals. They fail to understand that one set of individuals can vary from another set of individuals yet still form a collective.

The conservative has a simplistic idea of how the world is. For them, Individual = Society = Nation = Government = Military. You’ll often hear a conservative boast about how “we” saved the French’s ass in World War II as if he had any significant connection to the event. To enjoy the victory, the conservative must be the collective. If he wants lower taxes, society should have lower taxes because he and society are one and the same. If he believes Texas is the greatest state, society should recognize that Texas is the greatest state because he and society and one and the same. If he likes meat, the status quo likes meat and vegetarians are wackos (by definition someone who is not “normal” or in line with society).

This works in reverse too. Because gay Americans exist, America is gay which means he is gay. This pains him because he doesn’t want to have sex with men and so he works to bash homosexual. If immigrants come into the country, American will be less white Christian and he will be less white Christian so he works to stop immigrations.

Additionally, if the collective chooses a path, the conservative individual usually blindly follows. If Fox News tells him to support Social Security privatization, then he supports it. If the church tells him to be against abortion, he will be. It is both an assimilating and assimilative existence.

Basically, conservatives want all individuals to be like the status quo of society because they do not understand the difference.

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Salvation through Dilettantism

Tantalus, once again, fails to take a drink or to eat the fruit.

I was told I was being hired. I was told I was a priority and I would be starting in July. After a number of interviews, intelligence testing, two psychological exams, a polygraph and a background investigation, I became a little invested. I imagined they would teach me Chinese and send me abroad. I thought I would be doing something interesting for change.

The water was at my lips. I started to picture it quenching my parched throat. Perhaps that was the mistake

Then they sent me a brief letter telling me something had been revealed that disqualified me.

Instantly, the water receded and I was left feeling foolish. I am not sure if I am most angry with them for being moralists, them for being teases, myself for not keeping my mouth shut or myself for getting my hopes up.

People’s consolation has been varied. To ameliorate the pain, many people bash the original dream much in the same way an ex is derided after a breakup. My sister said, “good, now you’ll be able to sleep at night”, questioning the ethics of the job. My mother said “good, now you wont be killed”, questioning the safety of it.

Others use empathy. They assure me that their dreams are unfilled as well. Is Tantalus’ thirst eased by the fatigue of Sisyphus or the dizziness of Ixion? Maybe a little.

Finally, some focus on the opportunities and swear to me that there is a silver lining. “Look on the bright-side,” said my boss “now you can have a life.” Having gone to store to find want I wanted gone, I do still have the money to buy something else.

Ahh, the opportunity of something else. That is joy of the dilettante. The world seemed to have ended on Saturday, but somehow it is Wednesday and I don’t feel that bad. One stock crashed, but the dilettante’s portfolio was diversified.

Moving on.

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

On a Second Level

A while back, I recommended a few movies and a TV show to friend of mine (Fight Club, Donnie Darko, Angel). He enjoyed them, but not for the same reasons I did. He found them confusing and certainly did not see the insights and nuances that I saw in them. This experience happens rather frequently to me. Whether it’s a metaphor, an insight or an irony, people often do not get what I get and do not see what I see. Sure, one could just arrogantly claim that one’s friends are not bright, but that is certainly not the case. What is worrisome is that there is the possibility that I am imagining complex order in what very well may be chaos.

There was an old episode of “227” where Mary takes a part time job as a cleaning lady at a museum. She leaves her rag and Windex on a podium and, as one could expect, it receives rave reviews as brilliant art. This plot has been repeated several times in other shows ad nauseam. The message and humor of the episode is that supposed “intellectuals”, because of their pedantry, are reading into things that are not really there and the rag and Windex is a comical extreme.

In opposition to people not seeing what I see, I do occasionally come across people who interpret things exactly as I see them. This is an incredible comfort perhaps because we discover that we are not alone in the universe or perhaps because two perspectives establish a more solid truth. Unfortunately, Jim Jones has shown us that just because many people see something, it does not mean it is really there. The intellectuals in the “227” episode all were in agreement, wrongly, that Mary’s art was great.

Perhaps what is more disturbing is that if one can read into something that is not there in art, one can read into something that is not there in life. We may all be searching for higher meanings, paths, destiny, morality and love that are not really there. Like a charlatan with Tarot cards or a horoscope, we may be finding order in complexity when there is actually only chaos and randomness. In fact, this is probably the case.

At least in the case of art, we can go to the artist, the creator, and ask what the intension of the piece was. Artist almost certainly had an intension when creating something or he would not have created it in the first place. If the viewer’s interpretation corresponds with the artists, than the interpretation was correct.

With life, we do not get that luxury.

Monday, May 02, 2005

Crippled

A marathon has been completed and some questions were answered. How fast can I do a hilly marathon with minimal training? Four hours, forty-three minutes. Was it painful? Yeah, it was fairly painful. Will I do it again? Probably. What did I think about during the time? Eh, nothin’. Did I learn anything important? No, not really.

The one thing about the marathon that took me by surprise was the hills. I had trained on completely flat ground and was not prepared for movement along the Z-axis. It wasn’t took much of a factor until mile eighteen or so. Then my body shut down. There was no conscience decision to start walking; it just happened. Like trying to move a limb that had fallen asleep, my legs could not perform run mode up the hill any longer. After walking a bit, I tried running again and was able to manage for fifty yards or so before needing to walk again. This continued the rest of race.

Today, my legs hurt, but it is my lower back that is the bane of my existence. I, again, blame those hills. I am crippled, albeit temporality. To rise from chairs is a chore and bending over to pick something up is Herculean.

I keep my alarm clock on the other side of the room. It is part of feeble attempt of waking myself up in the morning. Today, it alerted and I lay immobile listening to its monotonous buzz for a few good minutes. Slowly, I moved myself to a sitting position and, then, like Atlas lifting the sky, I lifted my body to a standing position. I inched across the room, hit the snooze and then returned to the bed’s foot, falling on in it like cut timber. Twice more, I suffered through this routine, idiotically.

It occurred to me that I am extremely lucky. I brought this upon myself and I know that these annoyances are temporary. For legions of others, like my father, they must go through every day being crippled. Every day, they must fight to do the simple things and bear pain that we will never know until a late age. It is rather surprising that society celebrates “uber-humans” who are born with the ability to do every day tasks easier that the average man rather than those who have been disadvantaged. Those who can play a sport better, those who are born with a beautiful face and those born fabulously wealthy are placed before us as models. Maybe their success is either to measure. Maybe humans deal with jealousy better than guilt.