togetherness
An abstraction is an object, too, our Smalltalk friends tell us.
Happiness? Fuck that. I'd rather work for love. If kindly it could work for me.
My Girl Friday November 5th, 2006 10:25pm
---
Love without happiness?
No thanks.
Been there, done that.
----
No
that's not what I said. Having happiness be the sole goal - that's
kinda lame. Try working for love. Happiness, joie devivre, etc, will
follow.
No
that's not what I said. Having happiness be the sole goal - that's
kinda lame. Try working for love. Happiness, joie devivre, etc, will
follow.
My Girl Friday November 5th, 2006 10:31pm
----
"We
have seen how people describe the common characteristics of optimal
experience: a sense that one's skills are adequate to cope with the
challenges at hand, in a goal-directed, rule-bound action system that
provides clear clues as to how well one is performing."
- Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Flow. (4th chapter)
~~~x
November 5th, 2006 10:38pm
> For love of what?
Dude, this is more self-centeredness. Just like the quest for happiness is fundementally a quest of the ego.
The question is not love of what (do you love objects that much?), the question is whose love.
Whose love am I working for? Wake up each morning and load that question into the goal sights.
Dude, this is more self-centeredness. Just like the quest for happiness is fundementally a quest of the ego.
The question is not love of what (do you love objects that much?), the question is whose love.
Whose love am I working for? Wake up each morning and load that question into the goal sights.
My Girl Friday November 5th, 2006 10:43pm
----
You think a what is an object. Interesting. You seem to think that an abstraction cannot be a what, as far as I can tell.
Perhaps it's a person, or concept, or a divinity, or my dog.
Not that I have a dog - I don't.
----
And if you are working for the love of a person, that's *still* a goal.
Regardless, working for the love of a person is different than
working for the love of an object. Can objects, even abstractions,
love?
That's why the reaction against whatness. Whatness is not whoness. It is cold. It doesn't love back.
The love of one's friends, spouse, children, siblings, co-workers,
community - these are all persons with their own needs. Even God, if
you so wish. If one works for His love then it is because God has
personhood.
It is by fulfilling another's needs/potential with one's work/power
that love is built. You lose some power/independence/control, yes (a
parent should know what that feels like), but the combination is worth
more, the togetherness is stronger than the parts by themselves. The
bond itself is valuable, it has energy (surely a chemist understands
that :) ).
Sigh. I don't want to be too categorical either. Some people DO
find that objecs love them back. Numbers and proofs love mathematicians
(they pamper them so). The lone gardener is the center of attention
among his daffodils and zucchinis and bumblebees. And lo, we, know that
words wail at the death of a poet like no other.
If people's love is insufficient, figure out which objects and/or
abstractions will love you back. Which ones will have you. Work for
them.
powered by performancing firefox
powered by performancing firefox
No comments:
Post a Comment