June 5 - Emergencies?

[EdBecerra]

My parents have been married for 25 years -- and since we travelled, it was always cramped quarters, whether it was motels or RVs, so I know them better than most folks probably know their parents. And they have never been like that. Mom and Dad might have differences, but when it came down to it, they were always a team. There wasn't some stupid power struggle going on.

Look around.

Do you SEE the air you're breathing?

Of course not. But it's still there.

There's ALWAYS a power struggle in any relationship. And no one ever wins it, because as soon as one side declares victory, the other side restarts the battle. An eternal tug of war.

It's just that it can be more subtle than a child - even a grown child, can comprehend.

Even when your parents were a team against the rest of the world, they were still two individuals, with individual wants and needs that MUST inevitably conflict.

They were simply able to resolve those conflicts in such a skilled and subtle manner, YOU never noticed.

Lucky you - many couples can't do that.

[Steltek]

You completely ignore the existence of human beings as intellectual beings, let alone spiritual ones with that viewpoint.

Cynicism, in my view, is just an excuse for not rising above baser instincts.

Saying that is like saying earthquakes are bad. Of course they are. There's just nothing that can be done to stop it, and you shouldn't try.

Humans once would have thought the same thing about fire. We are not like other creatures. We do not adapt to our environment. We adapt our environment to ourselves. We constantly build and refine -- we create, because we are the offspring of a Creator.

Human relationships are complex, difficult, and will never be without conflict -- but to use that fact as an excuse for becoming used to and accepting broken, twisted, defective relationships is sloth at least, masochism at worst. We have a choice about what kind of life we want to lead, and how to deal with others in our lives. It is not beyond our control.

[EdBecerra]

You completely ignore the existence of human beings as intellectual beings, let alone spiritual ones with that viewpoint.

Cynicism, in my view, is just an excuse for not rising above baser instincts.

Mmm.

Okay, my counter to that is a quote from the late, great H. Beam Piper...

"Draw... Soul! PREEEEEE-sent, Soul! Innnnn-spection, Soul!"

Gimme something I can touch, measure, analyze, disect...

*shrugs*

As for me, I honestly believe. I've done everything in my life
for reasons which, when I trace them down to their ultimate
roots, are entirely selfish. It's just that the selfishness is most
sophisticated.

I suppose the best example of that was a definition of love that
I once ran across. I don't recall the exact words, but it said,
more or less, that love was that state of being where YOUR personal
happiness was dependant on the happiness of someone else.
IE, if they were unhappy, you COULDN'T be happy.

So you try to care for them - so they'll be happy - so YOU'LL be
happy.

Selfishness in action.

It's just... coincidental that what's good for you happens to be
good for the larger world around you. That, and as no one being
can be a civilization to themselves, you find yourself in need of
others to do the things you can't, therefore, you have an entirely
selfish interest in their welfare. (Good example? I have high blood
pressure, and have had several strokes. So I'm EXTREMELY
interested in making certain my family doctor's in a good mood
when I visit him, and do NOT want to see anyone/anything give
him cause to quit his job and move away. MY good health is
dependant on his.)

[Steltek]

Mmm.

Okay, my counter to that is a quote from the late, great H. Beam Piper...

"Draw... Soul! PREEEEEE-sent, Soul! Innnnn-spection, Soul!"

Gimme something I can touch, measure, analyze, disect...

The soul is secondary, here. I'm talking about the intellect. It's like juggling -- virtually no one's brain is wired for juggling at birth. This is because when you're juggling, you will at some point be tossing an object from one hand into a hand which is already holding another object. Your brain's instinctive reaction is to quickly get rid of the first object so it can catch the second -- so instead of juggling you'll be catching one object after hurling another away from you like a fastball. What you must train yourself to do instead is calmly toss the object into the hand which threw the first object, and repeat on the other side.

Easy as anything to someone who's mastered it, utterly impossible to someone who hasn't. The same is true of virtually any improvement you make to your life -- you are forced to fight with your instincts for supremacy. Your instinct to give up, your instinct to settle for less because its easy, your instinct to go with the flow and accept mediocrity. All of these must be battered, beaten, and molded into submission. If not, well, then you're little different than a toy soldier, wound up by nature and staggering in whatever direction he's pointed. That's a sort of life, I suppose, but it's not for me.

[Wanderwolf]

Truthfully, about the only thing a man can say in such circumstances is, "I'm sorry", as many times as possible. It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, good or bad... She is unhappy, and therefore She must be apologized to.

Listen, I don't like to judge people, but I have to say that that's the stupidest damn thing I've ever heard. That's the kind of thinking that makes a woman into a bitter old hag and a man into a lazy blob. Any woman who tries to control a man like that is an abuser, as surely as a man who beats his wife is an abuser.

Not necessarily... it is less the action and more the intent that makes abuse.

For instance, there once was a man who jumped on his wife and beat her until she apologized. Sounds horrible, doesn't it? That poor woman, that awful man!

But then when I add the facts... like him being a pre-thalidomide thalidomide baby. and his wife had been emotionally abusing him for two years before he stood up... it gets a bit more complicated. Yes, he beat his wife. But was he entirely wrong to do so?

The situation in the strip is simple: Wife is screaming mad. Now, if someone is screaming mad, are they going to listen to careful, well-thought-out reasons why you're right?

No, they're not, because they're screaming mad.

Are they going to realize they're making you feel all battered and bruised inside?

No, they're not, because they're screaming mad.

Are they going to stop and think about the fact that they love you, and part of what they love about you is your spontaneity?

No, because they're screaming mad. When you're screaming mad, all you're thinking about is:

1. I am mad at this person.

2. I am going to scream!

There may very well be a good reason why they're mad; there just as well may not be. But the first and most important step?

Calm them down.

Nothing calms people down faster than being told they're right. And if she's screaming mad at you, it's because she feels you've done something horrible enough to deserve a screaming mad fit. Therefore:

"You're right. Absolutely. I was wrong and I'm sorry."

She will calm down, which may (if you happen to actually have a good reason for what you've done) allow you to explain what happened.

It's the mutual manipulation on both sides that makes it work:

She screams to make you sorry.

You say you're sorry so she stops screaming.

It's what happens next that's important. In a healthy relationship, the next step is a patient talking-out of what went wrong.

In an unhealthy relationship, there's nothing but an extended silence, leading to resentment. It's that Yoda quote all over again:

Fear leads to anger.
Anger leads to hate.
Hate leads to suffering.

And for the poster whose parents never once screamed at each other?

<applause>

Pass that along to them, will you? They deserve it. Either they have the world's only Truly Perfect Relationship, or they've managed never to argue in front of the kids.

Either way, they deserve to take a bow.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

[Steltek]

Not necessarily... it is less the action and more the intent that makes abuse.

I'll file that under "he hits me because he loves me", frankly. I don't buy that.

And if she's screaming mad at you, it's because she feels you've done something horrible enough to deserve a screaming mad fit. Therefore:

"You're right. Absolutely. I was wrong and I'm sorry."

*chuckles* Done something horrible enough? Like what? Punched a baby? Flipped off a box of kittens? What exactly calls for that kind of reaction? People get mad -- people lose their temper and go off. That doesn't make them "right" when they do it, so why act like it does? For that matter, why get involved with a person who is so much a child that they actually expect a screaming fit to get them their way?

[Earl McClaw]

And if she's screaming mad at you, it's because she feels you've done something horrible enough to deserve a screaming mad fit.

*chuckles* Done something horrible enough? Like what? ... What exactly calls for that kind of reaction?

The more significant word there was "feels". As described, at that point it doesn't matter what reasons are involved, the screamer has become irrational. The only communication they can recognize is gratification.

For that matter, why get involved with a person who is so much a child that they actually expect a screaming fit to get them their way?

Few would want to, but we need to realize that this may not be a common response from that person. It may not be until the relationship already exists that this response is revealed.

As for Ben and Lily, we also need to remember that this isn't their first fight. There was the little sister incident, and the gun incident. (Knew I'd find that eventually.) I don't remember specifically, but there have probably been others.

And we already knew she screams. Often. Just the way Gunther likes.

[EdBecerra]

I'll file that under "he hits me because he loves me", frankly. I don't buy that.

I dunno, Stel. I've known quite a few couples over the years who do the stereotypical and overly cliched' "Italian" thing... screaming arguments, thrown crockery, then suddenly eyes meet, gazes lock, and they're humping on the kitchen table in the throes of a passion that would make professional porn stars look undersexed. And after they come to from having previously passed out from exhaustion, they can't even remember why they were arguing in the first place.

It's weird, it's wacky, but it works.

Like the saying goes, "If it's stupid, but it works, then it's not stupid."

[TMLutas]

You completely ignore the existence of human beings as intellectual beings, let alone spiritual ones with that viewpoint.

Cynicism, in my view, is just an excuse for not rising above baser instincts.

Mmm.

Okay, my counter to that is a quote from the late, great H. Beam Piper...

"Draw... Soul! PREEEEEE-sent, Soul! Innnnn-spection, Soul!"

Gimme something I can touch, measure, analyze, disect...

You're giving *that* quote in a forum when there are Catholics about? Don't you realize us apostolic christians have an entire sacrament devoted to "draw, present, inspect"? It's called confession or reconciliation depending on what section you're in but it is certainly real. And as for the "touch, measure, analyze" bit, we couldn't do that for bumble bee wings for the longest time. It didn't make their flight any less real even though our formulas of the time said that they should not be able to fly. A lack of measurement ability was not a barrier to belief in bumble bee flight. Why do you have to be able to directly measure the soul?

[Wanderwolf]

And as for the "touch, measure, analyze" bit, we couldn't do that for bumble bee wings for the longest time. It didn't make their flight any less real even though our formulas of the time said that they should not be able to fly. A lack of measurement ability was not a barrier to belief in bumble bee flight. Why do you have to be able to directly measure the soul?

There's a problem in that analogy, Lutas... namely, the flight of a bumblebee could be measured, even though it could not be touched; it was the analysis that gave us fits prior to our discovery of wingtip vortices. (Not suited to go with tuxedo vortices... sorry, couldn't resist.) It didn't matter if you couldn't formulate mathematical proof of a bumblebee's flightworthiness... you could still see a bumblebee fly.

A soul, on the other paw, is rather more intangible; while we could say definitely that nothing else was moving the bumblebee, it's impossible for us, as souled creatures, to measure a soul. A soul has no perceptible material action, no weight, no texture, no scent, no flavor, and no existence in Euclidean or non-Euclidean physics. It is immaterial, and so immeasurable.

Kickaha is entitled to his opinion. It may seem unusual to those of us who accept the existence of souls and God, but it's his choice to make.

Yours truly,

The Christian,

Wanderer

[Kerry Skydancer]

Thank you, Wanderwolf. That is exactly the point, and I'm glad that a believer made it instead of my having to. Souls and such are purely a matter of faith, and for those of us who don't have it, the reaction ranges from bemusment through irritation to downright hostility when we're told something's 'self-evident' when it's nothing of the sort.

Me? I think we're all ghosts in the meat machines. The self, the 'soul', if you will, is the electrical matrix that lives in the central nervous system, dependent on but not isomorphic with the brain itself. This implies, though, that animal brains have souls as well, in decreasing complexity with their decreasing brain complexity.

[EdBecerra]

You're giving *that* quote in a forum when there are Catholics about? Don't you realize us apostolic christians have an entire sacrament devoted to "draw, present, inspect"? It's called confession or reconciliation depending on what section you're in but it is certainly real. And as for the "touch, measure, analyze" bit, we couldn't do that for bumble bee wings for the longest time. It didn't make their flight any less real even though our formulas of the time said that they should not be able to fly. A lack of measurement ability was not a barrier to belief in bumble bee flight. Why do you have to be able to directly measure the soul?

Oddly enough, TM, I was raised Roman Catholic, by the harshest of standards - Jesuit priests who assisted the nuns of Mount St. Vincent, in Denver Colorado. (feel free to google it). We're talking good old fashioned "metal rulers to the back of the hands" discipline.

That's why I prefer physical measurements. I don't deny the existance of a soul. I don't deny it's non-existance. I simply wait until we can measure it with physical instrumentality - and thereby reach a point where we can deal with it like we'd deal with anything else in the material world. Like wood. Or stone. Or clay.

Which, of course, leads directly to the philosophy of "Ghost in The Shell", but I won't fire the first shot in THAT sort of argument. Not anymore I won't. *rolls eyes* I've learned better, or at least I hope I have.

Of course, you could come back at me with the old "you can't measure LOVE, but love is still real!" argument - many people have. I simply point out that you CAN measure love through the electro-chemical and physical changes it leaves on a human brain (however sloppy those measurements may be at the current state of the art), and that will eventually lead to the situation described in the (in)famous short story, "Helen O'Loy", by Lester del Ray, where love is treated like any other commodity.

I suppose I'm profoundly cynical. Then again, I'm a reflection of those who've shaped me - the military and the Jesuits, along with my family.

[EdBecerra]

Thank you, Wanderwolf. That is exactly the point, and I'm glad that a believer made it instead of my having to. Souls and such are purely a matter of faith, and for those of us who don't have it, the reaction ranges from bemusment through irritation to downright hostility when we're told something's 'self-evident' when it's nothing of the sort.

Me? I think we're all ghosts in the meat machines. The self, the 'soul', if you will, is the electrical matrix that lives in the central nervous system, dependent on but not isomorphic with the brain itself. This implies, though, that animal brains have souls as well, in decreasing complexity with their decreasing brain complexity.

And thank you, Kerry. I find faith to be something I have a hard time with, because faith is literally "I'll trust you without any physical evidence."

Since I have little to no trust, it follows I have little to no faith.

Now, someone's BOUND to point out, "hey, you said you loved a girl, whatshername, and that's a type of faith! Yer a hypocrit!"

Of course I loved Aili. Didn't mean I trust her - simply that I didn't CARE if she betrayed me. I needed her like a junkie needed a fix. A junkie might know the drug's killing them, they just don't care.

I needed Aili - and didn't care what she might do to me. I couldn't be happy unless I re-arranged my life to make her happy. Her happiness was an essential ingredient required to make ME happy. I didn't need to trust her to make her happy. See?

Cynical, but simple.

[TMLutas]

And as for the "touch, measure, analyze" bit, we couldn't do that for bumble bee wings for the longest time. It didn't make their flight any less real even though our formulas of the time said that they should not be able to fly. A lack of measurement ability was not a barrier to belief in bumble bee flight. Why do you have to be able to directly measure the soul?

There's a problem in that analogy, Lutas... namely, the flight of a bumblebee could be measured, even though it could not be touched; it was the analysis that gave us fits prior to our discovery of wingtip vortices. (Not suited to go with tuxedo vortices... sorry, couldn't resist.) It didn't matter if you couldn't formulate mathematical proof of a bumblebee's flightworthiness... you could still see a bumblebee fly.

A soul, on the other paw, is rather more intangible; while we could say definitely that nothing else was moving the bumblebee, it's impossible for us, as souled creatures, to measure a soul. A soul has no perceptible material action, no weight, no texture, no scent, no flavor, and no existence in Euclidean or non-Euclidean physics. It is immaterial, and so immeasurable.

Kickaha is entitled to his opinion. It may seem unusual to those of us who accept the existence of souls and God, but it's his choice to make.

Yours truly,

The Christian,

Wanderer

My point wasn't to assert the undeniable reality of souls but rather to assert that rather large chunks of humankind have managed to "inspect soul" nonetheless. Something is going on there and an offhand dismissal just isn't going to cut it.

Let's face it, the physical measurement of souls is not really helpful. Let's say that you could physically measure and manipulate a soul and morph it to your desires. Would you stick your wife or children in it? Would you allow your wife to stick you in it? If you're normal, a viceral "no way at all" should be bubbling up at the thought (in my case, a much earthier version came). What Ed Becerra stumbled across was a hidden outcropping of the old question of whether mankind is an end or a means. He's an end to himself. Too many pathologies attach to the other answer.

[TMLutas]

Thank you, Wanderwolf. That is exactly the point, and I'm glad that a believer made it instead of my having to. Souls and such are purely a matter of faith, and for those of us who don't have it, the reaction ranges from bemusment through irritation to downright hostility when we're told something's 'self-evident' when it's nothing of the sort.

Me? I think we're all ghosts in the meat machines. The self, the 'soul', if you will, is the electrical matrix that lives in the central nervous system, dependent on but not isomorphic with the brain itself. This implies, though, that animal brains have souls as well, in decreasing complexity with their decreasing brain complexity.

Great, I get to do the non-christian version of this one. It's an abundance of riches.

What is the point of being able to detect and measure a soul? The only reasonable point of it is to be able to scientifically manipulate it. For the sake of argument, I'll accept that we're ghosts in meat machines even though I think we're much more in reality. Is it acceptable to manipulate the ghost? If you could shove a meat machine into an apparatus and manipulate the ghost so it would conform to your will, would that be acceptable? Why or why not? What kind of world would we have if it were acceptable?

[TMLutas]

Oddly enough, TM, I was raised Roman Catholic, by the harshest of standards - Jesuit priests who assisted the nuns of Mount St. Vincent, in Denver Colorado. (feel free to google it). We're talking good old fashioned "metal rulers to the back of the hands" discipline.

That's why I prefer physical measurements. I don't deny the existance of a soul. I don't deny it's non-existance. I simply wait until we can measure it with physical instrumentality - and thereby reach a point where we can deal with it like we'd deal with anything else in the material world. Like wood. Or stone. Or clay.

Do you realize what kind of a horrible world proceeds with lumping mankind in with wood, stone, and clay? I think that you don't because you don't strike me as a moral monster.

One of the great failings of american catholicism (much of western catholicism really) is its narrow-minded blinkered existence. There are 20+ rites in the Catholic Church, each with its own take on things. Metal rulers to the back of the hand are not considered de rigeur in all sections.

You may wish to pick up and look at some of the other sections...

Which, of course, leads directly to the philosophy of "Ghost in The Shell", but I won't fire the first shot in THAT sort of argument. Not anymore I won't. *rolls eyes* I've learned better, or at least I hope I have.

Of course, you could come back at me with the old "you can't measure LOVE, but love is still real!" argument - many people have. I simply point out that you CAN measure love through the electro-chemical and physical changes it leaves on a human brain (however sloppy those measurements may be at the current state of the art), and that will eventually lead to the situation described in the (in)famous short story, "Helen O'Loy", by Lester del Ray, where love is treated like any other commodity.

I suppose I'm profoundly cynical. Then again, I'm a reflection of those who've shaped me - the military and the Jesuits, along with my family.

The point of my intervention was to assert that a crude form of examination and inspection exists and that your assertion that the soul is entirely undetectable is disputed by a rather large section of humanity.

[NydaLynn]

*read reads the forum and muches popcorn* I love the smell of differing opinions and actual debate in the morning.

[Persephone_Kore]

Ah, so that's where he was going with it. Should have seen this coming.

Honestly, even if that's not how you believe a marriage should work but especially if it is, it is kind of important to try to avoid marrying someone who is going to make consistently stupid decisions for which you'll have to share the consequences. (Even if you love them. It is possible to love someone very much and yet not consider them competent to manage your life.) Of course, by the same token, it's entirely possible for the couple to believe that the husband should be the final authority -- and have him recognize that his wife's better at something (in this case finances) and delegate. Seen it done.

I notice Lily's focusing on the issue of consulting or even warning her about what he's going to do.... I do kind of figure it's not going to end up being all about the head-of-household business, though. Ralph doesn't usually leave significant loose threads dangling, and he did include a few strips on Ben's problem with impulse purchases shortly before the ones that really started the fight. (And, well, even -- maybe especially -- if you're the ultimate financial authority in your home, if you've had reason to decide that your credit card is only for emergencies, it's probably a good idea to stick to it.)

Edit: I also want to note that I do realize Ben has previously made some snap decisions about finances that have been very successful -- like the house! I think he's probably got a higher risk tolerance in this area than Lily in general. This is certainly a valid attitude, and I'm aware that generally speaking you have to be able to take risks to run a business, and (potentially) higher-return investments are pretty much always also higher risk. Might not be a bad idea, though -- from a purely practical standpoint, even -- to look into saving up a "cushion" that is not available for investment or speculation and therefore is available in case of loss or damages -- something beyond normal overhead, you know? And while sometimes you have to jump in and take advantage of an opportunity before it goes away, sometimes you also have to stop and think about whether you really need a new cigar-shop statue to go with the freakishly appropriate totem pole.

[UncleMonty]

I wasn't expecting that twist.
Sure, in a traditional marriage the husband has the combined burden and blessing of being the head of the family, with the final authority in all decisions... But I thought Lily was just upset that he didn't think enough of her to discuss actions that would affect her before doing them. I'd regard it as a politeness, like my boss at work letting me know beforehand that we were going to be doing some overtime work, or asking for my input on an upcoming project that I might have some expertise in handling.
In Christianity, husbands are commanded to love their wives. One doesn't forget or disregard those one loves.
Ben's actions seem the habitual behavior of a bachelor who hasn't had to ask anyone's opinion before doing anything in the past, but who needs to remember that he is now the husband of a wife.

[Madmoonie]

Ben's actions seem the habitual behavior of a bachelor who hasn't had to ask anyone's opinion before doing anything in the past, but who needs to remember that he is now the husband of a wife.

I totally agree. Now, bare in mind I am utterly single here, but from what I hear from married gents that I know, one of the hardest things in a marriage, particulary a new one, is not living your life like it effects only you. Ben should have consulted with Lily on making these large purchases WHATEVER his motivation and respected Lily's role in the marriage. Even if it was for her (this was a hypothesis on a differant forum) Ben could have given her some idea of what to expect.