"Winning isn't everything, it is the only thing."
- attributed to Henry Russell Sanders
In a compromise, everybody loses.
- Erdmut
We all want to win, even the meekest among us. But what do we want to win? Do we even know?
Take for example, a married couple. She wants to go out to dinner every Friday. She desires the little luxury of not cooking, of having someone serve her for a change. He wants to come home and take his shoes and socks off, sit back and not have anything to do. They could both win, by either getting a divorce and doing what each wants on their own, or by not getting a divorce and doing what each wants on their own. That would not necessarily make either of the two happy about winning. One could give in and let the other win, that person would have some happiness, but the cost of the other's happiness might degrade the pleasure of winning.
A better solution may be for each to win, to have what each wants. Can we examine what it is that each really want in order to win even better? The desire for a little luxury, to have someone wait on us for a change isn't such a bad thing, but do we really need every Friday to become a ritual? Is the need for Fridays really a need, or just an unexamined impulse? Would it not be even more rewarding to go out less frequently, but to even nicer places where the waiter is even more attentive, or maybe the occasional bed and breakfast - let someone else make the bed! By not going out every Friday the same financial resources could be used to really enjoy a little luxury that truly lifts one out of the weekly grind. She may have to make dinner most Fridays, but why not something light, eat in the living room and watch a movie together together in our bare feet. Might that not be a bigger win? He might watch a chick flick with you for some popcorn.
For him, he may have to keep his shoes on occasionally, maybe put on a tie, or drive down the coast to that little country town with the B&B. But he is his wife's hero, and he did want that also. Forgot about that one, didn't you? That's a good win. Even if his wife is a good cook, how how often does she make Salmon Almondine or Chicken Marsala? Sounds better than an 8 ounce sirloin with overcooked vegetables and a baked potato, doesn't it? He doesn't have to fight the crowded roads and parking lots on Fridays, wait for an hour with noisy kids whinnig, or repeat himself for ditzy teenage blonde hostesses. If one of your goals is to not have to deal with the usual cattle calls, then this is a big win. ...and for movies, she likes anything with Harrison Ford or Sean Connery in it, there has got to be something good to watch, and sometimes there's popcorn.
Sometimes, we need to examine what we really want, not what we have decided to settle for. In this example, Friday is the token victory, what is being settled for. So many of the mindless masses have made Friday the holy grail of life, is it?
I don't look at this as a compromise. Compromises generally just cover up the fact that one side is just losing slowly. Go for the win.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
Movies
Just thinking. Some little known movies.
Is there any scene more romantic than the one in Strictly Ballroom were the hero and heroine are dancing on the roof of the dance school? Sometimes in front of the Coca-Cola sign, the clothes line, or even back down on the school floor, Especially with dad shuffling in the opposite locations. Dad's a prize, only mom doesn't know it. She's the CCH Pounder of dance ( see below). Of course, the whole movie is a romantic festival. . . .and they can dance. One thing I love about this movie is Fran. What a wallflower. What a steaming, sultry woman! Man, you gotta get you one of these! Rent this one for your honey. Tell her she's your Fran. Hot movie.
Another feel good movie is Bagdad Cafe. This one is like a Phantom jet supersonic at 500 feet. Nothing. BOOoom! What the heck was that?!? Jack Palance has a great role. I liked him here more than in City Slickers. He is not the only one. This one has some great themes and scenes. The boy on the piano. His mom (CCH Pounder), is the perfect motel owner, skinny, suspecious, negative, flinty. This woman can act. And a performance by Apesanahkwat. There is a trivia question for you.
Is there any scene more romantic than the one in Strictly Ballroom were the hero and heroine are dancing on the roof of the dance school? Sometimes in front of the Coca-Cola sign, the clothes line, or even back down on the school floor, Especially with dad shuffling in the opposite locations. Dad's a prize, only mom doesn't know it. She's the CCH Pounder of dance ( see below). Of course, the whole movie is a romantic festival. . . .and they can dance. One thing I love about this movie is Fran. What a wallflower. What a steaming, sultry woman! Man, you gotta get you one of these! Rent this one for your honey. Tell her she's your Fran. Hot movie.
Another feel good movie is Bagdad Cafe. This one is like a Phantom jet supersonic at 500 feet. Nothing. BOOoom! What the heck was that?!? Jack Palance has a great role. I liked him here more than in City Slickers. He is not the only one. This one has some great themes and scenes. The boy on the piano. His mom (CCH Pounder), is the perfect motel owner, skinny, suspecious, negative, flinty. This woman can act. And a performance by Apesanahkwat. There is a trivia question for you.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Progress is our most important . . . .
It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do a little. -Sydney Smith, writer and clergyman (1771-1845)
Human progress, any progress for that matter, does not come all at once, in a blinding flash of innovation. Progress is like evolution, one increment at a time. As is the opposite, human antiprogress is like devolution, one increment at a time.
It is a pet peeve of mine that people who do not want progress can block its path successfully by not allowing the increments. They can deny the greater, final event by denying the smaller events, and they deny the small events by being uncompromising.
A hunter stalks a deer. The deer’s goal is clear, to not be dinner. The hunter’s goal is likewise clear, for the deer to be dinner. Upon first discovering a deer, the hunter will approach cautiously, not desiring to alert the deer to its presence until the opportunity to strike successfully is reached. The deer that is unsuspicious or unwary is dinner. The cautious dear, when first suspecting the hunter, will stop feeding, sensing with its nose, its ears, and its eyes for the presence of a hunter. The hunter will cease its progress, conceding the deer the hunter’s time, not striking now and delaying its dinner, until a more sure time to strike. Not sensing any immediate danger, the deer continues to graze. The hunter will again work to progress to striking range, until the deer is suspicious again, interrupting its grazing. The hunter will then again give to the deer a peaceful time to graze, ceasing its progress until the deer returns to eating. This will progress until the hunter is assured of final success and makes the deer its dinner.
The wary deer will, when first alerted to the presence of a hunter, flee. In this way the deer denies the hunter the little steps to success.
A couple ideas leap to mind for the thoughtful reader. One, people are both deer and hunter in one; and two, progress is in the eye of the beholder.
Human progress, any progress for that matter, does not come all at once, in a blinding flash of innovation. Progress is like evolution, one increment at a time. As is the opposite, human antiprogress is like devolution, one increment at a time.
It is a pet peeve of mine that people who do not want progress can block its path successfully by not allowing the increments. They can deny the greater, final event by denying the smaller events, and they deny the small events by being uncompromising.
A hunter stalks a deer. The deer’s goal is clear, to not be dinner. The hunter’s goal is likewise clear, for the deer to be dinner. Upon first discovering a deer, the hunter will approach cautiously, not desiring to alert the deer to its presence until the opportunity to strike successfully is reached. The deer that is unsuspicious or unwary is dinner. The cautious dear, when first suspecting the hunter, will stop feeding, sensing with its nose, its ears, and its eyes for the presence of a hunter. The hunter will cease its progress, conceding the deer the hunter’s time, not striking now and delaying its dinner, until a more sure time to strike. Not sensing any immediate danger, the deer continues to graze. The hunter will again work to progress to striking range, until the deer is suspicious again, interrupting its grazing. The hunter will then again give to the deer a peaceful time to graze, ceasing its progress until the deer returns to eating. This will progress until the hunter is assured of final success and makes the deer its dinner.
The wary deer will, when first alerted to the presence of a hunter, flee. In this way the deer denies the hunter the little steps to success.
A couple ideas leap to mind for the thoughtful reader. One, people are both deer and hunter in one; and two, progress is in the eye of the beholder.
Organic
All life is organic. Well, of course you might answer.
So, what do I mean? Not just the obvious that living things are organic, but that which is about life is organic. More exactly, the structures and behavior of living things are organic. Human society is organic. Human philosophy, politics, and all human endeavors are organic.
Analogies of organic comparison can define and predict the outcomes of all human activity. Just as monocultures of lifeforms are susceptible to being invaded by some disease for which there is little immunity to, so are societies. One example is the Catholic Church in Europe before the Protestant Reformation. Now there was some warning, so to speak, there had been some challenge to the Church before, but nothing organized. The Protestant Reformation swept into existence. Just like a diseased limb is amputated by a doctor to save the body of the infected, Northern Europe became Protestant whlie Southern Europe stayed Catholic. The Catholic Church formed the Jesuit Order as a part of its immune system to stave off Protestentism.
An even better example is China. Very isoalted for centuries, China was a self-contained and complacent society. The arrival of Europeans was viewed by them as unimportant. But that infection caused the withering and dying of what had been the longest existing civilisation at that time. Modern China is not that China, nor will it ever be. The most pervasive westerization of China occured with the retroviral Marxism (Maoism) remaking their society. The struggle does still go on to some degree within China, but the old is mostly memory now. Much of what remains the same in China has more to do with their huge population (raw human waste spread across the land, in the rivers, and into the oceans) than with the old philosophies.
So, what do I mean? Not just the obvious that living things are organic, but that which is about life is organic. More exactly, the structures and behavior of living things are organic. Human society is organic. Human philosophy, politics, and all human endeavors are organic.
Analogies of organic comparison can define and predict the outcomes of all human activity. Just as monocultures of lifeforms are susceptible to being invaded by some disease for which there is little immunity to, so are societies. One example is the Catholic Church in Europe before the Protestant Reformation. Now there was some warning, so to speak, there had been some challenge to the Church before, but nothing organized. The Protestant Reformation swept into existence. Just like a diseased limb is amputated by a doctor to save the body of the infected, Northern Europe became Protestant whlie Southern Europe stayed Catholic. The Catholic Church formed the Jesuit Order as a part of its immune system to stave off Protestentism.
An even better example is China. Very isoalted for centuries, China was a self-contained and complacent society. The arrival of Europeans was viewed by them as unimportant. But that infection caused the withering and dying of what had been the longest existing civilisation at that time. Modern China is not that China, nor will it ever be. The most pervasive westerization of China occured with the retroviral Marxism (Maoism) remaking their society. The struggle does still go on to some degree within China, but the old is mostly memory now. Much of what remains the same in China has more to do with their huge population (raw human waste spread across the land, in the rivers, and into the oceans) than with the old philosophies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
