Cupid is kinda a jerk

2008-02-19

Don't tell him I told you so, though.

Let me first apoligize for the week-long hiatus! It's been a crazy week; I have no convenient excuse to hide behind. I stand before you a man humbled, stripped of pretentions. I was just busy, people!

We have spoken before, you and I, on the subject of love. And though the statements made were as mighty as a titan and as indefatigable as Old Iron Sides (which is to say, very), still that most silly of "holidays" we just experienced called "Valentines Day" makes me feel as though the book has yet to be closed. Indeed, a chapter remains yet to be writ, and let's face it: chapters don't writ themselves.

In our aforementioned post, whose thunder-like roaring has redounded to the very heavens and back, we contended that although romantic love has its place in the cosmos, its desirability as the main method by which we interact with and view relationships is something to question. Romantic love, as it turns out, just gets your foot in the door; beyond that there are these things called hallways, and beyond those these things called rooms. And oh baby, don't even get me started on there being multiple floors.

Without reconstructing the entirety of the argument then (seriously people, just click the link if you haven't read it - don't be that person), I would like to take a moment to say a few words about Valentines Day.

It is a bloated leviathan, whose saucer-like, moon-sized eyes glow with demonic glee as it suckles on the opened bowels of our unsuspecting sensibilities.

I know, I know, but just hear me out! Cupid may seem cute now, but by the end of this post you will perhaps glimpse the devil-horns those golden curls are hiding. Allow me to break it down like a frugally stored cardboard box:

Valentines Day creates expectations. Women are told to expect their love to be confirmed through gifts; Men are expected to do the giving and vice-versa. Already this formula is suspicious; as such expectations place the validation of the labyrinthine complexity that is a relationship on overly simplified, petty and material things. Which, in case the internet is failing to convey the disapproval oozing from my tone, is a very bad thing.

Additionally, Valentines Day places undo pressure on and creates unrealistic expectations for those not in a relationship. It promotes relationships for relationships' sake, encouraging the individual to consider only the pleasure of companionship, however fleeting, rather than to dwell on troubling thoughts like what they might actually need or where they are at in life. It further seems to indicate that the stability of such a relationship can be maintained by a simple buy-in: an expected token of affection and you're good to go.

A time to express your love for a loved one? Indeed, Valentines Day can be that. But in my experience it is more often a flashy distraction. A beautiful broach that obscures the quality of the material that it is pinned to; A ritual created to ensure that the boat is not rocked and everything is nice and clean. After all, it is infinitely more complex to experience love as the intangible, soul-stirring mystery that it is than to experience it as a box of chocolates and a piece of jewelry.

I will conclude on a lighter, less negative note by sharing one of my favorite quotes from Abdu'l-Baha. You can disagree with me entirely from a personal standpoint, as we are the ones that make events and not the other way around, but as you read this quote, ponder the nature of expressing love. Can it truly, meaningfully be expressed in gift giving and pretty words? If so, what value is enough? How pretty do the words have to be? Is, indeed, any earthly value sufficient for so intangible a thing?

"A man who does great good, and talks not of it, is on the way to perfection.

The man who has accomplished a small good and magnifies it in his speech is worth very little.

If I love you, I need not continually speak of my love -- you will know without any words. On the other hand if I love you not, that also will you know -- and you would not believe me, were I to tell you in a thousand words, that I loved you.

People make much profession of goodness, multiplying fine words because they wish to be thought greater and better than their fellows, seeking fame in the eyes of the world. Those who do most good use fewest words concerning their actions."

    (Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 16)

That thing called Revelation? Totes Progessive.

2008-02-05

    Suppose you and your friends are planning on going to this new bar that has opened. It has received a lot of hype, and you've been meaning to go for weeks. Finally, you gird your loins and sally forth! Only to find, upon entering, a large sign that declares: "Receipt of Land ownership needed for entrance! (Presentation of a monocle and cane accepted as alternate proof)"

    Now, I know what you are thinking. "This is a ridiculous example!" To which I simply must reply: YOU are a ridiculous example. But I suppose it's undeniable: social stratification hasn't been based on land ownership in the United States since the industrial revolution occurred. And popular bars and clubs haven't limited their membership based on it since even before then.

    Nevertheless, it illustrates my intended point: laws without relevance to modern times are not only inapplicable, there are straight-up confusing. We are so removed from a culture where one's status is based on land ownership that seeing such a thing in modern times would be like seeing a Velociraptor trying to buy coffee at a local starbucks. The concepts just don't belong in the same room (besides, have you seen the size of a Velociraptor's claws? Sheesh. I pity any concept stuck in the same room with that hellish, freedom hating death machine.)

    Bringing this theme back 'round to relevence, we can now consider religion. If the above time difference of a few hundred years seems extreme (and it should), how much more xxx-treme is it that the majority of the world functions off of religious laws given to a period of time that is now over 2,000 years ago? The answer: flaming bikes flying through flaming rings while being chased by flaming airplanes kind of extreme.

    This is not to bash on the major religions, but rather to point out a logically unassailable fact: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and the other major religions make perfect sense within their cultural and temporal context, and make less and less sense the further one gets from that context.

    Thus, it is a simple fact that a Christian who interprets the Bible literally would support slavery and would advocate the death penalty for anyone who dishonors their parents. These laws, in the modern context, make as little sense as land ownership and monocles do in a bar setting. We can always choose not to interpret them literally (and indeed, probably should), but it cannot be ignored that there was a time when interpreting them literally was both logical and beneficial. That time is just so long past that it seems nothing short of ludicrous to us now.

    But let me restate that this is not to attack Christianity or any of the major religions. A thorough study of history demonstrates incontrovertibly that these religions have had huge, positive roles in the evolution of the world to it's present state. Forgiveness and good works were not exactly high on Europe's to-do list until Christianity emerged, and the various tribes of Arabia were more focused on stabbing anyone who touched their water than on issues of morality and ethics before the rise of Islam.

    Indeed, contrary to the notion that these points attack religions, a considered approach shows that it actually affirms them; for if we posit that each one had an intended range, and if we choose to consider the striking similarities between each as a sign that they might have some correlative or even causative connections, then each of these religions are proven to be perfect within their own context. It is only through two influences that this perfection has historically become marred: the passage of time, and the interpretation of their doctrines by humankind.

    The only problem with this line of reasoning is the one that I just hinted at earlier: Since each of these religions seems to claim that they are the only true religion, isn't it useless and even counter productive to limit our judgments to their relevant time periods?

    Why, yes, unless they are far more connected than one might think! And this will be the subject of the next post, coming 'atcha in less than forty-eight hours!

Land of the Free

2008-02-04

Wow, it's been a while since I posted, but I had an interesting discussion in the car on the way from lunch today.  While we were sitting at Red Robin's, almost ready to leave, a friend comments on how his father is opposed to Obama (you may have heard of him) because of some policy about giving illegal immigrants driver's licenses, and he was opposed to this as well.  Now, forgive me if I'm am incorrectly recounting the policy, I am far from political cannon, but I find it interesting that this has become an issue of such magnitude that it is now swaying votes.

So, for the record, here's my view.  As long as stuff sucks in other countries and is good here, people will want in (although we’ve been trying our damnedest to level the playing field recently).  Further, if that need is bad enough, they're going to find a way into the country.  I make no judgments on that point; it simply is what it is.  I am willing to agree that if you are in this country "illegally" then you should be granted no special privileges, but let us not forget that the only reason that 90% of the country is here "legally" is because we killed the old people who were here and then made it "legal."  I, personally, don’t put a driver’s license in the privilege category though.  You don't actually need one to drive a car, and, further, having one does not grant you any special abilities, prizes, or opportunities for cake.  Hell, simply having a business card and leaving it in a fishbowl at your local sandwich shop will buy you more.  On the flip side, granting people opportunities to the path to become legal are a win, plus, if we can track the illegals in our country to some degree, that's a double win.  

The most interesting question that came up in our conversation is the one I want to pose to you.  Issues of legality aside, do we, as a culture, want to bar people from entering the country?  That seems to be the bigger issue, on some level.  Are we maybe just tired of being a "melting pot"?  Do we some how feel like our heritage our culture is being threatened?  Are we intimidated by the fact that more and more you see things in this country represented bilingually?  I personally would find it a little hypocritical of us, a country of immigrants, to have a "no more immigration" policy, but maybe that’s just me.  As always, remember to leave your comments, concerns, flames, deepest desires, and letters to Santa  below.