1. Yay verily, Duck spake thusly:
> Methinks you're looking at the world through Adam-colored glasses.
> You are the lucky one. You found the big IT, you found it early in life,
> and you found it accessible.
Which suggests that there may be a higher force at play here.
That is, never forget the #1 Rule of Rohit's Life: The universe exists
solely to mock Rohit.
Given that rule, it was not only likely --- indeed, it was IMPERATIVE ---
that I hit a homerun with no effort on my own part.
This way, I could be of no use to him whatsoever in advice in love matters.
In addition, the very existence of my relationship would be First Order Mockery.
But don't admire or envy me for it, because of the #2 Rule of Rohit's Life:
nothing good comes without something bad coming as a "payment" later.
In other words, you don't get to have any dogmas, because chances are, they'll
only be run over later in life by someone else's karma...
2. Yay verily, Tomwhore spake thusly:
> As with anything else, its the journey as much, if not more so , then the
> destination. If you go from point null to point Bliss without traversing
> the millions and billions of pain riddeled spots between you will not be
> able to hanldle/apreciate/realize/see the bliss.
I don't believe it for an instant. I'm much happier having gotten up to
the plate at my first at bat, hit a 600-foot home run, and retiring from
the sport forever.
I guess this is a gestalt thing about my nature that I would rather be alone
than be with anyone I wasn't positive was THE ONE. Had I not found Michelle,
I *know* I would have thrown myself head over heels into work, entertainment,
sporting events, and friend/family matters. I would rather wait than sow oats
or pursue anyone I wasn't sure about.
> And whats this ONE thing. One what. One soul for one soul. You think God
> plays equivlence games with souls? And what is the sould of the one in the
> balance of the other soul? Is it complemntary, opposition, divergent...etc
ONE is what I believe in. My believe is that I should live my life
waiting to discover that ONE with the potential to live and thrive with
me, and putting my heart and soul into helping that person become a
better and better complement of myself.
> Remeber the words of the grand sage Jay "theres just one bitch man, one
> bitch with a thousand faces. schnooge"
Yeah, but remember the words of the grander sage Silent Bob, who said,
You know, there are millions of fine looking women in the world, dude.
But they don't all bring you lasagna at work. Most of them will just
cheat on you.
3. Yay verily, Ernie spake thusly:
> Not to pound a sensitive nerve, but for me that would raise a red flag of
> what are you seeking that drove you into a relationship in the first place.
> As for me, I was actually thinking about how to get ahold of all the past
> women in my life, as I would definitely want them at my wedding (if things
> work out with the LA girl). Not to gloat over them (though I did consider
> that) but because I consider them a valuable part of who I am, and who I've
> become.
This drives my point home. I don't WANT lots of people to be a valuable part
of who I am. The more of me I share, the less of me there are for the people
for whom I care.
> In fact, I would see Tim's comment supporting Adam's viewpoint (not that
> we're keeping score or anything :=). There is in fact the danger than the
> method one uses to explore the many are incompatible with what it would take
> find the ONE. Some good things do only come to those who wait.
This I wholeheartedly believe. If this paragraph were a Vodka, it would
be positively Absolutly 100% pure.
BTW, I have enjoyed reading Tim's and Ernie's comments on this subject today,
as I'm sure our host Rohit has enjoyed too. (And Rohit, yes, we are enjoying
your silence... :)
Yay verily, Ron spake thusly:
> >We don't have to experience EVERYTHING in this life. There's not
> >enough time, and frankly, not everything is worth experiencing.
> >That's why you have a brain: to filter out the stuff in life that
> >is unimportant.
> Tsk tsk tsk.
>
> You better make sure to experience all those flapping butterflies, and
> not let your brain filter them out. Those lines above sound like something
> I would say- that we filter as a basic act of self-defence from bit-overload,
> sensory-overload and experience-overload. Putting up those shields
> agains the 'unimportant' is a crucial survival tactic.
Act locally, yes. But THINK globally.
I'm not denying the right of everyone except my ONE to exist. In fact,
some of the "everyone else" have affected me, and some have affected "THE ONE".
But it doesn't mean I have to spend any more time on them than I deem
aboslutely necessary.
> And yet methinks you're contradicting yourself Adam with the above
> views, and your earlier ones on butterflies.
No contradiction. Everything should be allowed to exist. And we should have
the right to privacy --- defined here as the ability to filter out that which
we consider unimportant.
> Fwiw, I don't agree with your views on relationships either, Adam. And
> I'm saying this as a happily married person in a steady relationship with
> THE ONE for almost a decade at this point. In my experience, there's a need
> for some good, healthy experimentation, 'sowing your wild oats' if you like,
> before settling down.
I don't believe it, not one little bit. I can automate any so-called important
experimentation on my own in a simulated environment. Reality here is quite
unimportant to me.
> I think that's why sexual characteristics show up
> at puberty, even though people aren't really mature enough to form adult
> relationships for several years after. Adolescents need that time between
> 14-18 to experiment and try lots of different things in terms of what
> 'relationships' mean to them.
Adolescents, for the most part, are the bane of society.
They want all of the power and none of the responsibility.
Some people never leave adolescence. Most politicians, for example.
> That's not a waste of time in some zealous quest for 'THE ONE',
> that's healthy, productive growing-up.
I think you can grow up without it.
> In our modern culture, due to advances like birth control,
> increased lifespan & general affluence, the age of settling down has been
> pushed out to the 20s, and then the late 20s and now often into the 30s
> and beyond. This effectively extends 'adolescence' for many people into
> a multi-decade affair, but no matter - it serves a useful purpose nonetheless.
I disagree. With great power comes great responsibility.
Children know this. They surrender their power so they don't have to assume
responsibility.
Adults know this. They act responsibly because they know they have power.
Adolescents not only do not know this; we as a society actually CONDONE
their irresponsible behavior! Well, I'm certainly not going to add to
this. I say thumbs down to adolescent behavior. Put away your
self-loathing, give up your irresponsible behavior, and stop taxing
society!
> The only real limit seems to be the biological clock for having children,
> which Nature saw fit to make a greater restriction on the female than the male.
It's because the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
> Most of us are still not sure what we want to be when we grow up.
I know EXACTLY what I want to be when I grow up. The fact that I choose
to act like a clueless simpleton is just a distraction. A distraction I
will return to after this paragraph. But mark my words, anyone who just
sort of drifts through life with no clear idea of where s/he's going, is
a fool wasting the precious finite gift of time allotted to him/her.
YOU MUST NOT LIVE YOUR LIFE BY DEFAULT.
> I hazard a guess that the ones who really live best are those who *never*
> find out what they want to be when they grow up and spend their whole
> lives looking for it!
And I hazard a guess that the ones who really live the best are those who
know PRECISELY what they want and put every fiber of their being into getting it.
> Just to toss another variant into this thread, what's the private/public
> verdict on crossposting bits to a mailing list that are already publicly
> archived on another mailing list, when the author of those bits
> is a member in both places? As in Adam's recent comment on d-o:
I guess my latest take on privacy goes back to trust. In a public
forum, I trust you to make the decision of whether or not it's
appropriate to forward information from one place to another.
As my trust for you goes up or down, I give you more or less access to my bits.
> >See, Ron, every once in a while I peep up on this list. But not more than
> >that... As JoeK would say, "I have work to do..."
> So get to work. You didn't *really* expect me to take this bait over there,
> did you :-)?
I once thought I was a master baiter.
But now I know that moment to be anticlimactic.
----
adam@cs.caltech.edu
Isn't it terrible how they choose exceptionally beautiful women? I
mean, shouldn't our role models and ideals be average? Shouldn't we
strive to look average, aim for average intelligence, average health,
average talent and so on?
-- Robert Harley