Re: [VOID] Shanked in the Conservahood plus Kurosawa's dream.

I Find Karma (
Fri, 8 May 1998 02:50:00 -0700

I may regret this, but I'm taking Norquist's trollbait.

I wrote:
> > ...I think I am starting to understand how *A* woman thinks.
> > I just can't generalize it because all people are unique.

And then Norquist responded:
> Now THAT has to stop; if anyone is getting an DS (degree)
> ingeneralization, it would be you. It's peripheral to the case rather,
> but do generalize. It isn't even necessary to visualise in S7 to
> simply cover thought and interaction (i.e. more thought).

Okay, you're right, I can generalize. I may be wrong, but that's my

You want to know the number one key to success in any relationship?
***Abandon your own needs***.

You want success, forget about yourself. Drop the selfishness. Don't
think about your needs at all. Your needs are unimportant. Concentrate
on the other person's needs, and how you can fulfill them.

Without intellectualizing this to death, the thing that really gets my
goat about people are our "me, me, me" attitudes. It's always "read my
story" or "I'm just not happy" or "pity me because my life isn't the way
I want it to be" or "listen to my point of view because I believe I am
most right" or "empathize with my situation because even though most
people would kill for the opportunities I have, I still am not happy" or
"hold me while I weep" or "drop whatever you're doing and attend to my
problems" etcetera ad nauseum.

I'm here to tell you: take all that sorry Ayn Rand selfishness and throw
it away, if you want to be successful in human relationships.
Selfishness simply has no place in them, and with every thought you have
of yourself you kill the relationship a little more.

This is not to say that you should be a doormat and let The Other walk
all over you and use you all of the time. The first time they do
something like that, give them a warning, and the second time they do
that, leave. Don't stand for selfishness in yourself, and only stand
for selfishness in others if you have enough altruistic energy stored up
that you can afford to squander it. (Sort of like the same kind of
philosophy you should have toward gambling: only gamble what you were
going to flush down the toilet in the first place, and only expend
energy on selfish people that you were going to flush down the energy
toilet in the first place.)

Selfish people can become more altruistic if enough energy is spent on
the conversion process. But the selfish person has to really want to
change, and the helper has to really want to help. And be very patient.

It's all about communication, compromise, and at times, sacrifice.
For example, Rohit was gettin' down on me because in

I was keeping it real by saying "I'll never have kids." In this case I
am putting my own needs -- the option of having children -- away and
consciously choosing to accommodate my Significant Other's need. That's
because Michelle is more important to me than any selfish need I might
have, such as saving my money to spend on myself or spending my time
solely on activities I want to do or having children whether she wants
to or not.

In an ideal relationship both parties should lose the selfishness as
much as possible -- and in all the matters where one or more parties
can't or won't drop it, then there is compromise. That's how you know
that you've found The One -- it has nothing to do with looks,
intelligence, personality, wealth, or sense of humor. It has everything
to do with the mutual ability to communicate, compromise, and at times,
sacrifice. But if you approach every relationship with the attitude
that you're losing the selfishness wherever possible, you'll have a much
better chance for ultimate success.

Now THERE'S a sweeping generalization that probably isn't nearly as true
as I'd like it to be. But an interesting thought nonetheless. It's not
"do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" -- it's "do unto others
as they'd prefer to have done unto themselves."

By the way, I know that I promised that I wouldn't talk about The One
anymore. I lied.

Meanwhile, for the truly masochistic among us, the Norquist post for
whom the bell trolls...

> From Thu May 7 20:42:43 1998
> To: I Find Karma <>
> Subject: Re: [VOID] Shanked in the Conservahood plus Kurosawa's dream.
> > > > That's the deep little vortex of self-hatred that will keep
> > > > destroying you. It's a deep nasty motherfucker of a parasite, your
> > > > only real enemy, and you have to kill it before you can live. Don't
> > > > be ashamed to use any and all resources to kill it.
> >
> > I'm no psychology or sociology expert, but I tremendously agree.
> I rather think it's Agni finding an unproof timber.Douse that timber if
> it's yours!
> This is tempered, of course, with the memory of a person's
> appointing an hour for me to meet a fated match.
> It turned out to be a good but cranky as kelp Indian girl
> who strapped her chest in and didn't want to meet anyone
> outside of India who wasn't on her review board. I didn't jump
> for board position.
> > Feedback cycles and network effects can create these wonderful
> > positive circles or these terribly negative snowballs.
> And on to PIKHal selection number 68...
> > ...I think I am starting to understand how *A* woman thinks. I just can't
> > generalize it because all people are unique.
> Now THAT has to stop; if anyone is getting an DS (degree)
> ingeneralization, it would be you. It's
> peripheral to the case rather,
> but do generalize. It isn't even necessary to visualise in S7 to
> simply cover thought and interaction (i.e. more thought).
> > > Rohit's problem is a very simple one. We discussed this last night. Rohit
> > > just plain out and out thinks to much.
> To generalize here, we need him to do that in the manner of nearlygiving
> himself (others, as previously
> specified; not the men of Brisbane)
> an orgasm rather than nearly getting into black blood with air service.
> > ....It's a hard, hard problem. It's like overeating.
> That's overcooking, and you know it. This is all starting to readlike a
> rebuttal to Malthus (they all
> failed, right components
> notwithstanding.)
> > Drug addicts can cold turkey give up drugs if they can
> leverage a pharmaceutical stock with their flasks and notebooks?
> > deal with all of the baggage withdrawal implies, but overeaters cannot
> > cold turkey give up food because people need food to live.
> Water; and he's in Orange County sometimes, right?
> > In some senses, learning to think in moderation -- like learning to
> > intake food in moderation -- is harder than giving it up lock stock and
> > barrel. And yet it is necessary both to survive and to overcome the
> > addiction.
> Buy! 2230!
> > I thought I was joking when I called Rohit an information junkee
> Put!
> > ...
> > Heck, I can't even find Rohit's equal in a male.
> Pauli exclusion.
> > Of course, all people are unique
> Adamus! Your spellchecker let that through?
> Here, I'll omit it again and it'll be perfect.
> Rohit doesn't own his own narcissim,
> he just has unconditional rights of first refusal.
> Plop!
> > so there'd never be an exact match, but just finding people
> > on Rohit's level is a painstaking task.
> Scout something on the Testosterone Blue/Teal Rain/Lava side of
> 'rainbow.' :)=

We don't own our own narcissism, we just have unconditional rights of
first refusal. That's either really deep or really shallow. Not sure which.


You keep trying on shoes, and eventually you'll find a pair that fits
you. Well, I found them, son, and they hurt like hell.
-- He Got Game