It's an emotional adrenaline-junkie thing. It's the wash of chemicals that let you know you're alive.

That sounds about right to my ear. And I do love that wash of chemicals that lets you know you're alive. I'm an old grump sometimes. But I'm not one with a total lack of understanding or sympathy. What is life it you can't dip your toe once in a while in a nice chemical aliveness bath? That is a basic part of life, as far as I'm concerned. A good part, but I can also make a case for other parts being a grounding and founding principle of reality, such as the parts of reason and faith (faith defined as finding or trying to find a larger context for our lives, thoughts, and actions). And I have done a bit of that here and there. But all the reason or faith in the world can, at least temporarily, shrink in the face of some of these chemical baths, whether orgasms of true compassion, pseudo-compassion, or bodily passion. The philosopher's job is to make the case for each and every one of these influences, the spiritual, the reasonable, and the chemical aliveness bath. The crank philosopher's job is to ignore two or more fundamental aspects of reality and try to pretend the others don't count or aren't of much significance.

In truth, Mildred from time to time reminds me of some of the various wash basins full of chemicals that can be quite nice at times. And perhaps that's where the other elements need to come in for one to truly lead some sort of meaningful, deeper life. Yes, we can just use people like objects for our own pleasure, and yet even when we don't do so completely and we do indeed appreciate the "soul" (or whatever you want to call it) of the other person, reason still may (if we're lucky, at least in my opinion) inform us that well, yeah, there is an aspect to any relationship of using people to get what you want. To deny it is not to be any better informed or to actually be a better, more moral person.

I think our species is getting a bit housecatted, and sometimes we crave the spurts of endorphins or cortisol or whatever the hell that we used to get from running away from mammoths or fighting cave bears.

I totally agree, although our definitions of "housecatted" will probably differ. But this is where I'm sympathetic to, if not in agreement, with about every crank spiritualist and new ager out there. I do think many people (at least some people) aren't just trying to bath themselves continually in those chemical baths. I think many people want and are looking for the extra dimension to their lives, their ideas, and their actions. I don't think they're wrong to do so. I'm certainly trying to do so. But I just have a very hard time accepting other people's pre-made chemical basins for those baths. Actually, some religions pretty much get out of balance themselves and stress one aspect (or aspiration) of reality at the expense of others. To set this earth below heaven, for example, and dismiss bodily experiences as important is that kind of thing.

Beer or wine will sometimes do in a pinch for a chemical bath, and I've done that. But it's ultimately a very unfulfilling bath. I've never been a sex addict, so I don't know if that's fulfilling or not. I suspect it has some definite upsides to it, but I figure that any try for personal utopia or nirvana is bound to fail. But the actual and very real chemical bath inside our heads has us primed for chasing chemical baths. And as far as I'm concerned, there's no use denying it or calling this chase necessarily less than some other endeavor. But I think when we put some of these endeavors together (the physical chemical baths, the spiritual perspective, and the infusion of reason over the top), we stand as strong of a chance as any to at least take a bath but be able to dry off afterwards and not drown in that bath. I'm sorry for sounding too much like FB (no offense), but I hope I can walk and talk all sides of these issues.

quote:

I've never been a sex addict, so I don't know if that's fulfilling or not.

Damn straight, lol. Though I completely scoff at how low a bar people sometimes set for "sex addiction" and describe it as people "suffering" from sex addiction. It's like saying people suffer from extreme snowboarding or bungie jumping.

It's the time of year for hunting shows on TV, and every now and again I'll tune in for some guilty pleasure. But one thing always jumps out at me as the host/hunter feverishly whispers into his microphone... he's breathing like he's in a porn movie. Ever notice that? You can hear it in the BREATH how arousing hunting is.

I mean, like sex, we must be designed for it. People do it not because you can't get fresh venison at the market, but because there is something about hunting that gives us that wash of those chemicals.

Even the stupid hunters who shoot management style (sitting in a comfortable blind/shack in front of an auto-feeder, watching the feeder with binoculars. Eye roll) even they breathe hard when they're about to take an animal they didn't even have to stalk. That's about as grocery store as you can get, and still it pushes the hunter buttons in their brain.

So again, when I talk about video games as an art form, as healthy and civilized modes of expression, I think we're talking about the same chemicals here. The same hard breathing and arousal.

Though I completely scoff at how low a bar people sometimes set for "sex addiction" and describe it as people "suffering" from sex addiction. It's like saying people suffer from extreme snowboarding or bungie jumping.

LOL. Yeah, I agree. It's a sex addiction compared to what? If you do it once a month, compared to me you're a sex addict. But there's a lot of variability in what people want from sex. And I'm just not the type who can do recreational sex (I really wish I were), but I understand that there are those who are emotionally capable of it. Good for them as long as I don't have to pay for any diseases they pick up.

But one thing always jumps out at me as the host/hunter feverishly whispers into his microphone... he's breathing like he's in a porn movie. Ever notice that? You can hear it in the BREATH how arousing hunting is.

LMAO. That is definitely not an image I wanted inside my head. But now it's there. I'm basically turning into a liberal wuss as I get older. It pains me to see animals hunted for pleasure, although I wouldn't ever outlaw it. It can just be a natural part of animal control, and many species have made big come-backs because of the funds provided by hunters. And thus the real drive and ability to preserve not only species but large tracks of land for those species is often due to hunting. Ducks Unlimited, for example, I think has an astonishingly great record in preserving wetlands.

But that breathing hard thing while killing...I'm not judging these kind of people as bad. It's just a fact of life. But I really do cringe at the idea of that. And I readily admit I'm a hypocrite (or at least not consistent) because I eat meat all the time.

quote:

It pains me to see animals hunted for pleasure, although I wouldn't ever outlaw it. It can just be a natural part of animal control, and many species have made big come-backs because of the funds provided by hunters.

It pains me to see animals hunted by retards. Who just kill for the thrill, and then chuck the carcass. At least most of those GIVE away the meat, which is something. But to me, the most noble hunters are the one that use every part of the animal, and make it more about procuring food than getting to breathe heavy.

Hunting is definitely something we do. I don't think it'll ever disappear. I'm WAY more inclined to hunt now than I was before Obama won the election. I seriously may be adding much more game to my diet now that food prices are going up, and the economy has taken a nosedive.

In most places, we really HAVE to hunt. The deer population in the East is totally out of control. There aren't enough hunters to thin the herd. And now they're really a menace on the roads. That's the primary way the population is reduced around here... of both deer and people. Plus there's lime disease and all that crap.

We killed most of the deer's natural predators, mostly wolves. Coyotes are coming back, but they're smaller and usually have enough other food around that they don't have to bother with the danger of pack-hunting healthy deer.

Mountain lions would do it, but they're smart critters and would soon realize that hikers don't run as fast as deer, and are higher in calories and fat.

Trust me, you will now never be able to see a hunting show without noticing the breathing. That's all I hear now whenever I watch those shows.

I wonder why VENISON isn't the centerpiece of our TGiving celebration. That's most of what they ate at the first thanksgiving. There were six deer. Wild Turkey was probably on the table too, but it wasn't a big deal. I can imagine Venison tenderloins, wrapped in bacon being pretty delicious with stuffing and cranberry sauce.

Yep. Agree about needing hunters. Yep, mountain lions would probably pick up a taste for East Coasters. Yep, venison sounds like a nice alternative to turkey every single year. (Don't think I've had venison, by the way. I've had moose, bear, goose, duck, geoduck, and bull testicles, but no venison. Oh, lamb is good too. Silence of the lambs. I'm breathing heavy as those lamp chops go down.)

But, geez, those factory meat farms bother me a little. Even if the treatment is humane, it's just so "To Serve Man." If an alien race comes to earth and herds us all into human farms, we'll have little moral recourse. That bothers me and I think it should bother me. Yep, I've got a drumstick in the fridge at home that I'll have for dinner tonight. I'll eat it. That won't bother me at all. But there's something wrong about using animals like that. It's too mechanized, too efficient, too cold. You see the people running those factories and it's like the SS lite. They're not bad people necessarily. But if you can work amongst so much organized death and feel nothing, that's a bit scary to me. I think religious animal sacrifices are especially crude. But, geez again, wasn't that an amazingly powerful scene in Rome when Atia got underneath that bull, they sliced it, and she was covered in blood? Wow. And you have blood central to Christian rituals as well. And that equally turns me off. Jesus may have shed his blood but does blood really have to be the focus point of a religion supposedly dedicated to a higher moral standard? Seems like an obvious and utter contradiction to me.

We need to recognize that the whole Judeo-Christian tradition grew up out of a patriarchal agrarian system, which was basically a blood-cult that began to take on more and more burnt-offering sacrifice. I guess that was because the demand in the priest class for freshly barbecued meat was high.

Yes, abattoirs are kind of creepy and sick. But they are a necessary evil, in that they give us meat without remorse. I think hunting and fishing at least gives us a bit more remorse back. It's a healthy mortality-reminder to know that you ended the life of a beautiful creature. It died so you could live. That's a basic theme in religion, too. Very deep in the human experience. Unsettling because it reminds us that we kinda still live in a kill or be killed, dog eat dog world.

When I've caught and killed my own food, butchered it myself, and eaten it, I think it's a kind of bullshit-cutting experience. It presents you with particularly tough to face realities. The second-amendment/gun/self-defense thing too, does that. And different people react in different ways to those realities. Some become vegans. Others drink different flavors of kool aid. But to me, it's always been healthier to face those realities. The more uncomfortable they are, sometimes the more important it is to face them.

There are things about hunting that balance out the pleasure of it. The fun of stalking and killing, and the joy of eating is tempered by hunting being fairly hard physical exercise, the remorse of killing, the smell of hot blood and guts... enduring the cold, the danger of attracting bears by field-dressing the animal...

It's kind of a good thing that hunting isn't easy (except that retarded management-style bait and shoot nonsense). Since LIFE is so easy now, hunting becomes one of our strategies for making life less so... which increases our well being by giving us challenges to overcome.

That's the role of any sport. It's why many of us crave competition. We're not running from Sabretooths anymore, might as well run track and field. Wars are expensive and dangerous, let's play football instead. Hand-to-hand combat is brutal, let's box instead.

As we become more civilized, the need for entertainments that fulfill our design imperatives seem logical. These become either ritualized or ordered with various rules that allow us to get the best from them, while still being challenged enough.

Yes, abattoirs are kind of creepy and sick. But they are a necessary evil, in that they give us meat without remorse. I think hunting and fishing at least gives us a bit more remorse back. It's a healthy mortality-reminder to know that you ended the life of a beautiful creature. It died so you could live. That's a basic theme in religion, too. Very deep in the human experience. Unsettling because it reminds us that we kinda still live in a kill or be killed, dog eat dog world.

I love Joseph Campbell's interpretation (or summary of other people's interpretation) when he says that a great deal of the ritual surrounding the hunt was simply about the guilt of massacring such a splendid living creature as any wild animal. We ritualize the hunt and mythologize it. We may say crap about how we release the animals to regenerate into their next state of being or how these animals laid down their lives willingly so that we could live (and thus many rituals are about giving thanks to the animals). But it's all driven by a deep-down recognition that we took something amazing that was once living and made it dead and lifeless.

When I've caught and killed my own food, butchered it myself, and eaten it, I think it's a kind of bullshit-cutting experience. It presents you with particularly tough to face realities. The second-amendment/gun/self-defense thing too, does that. And different people react in different ways to those realities. Some become vegans. Others drink different flavors of kool aid. But to me, it's always been healthier to face those realities. The more uncomfortable they are, sometimes the more important it is to face them.

Oh, I totally agree about facing those realities cleanly, clearly, and without undue hysteria or exaggeration. Life eats life. That's how all but strictly photosynthesizing life (or chemical-eating bacteria) lives. Indeed, a modern, humane slaughterhouse is far superior to cruder methods. And I can't abide those who protest harsh treatment of animals while wearing leather belts and driving around on leathers seats in their BMWs. People can be so self-indulgently blind. They're driven as much, if not more so, by the desire to feel superior than to actual do something good. But look at leather seats in your car and think about the lampshades a few top Nazis made out of the skin of Jews. Christ, even friendly little Jell-o is made out of animal leftovers from the slaughterhouse (I think the gelatin is extruded from the bones, but I'm not sure about that).

But we humans aren't necessarily horrible creatures because of all this. After all, we are probably the only creature on the planet who gives a rip about humane slaughtering techniques. Most other animals are content to eat us alive while we're screaming our heads off in agony. But do we really need to raise animals for their fur? And you know me, I'm not one of these people who just like hating the rich. But in the Star Trek universe, they simply replicate protein molecules in the replicators and makes steaks. That could be where we're headed and I don't see that as a bad thing.

As we become more civilized, the need for entertainments that fulfill our design imperatives seem logical. These become either ritualized or ordered with various rules that allow us to get the best from them, while still being challenged enough.

Oh, I do think that is absolutely so. And it seems that violent video games such as World of Warcraft can fulfill that role nicely.

You know you can trust Brother Brad in all matters regarding the female of species except how to actually get married to them. But this idea that women like men who can communicate? Totally bogus. "Communicate" is nothing but a code word for "listen to me." And I'm not being cynical. I actually do believe that communication is important. But it is type and purpose that is in question, not necessarily the amount. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the general Cosmopolitan "gist" out there that guys need to open up, talk more, explore their feelings in depth, and even cry? Isn't that the ideal? Well, it's simply not true that women really want this, nor do they really desire the level of communication from their men that they typically get from other chatty women. (Now you know why they are attracted to chick flicks and men are generally repelled by them. It is the female version of pornography, watching all those women blather on endlessly about their dresses and relationships while the men on screen actually seem to remain interested in this stuff.)

Now, I know I'm telling you nothing you don't already likely know, but I just like to put such questions on a more scientific footing. Ideally thalo, for example, would be my perfect mate if I were a woman. He talks a lot. He communicates a lot. And he communicates well. And yet I truly believe it is a grand farce and fraudulent idea that women want men who communicate a lot. Now, please don't interpret this as me having any trouble with communicating. I don't. But I was just putting a few pieces together from other people's experiences, my own experience (past and recent) and just the logic of evolutionary psychology as it relates to the battle of the sexes. What a woman wants isn't necessarily the amount of communication. The core thing is that she wants reassurances. If it takes a lot of talk from the man to get that, then fine. If he can do it in two words, then fine. But since men instinctively know the bottomless pit of "talking feelings and other stuff" with women, they generally tend to pare their responses down to a couple grunts, which has the woman pushing back and complaining that her man "just won't communicate." Well, that's also a code word for the fact that you don't listen if he's not telling you things you want to hear.

I've oversimplified, of course. And I do believe that communication is extremely important...including communications about what I think are a number of fallacies regarding communication itself. Bogus. Fraud. Debunked.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the trick is knowing when to shut up. Women don't want men to communicate. They want to WANT men to communicate.

Once they actually do, or try, men have lost all mystery and become objects of contempt.

Women complain about "emotional unavailability", but it's exactly what they do want. They want a strong and secure monolith to aim their chatter at. I am being cynical, but only 'cause it's true. I don't even think they want reassurances. Because give too many, and you come off as pussy whipped anyway. Again, they want to want them, so dole them out very sparingly.

Three questions never to answer:

1. What are you thinking?
2. Does this make me look fat?
3. Any sentence that begins with "How come you never...?"

Those are the relationship equivalents of claymore mines. I know it's hard to actually not answer a question. To respond with silence. It becomes a battle of wills. But one you will win if you just smile sweetly and let dumb shit questions hang in the air interminably. Wait long enough, and they will answer them themselves.

If you have to say something, say "come on, sweetheart, cut it out."

Good communication is dialog. It doesn't start with juvenile questions anchored in emotional need for reassurance. If that crap is in the air, your role is probably supposed to be the supportive father figure that was never supportive enough. You have to change the rules on that behavior. To shock a woman back into adulthood, you have to either be patronizing (the bad side of father figure), or strong and silent.

You can tell worthy dialog because it'll be about the two of you, instead of centered around her. And there will be more rational mind involved. It'll be more about "I don't know the answer, what can we do to find it together?" As opposed to boobytrap questions that are more a test of you than they are honest queries.

It's 2009 here, broeders. Happy New Year!

You know, thalo, I think I've finally decided I don't want the drama of the female mind. Now I know why homosexuality exists although they seem to often end up in a relationship where one of them is sort of the bitchy female anyway. It's actually sort of charming in a man. One of my gay clients is like that. He's one half of a really nice couple. He can be really "on the rag" sometimes but I just ignore it and know it will pass. And it does. And then he's the same really nice guy again after that mood has passed. I just have one slight problem with that overall gay orientation. I don't even like taking suppositories. Is there like a junior membership or something? But I think you nailed the communication shtick better than I did. Sounds about right. Think global warming is a fantasy being fed to billions? It's probably nothing compared to what Oprah and the pages of Cosmopolitan are feeding to billions of women. Sure makes Playboy and Penthouse seem much more harmless in comparison.

Happy New Year, Brother Yabor. You Europeans like staying ahead on just about everything.

To me, the gays--god love 'em--are more about arrested maturity than anything else. I'm of course talking the swishy, more flamboyant, sibilant-s woman-wannabee stereotype.

That can be fun and funny, but I think at it's heart it is a kind of role-playing game, and it's one that thumbs its nose at the sort of traditional idea of masculine responsibility and maturity.

Now, I kind of understand that. Because being a real man, and responsible, is hard work. Very hard. It's probably not healthy for men to always be the strong one, to swallow certain emotions, be the rock in a relationship. It's far easier for a guy to flit around and wear their hearts on their sleeves. Be the nurturing, emotional, slightly zany and irrational woman-man.

I've never bought the idea that people are born gay. But I do think our sexual orientation is something that's formed very early in childhood. And it's usually about a young boy being enamored with--and sexualizing-- all the trappings of womanhood, gravitating to them... while at the same time having crappy male role models growing up.

In some ways, you're right, gay men make better women than women. That's probably because they've reduced their feminine side to what it is: all an act. And yet it's an act that eventually becomes internalized. For example, one of my dearest friends on this earth is a fag, and although he can be typically fake-chick-cruel, over-the-top flamboyant and annoying, he also ends up being TRULY caring and emotionally nurturing when it really matters. In other words, when he drops the act. Probably to a degree that only the most well-adjusted woman can attain.

I frequently joke that I'm the chick whisperer. But I'm seldom wrong in reading some of these behaviors. Most dysfunction in women and relationships (men too) is a lack of maturity. Almost an addiction to adolescent or arrested-development crap. This culture is not particularly satisfying to women when it comes to being in a balanced human relationship. They may have sorta won the battle of the sexes, but all that did was give them weak, pussy whipped, phony-sensitive men. And give them rivals that will stab them in the back, or that they will stab in the back, instead of true friends of the same sex.

Consequently, a woman's world is very lonely right now. Most are consumed with fantasies, and ideas of need-fulfillment. They know squat about loving in the real world. Most relationships fail because of this. Right now mutual dependency and immaturity are the reasons most humans hook up. The problem really is what I call "center-of-the-universe behavior"; where a woman honestly believes a relationship is all about her, and that men are there to serve her needs and whims, and make her a high maintenance fairy princess.

Real relationships are much more work than that. There is more crap-settling involved, and more contribution necessary. A lot more "loving the person, hating the behavior."

The immaturity comes in when not getting one's way equals blaming and hating one's partner. That's the absolute kiss of death. It turns your basic "life sucks" into "life sucks because of YOU, because you're not doing your job to make me happy." People need to grow up.

It's not easy to be in a mature, stable, dare I say NORMAL human relationship nowadays. People aren't creative enough, they don't have enough imagination, and most have lost their sense of humor. When you ask most singles what is the most important quality in a mate, they all say the same thing: a sense of humor. Why? Because that's the first thing to go when you think the world revolves around you.

Once the emphasis is off of this postmodern self-esteem/my needs first mentality, and people start actually contributing to, or working toward a relationship... that's when you have anything even remotely close to the "intimacy" that everyone puts on a pedestal now.

Most couples are barely civilized to each other nowadays. Gone are the days when a woman used to put on her pearls before her man came home, and serve him a cold martini. Gone are the days when a man would circle the car to open the door for his lady, and offer his hand... or cracked another guy on the jaw if he was fresh to his woman.

I think we could learn a lot from the greatest generation when it comes to the male-female dynamic. My grandparents were only parted by death. And while they bickered ferociously, they dressed up to go out together, they danced, they sat down to meals, they constantly contributed to the union using their respective gifts and talents.

The next generation, my parents, had none of that. Ended in divorce. It was a more me-centric slacker culture. And now that slacker-ness and self-centeredness has become even more ridiculous and damaging.

Yes, we poked holes in the lies of the Ward and June Cleaver happy family, but we were left with way less stable, less mature, baser relationships.


We're about T-minus two hours and counting to aught-nine here on the East Coast.

Happy New Year, my brothers! Good riddance to aught-eight. What a crappy year! Even 01 was better.

I've never bought the idea that people are born gay. But I do think our sexual orientation is something that's formed very early in childhood. And it's usually about a young boy being enamored with--and sexualizing-- all the trappings of womanhood, gravitating to them... while at the same time having crappy male role models growing up.

Indeed, I do think it is also a "lifestyle choice," as much as Dan Quail got reamed for bringing that concept into play. But it's clearly also a dessert topping. Some seem to be born gay. It might have something to do with low levels of testosterone in fetal development that leads to a lack of the maculating of the brain. You can have all the equipment but not the mental difference. But it's complicated because from prison to Sparta to ancient Greece we see that men can be induced quite easily to have sex with the same sex. So I do think a lot of these eyerolling celebs who come out and say they are gay are simply doing a little attention seeking. Many of these people are probably just making lifestyle choices with the same intent of J.K. Rowlings' stupid line of "I've always thought of Dumbledore as being gay." It's because they're seeking sympathy and attention. Male masculinity is flexible enough to make this believable to me, as odd as that sounds. But people do odd things all the time for attention.

In some ways, you're right, gay men make better women than women.

The other gay friend of mine, a guy who works in the same building, is often very emotional and bitchy like a woman. But I think the difference is that he's not so defensive about it. He has his rant and then he's done with it. Guys are more like that. Yes, they hold grudges, but not with the same long reach as females. Maybe that's the core difference. They don't take it all so seriously. They KNOW they're being bitchy and perhaps don't expect the rest of the world to conform in such a way that they can then view themselves as normal. I had a good laugh the other day with this swell fellow because I told him that morning (and I could tell he was in one of his moods) that I came to work that day in a foul mood and we both started bitching and laughing at idiot drivers, and then the mood passed. Women seem much more deathly attached to their foul moods. Yikes.

This culture is not particularly satisfying to women when it comes to being in a balanced human relationship. They may have sorta won the battle of the sexes, but all that did was give them weak, pussy whipped, phony-sensitive men.

That is the subtitle to the book you must write. LOL. And I'm serious.

The problem really is what I call "center-of-the-universe behavior"; where a woman honestly believes a relationship is all about her, and that men are there to serve her needs and whims, and make her a high maintenance fairy princess.

And that would be a pull-quote on the back jacket.

When you ask most singles what is the most important quality in a mate, they all say the same thing: a sense of humor. Why? Because that's the first thing to go when you think the world revolves around you.

LMAO. That's the title of Chapter One.

Once the emphasis is off of this postmodern self-esteem/my needs first mentality, and people start actually contributing to, or working toward a relationship... that's when you have anything even remotely close to the "intimacy" that everyone puts on a pedestal now.

I really do think Mildred is trapped in that which is why she remains such an interesting specimen for me. We're going out again in a couple nights but I really just don't care anymore. I can't fight the whole Cosmopolitan Oprah postmodern self-esteem/my needs first mindset. Hey, I readily admit I'm somewhat of an immature person so there really isn't room for that kind of stuff. It's gotta be kept simple: I like you, you like me, let's spend some time together with no other motive, backdrop, or drama than that.

Most couples are barely civilized to each other nowadays. Gone are the days when a woman used to put on her pearls before her man came home, and serve him a cold martini. Gone are the days when a man would circle the car to open the door for his lady, and offer his hand... or cracked another guy on the jaw if he was fresh to his woman….I think we could learn a lot from the greatest generation when it comes to the male-female dynamic.

When I look at the healthy and lasting relationships of the crowd who are in their 60's or 70's, yeah, the women understand the need and desire for political and social equality, and only Stone Age men would deny that. But these women are also wise enough to know that the other 90% of the feminist agenda is bullshit. These women LIKE being women and they like their men to be men, and this I think is the secret to the length and durability of their marriages. They eyeroll at most of the modern feminist stuff that should be eyerolled at while a lot of younger women don’t seem to grasp that a lot of this stuff is as stupid as carbon credits.

Besides, Mildred is now fully expendable. I've got this other chick who is very nice to me and bakes me cookies. There's just one little problem. She's still married (but separated) so it will be a platonic relationship for the immediate future. And that's probably fine. Having the female influence (which I really do need and like) but without the entrapment of that influence is probably optimal right now. It's like my nephews. I do love them, but they also go home with their parents every night. Perfect.

quote:

Happy New Year, my brothers! Good riddance to aught-eight. What a crappy year! Even 01 was better.

Happy New Year! Thanks from old Europe. We celebrated it nicely. My head feels a little funny but nothing serious. Yay 2009! (Hopefully better than '08 - agree about it's crappyness)

But now: Good vibrations.

quote:

Good vibrations.

Okay, I'm listening to that song now. The Beach Boys is quite a contrast to being in the dead of winter with new snow on the ground.

I do not agree with the crappiness of 2008. I had a chance to read a lot of classics I'd been meaning to read. Like I say, if you can't be making love to a beautiful woman, read a good book. The only things important in life are knowledge, enjoyment, growth, creativity, and integrity. Sometimes even the shitty stuff contributes to some of that.

And by reading a lot of non-fiction here and there, as well as the classics, I feel I contributed to my own education. One needs to do that because you have to be twice as smart as the charlatans. That's just the way it is. I'd rather understand them then be manipulated by them. It's all about being in control of your own destiny. To sit back, for example, and let socialists decide the news, the economy, and our very lives is hell. We ought to all use 2009 as an opportunity to vote them out. There is no other alternative except to pout about how some politician or government program didn't make it a good year for you. 2009 would be as good of a year as any to take back our Western heritage and thereby own more of our destiny. We can rebuild ourselves. We have the technology…and the libraries. We can make use of our amazing tools for creative opportunities. Our technology provides scads of them and for a relatively low price. We can grow by simply refusing the habits of culture and mind. We can grow in integrity as well by questioning, gently but doggedly, all things.

Even if life or a year sort of sucks, they are but mere bumps on the road if we can regain purpose. I've spent most of my life purposelessly drifting. And I'm not gung-ho about anything at the moment. But what is so often missing isn't external to us, it is internal. And nothing focuses a mind, a year, or a life like purpose. In the rot that is so often the internet, we can lead here at thalo.net in thought, in free speech, in creativity, and even in just plain old fun. We can show them how it's done, a world that has become dull, cynical, and unimaginative. Screw the calendar. Those numbers don't mean a thing. As they say, every day is the beginning of the rest of your life. And one needn't do anything grand, but one must strive to not be but a habit of one's culture. Herds are for milking and fencing, not for us humans.

What got me thinking about destiny and purpose is this interesting chapter from James Allen's book, "As A Man Thinketh." What got me thinking about socialism should be obvious by now. But here's the relevant bit from Brother Jim:

quote:

Thought and Purpose

Until thought is linked to purpose there is no intelligent accomplishment. With the majority the bark of thought is allowed to "drift" upon the ocean of life. Aimlessness is a vice, and such drifting must not continue for him who would steer clear of catastrophe and destruction.

They who have no central purpose in their life fall an easy prey to petty worries, fears, troubles, and self-pityings, all of which are indications of weakness, which lead, just as surely as deliberately planned sins (though by a different route), to failure, unhappiness, and loss, for weakness cannot persist in a power-evolving universe. [Love that "power-evolving universe" bit.]

A man should conceive of a legitimate purpose in his heart, and set out to accomplish it. He should make this purpose the centralizing point of his thoughts. It may take the form of a spiritual ideal, or it may be a worldly object, according to his nature at the time being; but whichever it is, he should steadily focus his thought forces upon the object which he has set before him. He should make this purpose his supreme duty, and should devote himself to its attainment, not allowing his thoughts to wonder away into ephemeral fancies, longings, and imaginings. This is the royal road to self-control and true concentration of thought. Even if he fails again and again to accomplish his purpose, the strength of character gained will be the measure of his true success, and this will form a new starting point for future power and triumph.

Those who are not prepared for the apprehension of a great purpose should fix the thoughts upon the faultless performance of their duty, no matter how insignificant their task may appear. Only in this way can the thoughts be gathered and focused, and resolution and energy be developed, which being done, there is nothing which may not be accomplished.

The weakest soul, knowing its own weakness, and believing this truth -- that strength can only be developed by effort and practice, will, thus believing, at once begin to exert itself, and, adding effort to effort, patience to patience, and strength to strength, will never cease to develop, and will at last grow divinely strong.

As the physically weak man can make himself strong by careful and patient training, so the man of weak thoughts can make them strong by exercising himself in right thinking.

To put away aimlessness and weakness, and to begin to think with purpose, is to enter the ranks of those strong ones who only recognize failure as one of the pathways to attainment; who make all conditions serve them; and who think strongly, attempt fearlessly, and accomplish masterfully.

Having conceived of his purpose, a man should mentally mark out a straight pathway to its achievement, looking neither to the right nor the left. Doubts and fears should be rigorously excluded; they are disintegrating elements, which break up the straight line of effort, rendering it crooked, ineffectual, useless. Thoughts of doubt and fear never accomplished anything, and never can. They always lead to failure. Purpose, energy, power to do, and all strong thoughts cease when doubt and fear creep in. [No fear...like the t-shirt says.]

The will to do springs from the knowledge that we can do. Doubt and fear are the great enemies of knowledge, and he who encourages them, who does not slay them, thwarts himself at every step.

He who has conquered doubt and fear has conquered failure. His every thought is allied with power, and all difficulties are bravely met and wisely overcome. His purposes are seasonably planted, and they bloom, and bring forth fruit which does not fall prematurely to the ground. [In other words, "Just do it."]

Thought allied fearlessly to purpose becomes creative force: he who knows this is read to become something higher and stronger than a mere bundle of wavering thoughts and fluctuating sensations; he who does this has become the conscious and intelligent wielder of his mental powers.

Yeah, that's what I am. A bundle of wavering thoughts and fluctuating sensations. And if you're Jim Carrey, you can make millions at it. If you're me, you're just some nut on an internet forum speaking his mind. But it's interesting to consider that this book was published in 1902. It has elements of "the power of positive thinking" as well as the Buddhist idea of "right thought." There are religious ideas of sin and soul and humanist ideas of "purpose, energy, and the power to do." It's a nice mix of gung-ho positivism which, although gung-ho and necessarily a bit cult-of-one-ish, is better than the alternative which is to doubt, flounder, and live in fear. Although it is necessarily not phrased this way (because it would likely break the necessary and pragmatic illusion of purpose), we're cast into life and we might as well focus our energies in some arbitrary, but useful, direction rather than just be a bundle of "wavering thoughts and fluctuating sensations." Granted, a guy can still make a lot of money with "wavering thoughts and fluctuating sensations" by being a writer or something like that, but I get his point.

Anyway, I just thought that was an interesting bit from the book. Something to perhaps stick in your pipe and smoke for 2009 and beyond.

I always enjoy Thomas Sowell's Random Thoughts, so here are a few of mine to close out 2008:

Drugs and other addictive behavior are a rational response to reality. It's just not a sustainable response.

One does not need religion for morality. One needs morality for morality.

Politics and environmentalism are the new religion. And many of the prevailing beliefs are not moral let alone truthful.

God invented sex to make a crazy world even crazier. Thank you, I guess.

The price that is too high to pay for peace is our addiction to novelty.

The only thing more important than friends is…is…I can't think of anything.

People are generally smarter and wiser than the so-called elite intelligentsia…if they would stop listening to them.

To regain one's life means to regain one's mind. To regain one's mind is to put not such a high value on one's material life.

There are usually six sides to a snowflake and this either matters or doesn't matter, or both matters and doesn't matter.

This year I will learn to like socialism for the poverty it brings. One of the quests of the spiritual life is to gain an appreciation for one's innate poverty. I'll still likely vote Republican as enforced poverty doesn't quite hold the same lessons as voluntary poverty.

In a world where market forces, economics, self-interest, and popularity seem to determine everything, including what one believes, is there a free market for the mind anywhere? Is there a place in this world where things matter beyond merely how useful or stimulating something is? Or is our only escape from the inexorable, inevitable, unstoppable world of material-in-motion simply and exclusively fantasy, illusion, and delusion? Are those our only choices? (By the way, I include the fantasy of your typical liberal college professor among those escape mechanisms, and not a small caveat by any means.)

Why does Batman have that stupid voice in "The Dark Knight"?

Shouldn't the NCAA be busted up and exposed as the pimp-like organization it is and, in its place, shouldn't college football athletes be paid their market value? After all, they bring in tens of millions for their schools while risking serious injury. Few of these athletes go on to big money in the pros. No, no one sticks a gun to their head and makes them join the system, but isn't the system a perverse joke? These young men are little better than gladiators at the disposal of the delusional and manipulative colleges and universities who use them as engines for big money while foisting the ludicrous notion of "amateur student athlete" on us. It's a HUGE business. Instead of using these athletes like cattle in a plantation system, let the free market pay them what they are worth.

Women don't want men to communicate. They want to WANT men to communicate.

This is undeniably true and has been proven via scientific experimentation. (My sort of ad hoc experimentation.)

Once they actually do, or try, men have lost all mystery and become objects of contempt.

I think I'd rephrase that, although the underlying vibe wouldn't really be much different. I think women want to control men, but if they ever are able to do so, or to do so too easily, this automatically strikes a wrong chord in them because then it would show their man as being too weak. I think that's the underlying trait in regards to talk, communication, or whatever. They want it, but if they get it too easily, it means the man is too weak. And women are attracted to power and strength just as men are attracted to youth and beauty.