Love and Baseball

I had this thought in the shower, it started as a questions: If I kiss someone and it leads to making out and that leads to some nakedness, but I then decide to stop, what does that say about my judgment?

This question, like many of my thoughts, started out as a mental itch, a notion that was bothersome but lacked substance. The itch is usually something that seems logical, but the steps through such logic are unclear. The terminal idea to this question is, 'if I kiss someone I should have determined that I would sleep with this person before I kiss them'. The reason for this is the immediate answer to my original question. If I were to stop at second base then it means I don't trust my judgment. I've essentially failed to hit a homerun. I believe a person's actions should be deliberate and thought driven and that they represent a person's mental state and thinking, or lack thereof. I thought about the reasons why I would/have stopped an intimate encounter and they all are the result of clearly thinking followed by me or her saying 'this isn't a good idea', or some version of that. When I think about being sure enough I want to sleep with someone being the prerequisite for any form of physical intimacy it puts a different spin on my interactions with women and most importantly, engages more of my mind. I believe taking an all or nothing approach to physical intimacy is best because it's all or nothing when it comes to what I desire in a woman. Think about what this would mean for people, especially young people, if they were to think of things this way. It would probably mean that we wouldn't be getting as much action as we are now, but would that be a bad thing? Think of all the unwanted pregnancies, STDs, broken hearts, sexual assaults, confused feelings, arguments, and other unpleasantries that have resulted in people separating physical intimacy from their ideals. Think about what 'gettin some' for the sake of physical pleasure says about a person's mind, their self-esteem. Failed relationships should cause a person to hold themselves to a higher standard more so than anything, because a failed relationship is first a failure of judgment. In most cases a failure in judgment can be avoided if the person becomes more rigorously involved in their thinking processes, more in control of their emotions.

One of things I like about Atlas Shrugged is the depiction of love between two people. In this book a romantic relationship is a celebration of self between two equals. It's not one person plugging the holes in the other's personality. It's not a relationship based on mutual pity for each other's faults and shortcomings. And it's most certainly not a compromise of ideals or principles because there can be no such thing. People worthy of romantic relationships have committed to knowing themselves and hold this as the most important thing in their lives. They don't seek anything from someone else that they should demand of themselves as such an act is a plea for pity, which is an excuse for stagnation and the act of a parasite. Relationships should be a celebration of similar personal achievement and nothing more. The only thing a person should ask of another is that they be true to themselves; there can be no more certain path to knowing someone. It then becomes easy to identify why you love someone, because their person is not hidden behind insecurities. Lies generally stem from insecurities; I know because I used to lie about things I was insecure about. Watch out for the things you request from others you're in a relationship with. Why do I crave attention from this person? Why do I claim to need affection from him/her? Why do I need to talk to this person everyday regardless if I have something to say? Why am I jealous of every person that talks to my boy/girlfriend? Am I hoping that this person will change eventually? Do I feel self-conscious around this person? And the list goes on.

A thought occured to me when I was listening to a Jill Scott song earlier today. It seems that many of us hold finding our true love as one of, if not, the most rewarding experiences in life. We spend so much time and energy finding the right person for us, yet so many of us get it wrong, so very many of us. Could it be that we are going about it the wrong way? Could it be that the only true love we can be sure of is the very person we neglect during our search? I believe your own person is your first and best true love. It's the person you show your love for by constantly improving and challenging and stimulating to grow. The time one spends looking for someone to compliment them is time spent away from personally growth and improvement, which sells your hopefull sweat heart short. Living up to ones standards is the only currency of exchange in relationships. A person worried about finding someone is someone not completely comfortable with themselves. This level of self comfort is difficult to achieve, but avoiding the task only serves to cheapen any relationship a person has. Ask yourself if you would rather spend your life living up to your standards and growing to your full capacity and end up alone, or would you sacrifice even a fraction of personal growth for the company of someone else in life? Answering yes to the latter will almost certainly lead to a life of misery will answering yes to the former will only leave the slightly bitter taste of dissappointment in not finding an equal.

I'm only interested in hitting a homerun. They say it's one of the hardest things for a human to do. In baseball the difficulty comes from proper timing, power, pitch recognition, bat speed, and accuracy. In life the difficulty comes from the process of knowing one's self. Batter up!

Hermit the Hall

Over the last week I've become increasingly antisocial. Several of my friends have called me to check up on things and see how I'm doing. None of them have I called back. I don't have a particular desire to talk to people these days, especially two of my friends whom I don't really find conversations with them all that stimulating. I suppose that's what I'm after with interactions with people, positive stimulation. My increased prejudice with people is directly related to the books I'm reading; Atlas Shrugged and Philosophy: Who Needs It, both by Ayn Rand. Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy, is tremendously stimulating to say the least. What's driven me to the level of antisocialness is an increased awareness of my own conciousness, my own ideas, my own mind and its inner workings. Objectivism ideas force you to face yourself and engage your mind constantly and continuously. I've found that a lot of my ideas, ones that differ from what many of my peers and others think, ideas or notions I took for instincts, are the beginnings of Objectivist ideas that I haven't explored in more detail. For instance, the idea of the tragedy of the commons, a common idea held in the field of ecology that a group of humans dependent on a limited resource will always exploit that resource until it is depleted, bothered me from the day I heard it. My thought was, if people were rational and forward thinking, characteristics in this case I think requires little mental effort, would realize that if one individual were to take more than their share then the resource would soon be depleted. My thought was not particularly profound or new to those I shared it with, but their response to it was 'well, people aren't that way, they are generally stupid and destructive'. This response coincides with the Christian idea that humanity is doomed to sin and must work hard to overcome the conditions of its soul set forth by Adam and Eve's original sin. What bothers me about both these responses is that there is no way for humans to overcome the negative potential within else, except through the dubious mercy of God as in the Christian example. It's as if humans do not have the capcity to avoid or combat the evils of our minds. I don't believe humans were born evil, it takes work to live up to the potential of the human mind and escape mental laziness which is at the root of most, if not all, depravity in humans. This is part of Rand's message in that humanity must use it's most powerful tool, reason, to overcome what we have allowed ourselves to become as a species; a species that is mentally sick and thus seeks to destroy itself in frustration and fear.

So how has this lead me to be antisocial? I hinted at it early when I said that I don't get much out of some of my interactions with friends. I've resolved to squash the laziness in me, the part of me that seeks to always be comfortable and relaxed, the part of me that seeks to turn off thinking and bathe itself in pleasure. Doing this requires much of my mental time; time that I have been wasting for the most part. It is during my mental relaxation time that I would normally call these people to contribute to my mental laziness. I didn't anticipate getting much out of the conversation, but it was okay because I wasn't really thinking anyway. I essentially don't have much time for that now, nor do I even have the desire to talk to people I don't find stimulating; it's a waste of time. Part of me feels bad for thinking this, but as I've come to realize these feelings of guilt are what enables the mental laziness of humanity to continue. Think about what would happen if people only had meaningful conversations with people and didn't bother with small talk and pointless banter. Better yet, ask yourself what is the point of small talk if that's all an interaction is composed of? I fail to see how conversations that don't stimulate your brain are a good use of time and apologizing for that is simply unhealthy. Chances are if I don't talk to a person I don't find them to be a good use of my time.

Thoughts

Here are two thoughts I had during class about humanity. It's funny, some of my best thinking occurs during times when I should be paying attention to the professor. Actually, if the professor was saying something terribly relevant then I probably wouldn't have time to think about these things. Here we go:

1) The only thing that can temper the potential disasters from human discovery is a strong sense of morals; a concrete code of values and principles. We fear many scientific discoveries and breakthroughs because we humans can sense the shaky moral ground our society and culture stands on. Fear of progress and discovery comes from a fear one has in one's self and one's ability to withstand anything. Fanatic fear represents a tremendous doubt in one's own morality.

Now, one can guess what has inspired me to write these words. As I stated in a previous entry I've started reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, but this thought was inspired by her non-fiction work The Virtue of Selfishness. This book has been a nice supplement while reading Atlas Shrugged. It's opened my eyes to some of the points Rand is trying to make in her book, points I might have missed otherwise. I was thinking about the scientific discoveries that seem to be immanent on the human horizon; stem cell usage, cloning, genetic mapping, etc. For some time now I've been trying to reconcile the fact that these, and other discoveries have the potential to ruin life as we know it, yet they hold important breakthroughs for our existence. We can't stop people from discovering, but these discoveries will probably be disastrous given the current psyche of humanity. I've been wondering how this situation can be fixed and it appears I found at least of piece of the answer. Paralyzing fear, a fear to act, represents low self-esteem I believe; a lack of self confidence. Many people are against scientific discoveries because they know, or fear, what humanity will do with such knowledge. Others who want to plow ahead and discover things often lack foresight into what such discoveries will mean on the human landscape. I'm concerned about what humanity will do if/when we perfect human cloning. I'm concerned because much of humanity is morally reprehensible. Our values are not set and when dealing with the unknown and the potentially dangerous you better damn well know yourself and what you stand for, otherwise you'll be consumed and/or trampled over. To know yourself is to eliminate the number of ideas and scenarios that strike fear into your heart. Yup, okay, here's thought number two:

2) It seems, more so than anything, humanity suffers from a lack of self-esteem; a disbelief in the abilities of one's potential to accomplish. We have internalized the societal propaganda that someone else knows better than we do. We defer to experts, gurus, gods, prophets, mystics, government officials, politicians, committees, advisors, and the like to inform us, guide us, teach us about our own reality and existence. This ultimately leads to them thinking for us. Our society tells us we need to listen to these people (not a terribly insidious thing) only to the point that we understand enough of what they are saying to be okay with doing what they say we should do, because they have our, or society's, best interests in mind. This type of logic is only prevalent in one other stage of humanity, childhood, yet we recognize the necessity to discard this parental philosophy as essential for growth and development into adulthood. Curious that this parental philosophy is so prevalent in modern society. I see now that selfishness is the only way to survive as human. And by selfishness I mean an unwavering belief in one's ability to know what is right.

I've amended the original thought because this says it better. Another Rand inspired rant of course, and one that somewhat echoes what I wrote in my first thought. This idea of selfishness is intriguing to me. I like it because I believe it's the only way one can be true to oneself; something I try to do at all times. I think people have a problem with being selfish because they think selfish people will constantly take advantage of others in an effort to please themselves. This isn't the case as only stupid people disregard the environment and context they live in. Only stupid people do not consider the consequences of their actions and act to please their whims. Only stupid people believe that they can and should get everything they want in the way they think they should have it. Selfishness does not imply or include these people and their stupidity. Most people say they value independence, but I think we don't realize what it takes to stand alone in one's own mind. To answer first and foremost to yourself, to think for yourself, live for yourself, and act for you interests. The interests of any individual will most likely, at some point, benefit or involve someone else. This involvement, if the person is thinking about their interests and answering to their morals, will usually not involve taking advantage of, or harming someone else. Stupid people often think they can get away with harming others, or simply don't care. The alternative to being selfish is to act for someone else's interests which is akin to being a slave.