The Death of Curiosity: Jim Styro's Meaning of Life, Part Fourteen

The thought occurred to me recently - that I am no longer as curious as I used to be.

I could probably come up with a lot of reasons why that has come to pass. I'm older, I know more, so there's less to be curious about. I'm older, so there's more things I don't want to know (like what are my daughter and her fiance doing during their sleepovers? Hell, I know damn well what they're doing! The same thing I was doing with my fiance 30 years ago.) I'm confronted with so much information from modern media that my mind is occupied with absorbing the information already bombarding me - not seeking out more stuff to try to absorb.

These reasons all have varying degrees of validity - but I don't think they tell the real story. (The "I know more" one is particularly weak, since the amount of "What I know" as a percentage of "What there is to be known" hasn't even caused the Knowledge-O-Meter to jiggle during my entire stay on this planet...) The biggest reason why I'm not very curious anymore is:
I'm just too damn busy to be curious.

You've heard of "idle curiosity"? People use the phrase like it's a bad thing - but I'm not so sure. In any case, I'm pretty sure a prerequisite for idle curiosity is...being idle. If your time and your mind are constantly occupied with "what is going on right now", there's little or no room for curiosity to creep in.

Which, in and of itself, wouldn't be a cause of concern - I mean, who cares whether or not Jim Styro is curious. But I think we're ALL getting too busy to be curious. And I think that general phenomenon could be more of a problem.

Consider for a moment the sort of situations in which your mind seems to work best, is the most open and creative. Is it when there is a flood of information, sensation or ideas being thrown at you? Is it when you are bearing down, highly focused, intent on an objective? Is it when you let go, relax your mind and let it wander for a minute or two in a happy place? Ask yourself: When you can't remember something, when something is on the tip of your tongue but you can't quite come up with it - and it's bugging you - what do you do?)

Like most things, I think the mind benefits from some variety - but I fear that our culture and lifestyles don't permit as much as we need. It's not that we don't like to think at all (although that is a problem that deserves a separate examination) - but even when we do, it tends to be reactive, frantic and...directed. This last point, I think, is particularly harmful to the curious nature. Because I think we tend to confuse the "pursuit of knowledge" with curiosity.

"The pursuit of knowledge" is noble and useful - but it is most often done with a particular objective (or worse, a conclusion) in mind. When I worked for the federal government, my friends and I there had a humorous motto that we intended to have printed on T-shirts.

It said:

If you know the answer, you don't have to think

A saying both funny and true - but dangerous to thinkers everywhere. In our haste - to make money, to be first, to not "waste time" - we have dismissed the importance of idle curiosity. And if we do that, if we stop letting our minds wander where they will go, we risk not only missing the inspiration that we may find from the wandering - but our minds may forget how to wander.

I say we need to start exercising our curiosity muscles - before they atrophy.

Take care.


PS: Lest you think that I hadn't noticed, my lovely wife, the Middle-Aged Woman, has partnered up with Captain Dumbass (my hero - or is he now my rival?) to bring you
the Zombie News Network!

Don't miss it - or heads will roll.

RTT: "Oh what a tangled web we weave..."

When first we write so randomly.*
Or something.

- I don't get why I'm having what amounts to a writer's block whenever I sit down to write a post here lately. I don't seem to have any problem writing in general - I just seem to have a problem writing what's on my mind.

- Maybe it's time for me to work on that post idea I've had lying around for awhile - tentatively titled "The limitations of transparency" - about the decisions we all make concerning how much we want to reveal of ourselves. Not just on blogs, in life! And do the boundaries we establish make us dishonest in our dealings with other people? When does choosing not reveal something about yourself become dishonesty? (I get a few more good ideas together on that one and I'll have a new "Meaning Of Life" post...)

- This weekend, I edited down about the first half-hour of what I expect to be a great new instructional video on Chi Sao demonstrated by my good friend and teacher, Sibok Rocco Ambrose. If you live in the metropolitan Detroit area and are interested in the finest training in self-defense and martial arts around, for yourself or your children, you need to check out Ambrose Academy.

- Later this month, The Girl and The Boy will celebrate their 20th and 18th birthdays, respectively. Good God, I am old.

- So Pamela (from the dayton time) emails me today. She started reading Life of Pi on Friday - and finished the d*mn book in a day. Who the h*ll has time to read a whole 400-page book in ONE DAY? Doesn't she realize the kind of pressure that puts on me?!?!
(Pamela, it's just a joke, sweetie. I don't want to cause trouble again just because I don't know how to write stuff so that it's funny...)

- I don't feel old.

- Did I mention that it's really cool when your kids get older and they're not home all the time and you don't have to wait until they're asleep to have sex?

- I'm not advocating that anyone has to wait until their kids are asleep to have sex (but that is pretty much how the Middle-Aged Woman rolls, if you know what mean). But when one of the parties whose cooperation is essential in these pursuits generally has difficulty staying up much beyond 9 pm... I'm just sayin' - absence makes the heart grow fonder.

- Other things may grow as well.

- Have you ever noticed how underused the word "engorged" is?

- Since becoming a freelance writer, the Middle-Aged Woman has been making a lunch for me to take to work every day and preparing many fine evening meals. Tonight, she had a little mishap with some pork chops (I'm not a big pork chop fan anyway - she likes them though) - and so I had to leap into the breach and salvage dinner tonight. And, though I don't like to brag, I think it's fair to say - that I buy make a mean Crispy Strip**.

Bon appétit!

Take care.


PS: Did I mention that you are supposed to visit Keely at the Un-Mom immediately.

If not sooner.


* Apologies to Sir Walter Scott.
** "Crispy Strip" is a registered trademark of Kentucky Fried Chicken.

The problem with The Golden Rule: Jim Styro's Meaning of Life, Part 13

I can't say that I love Jesus
That would be a hollow claim
He did make some observations
And I'm quoting them today

"Judge not, lest ye be judged"
What a beautiful refrain
The studio audience disagrees
Have his lambs all gone astray?

-- New Test Leper by R.E.M.

Everybody knows that the world would be a better place if we all followed The Golden Rule, right? And everybody knows that The Rule is commonly stated as:
"Do to others as you would have them do to you."

Right?

But - and here's where the whole question of judgment comes in - doesn't The Golden Rule only work if the way I prefer to be treated and the way you prefer to be treated are (at least close to) the same thing?

Of course, as the world becomes a smaller place and we begin to learn things we never knew about distant countries, unfamiliar cultures, different preferences in human interaction - it becomes clear that presuming other people want to be treated the way that we want to be treated has a high probability of inaccuracy.

Maybe the New Golden Rule will need to be:

Try to treat other people the way they want to be treated.

It's a tougher rule to follow - because it means you actually need to understand another person, rather than simply assume that person is like you. But isn't that the underlying idea - having as much consideration for those around you as you have for yourself - of the original Golden Rule anyway?

Anyway, that's what I was thinking. Now I'll be quiet and listen to what those around me have to say.

Take care.

"Why don't you give yourself over...to Pleasure?!"

Jim Styro's Meaning Of Life, Part Thirteen

I'm just about smack dab in the middle of a two-week vacation. So far, I have enjoyed myself immensely - golfing, talking, eating, golfing, drinking, listening to music, golfing, shopping, watching films...and golfing. Tomorrow, Larry and I plan to...go golfing. The truth is that we have been ordered to go golfing by our wives - because they want go putzing around in thrift shops tomorrow and don't want us messing it up for them. I secretly suspect that Larry would prefer to hit the thrift shops with the women - but I figure we can hit the thrift shops too (after our round). So hopefully, I can make it up to him.

It will be my sixth day of golf in the past eleven days - which is certainly a personal best for me (depending on how you look at it). I've actually been slacking in the Golf Dept. since we got to Petoskey last Thursday - but there's no way I could have continued the torrid pace of play from last week (five rounds in six days) without my arms falling off. Anyway, I love golf - not because I golf well - because a golf course is just a beautiful place to be. Beautifully green, well-tended, often with rolling hills, trees, a pond or stream here and there. It is the height of luxury, I think, to spend a few hours where the only concern is trying to knock a small white ball into a slightly larger hole.

That thought leads me towards a whole series of ideas concerning enjoyment, vacations, pleasure and leisure, which all touch upon the question:
What is The Secret to enjoying yourself?

We've touched upon some aspects to the question in our past MOL discussions -

You've got to know what you enjoy, what will make you happy.

You've got to align your expectations to reality.

It helps to have people around you who desire your happiness and want to share it.

But being in my current circumstance (in the middle of a two-week vacation with good friends, no responsibilities and the means to do nearly anything I desire) highlights one overriding consideration concerning The Secret:
Will I allow myself to have a good time?

For in much the same way the a person can look a golf course and appreciate the natural beauty, feel exhilaration in the challenge of the game itself, or just enjoy a few hours spent with a buddy in the fresh air - another might focus only on shots that went awry, the cost of the golf balls that were lost, or how fast/slow the greens were playing. Any of these elements may reflect the reality of the experience - but our enjoyment of the experience is based just as much (if not more) on which elements we CHOOSE TO focus on.

Why would we EVER choose to focus on the negative aspects of the experience? Perhaps because the overwhelming majority of elements of an experience were "bad" (or did not meet our expectation). But is other cases, it may be that our attitude was not shaped by the experience (we don't feel good because so many bad things actually happened) - but rather, our attitude shaped the experience (we "knew" beforehand things would go badly, things happened, we decided they were bad, repeat Steps 1,2, and 3). Maybe I don't really believe I deserve a nice vacation. Maybe I don't think I've earned the right to enjoy myself. In my experience, people don't always need a good reason to punish themselves.

So perhaps the first element in enjoying yourself is to remember or decide that - it's OK to have a good time. It's allowed.

Perhaps this is only an issue of middle-aged, white American men - but I doubt it.

Lest you be concerned: I am not having any problems along these lines. In the words of Elwood P. Dowd, "I have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whoever I'm with." Of course, Elwood drank.

But so do I.

Take care.

PS: I may write some more about this. Or I may be having too much fun on vacation. You never know.

Good / God: Jim Styro's Meaning of Life, Part Twelve

Ten years ago today...

I've been using a Franklin Planner since 1991, so certain parts of my life are extremely well-documented. On the page for June 17, 1999, under the heading "Jim Styro's Philosophy, Part I"* is found this entry (modified only slightly for this world premiere):

One person is not inherently better than another.
A person can only better him/herself by desiring to -
and doing - good.
A person cannot credibly declare their own goodness.
It must be demonstrated - and/or established through the testimony of others.

The big lie is not that God exists.
It is that we can become perfect without God through technology - through our own power, ingenuity or insight.
We reject the idea of perfection through goodness because it is
so simple to understand and so hard to achieve.

Hey - that's not bad...for a youngster

PS: Saw the following on a poster at Garden City Hospital near my house -

Perfection is our goal
Excellence will be tolerated

It has stuck with me ever since. That's the sort of attitude I want when life and death may be on the line.

Take care.


* My delusions of grandeur are not a recent development...

Don't Ask / Don't Know: Jim Styro's Meaning of Life, Part Eleven*

On Monday, we began considering how well we know the people around us.

Idea #1: You may not know (or understand) as much as you think you do.

Yesterday, I presented a second post which covered...

Idea #2: The only things we can truly know about others are the things they reveal

Today, we complete this leg on our journey toward the Meaning of Life by asking the question...

Idea #3: How can I learn more about the people I love?

There are some little proverbs or bits of "wisdom" that I've heard repeated that just don't speak to me. For example:

"Never complain, never explain"

"Everything is negotiable"

"There is no such thing as a stupid question"

and, one of particular interest given our present topic...

"Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to"

Although I believe I understand how each of these statements might be of use in a particular circumstance, I don't find any of them to be true in the broader sense - and particularly within the framework of discussing how we can understand more about the people closest to us.

If you've agreed with me so far (at least for the purpose of discussion) that we shouldn't assume we know too much about others - and that the only things we can claim to know with certainty are the things that have been shared directly with us...

Then, keeping all that in mind, the answer to the question "How can I learn more about the people I love" is really quite simple, I think. Ask them questions.

Of course, anyone who has ever been in the midst of a long-running misunderstanding with a spouse, child, parent or other loved one is now screaming at their computer - "It's not that easy!!!" Hey, I never said it was easy - I said it was simple to know what to do; knowing how to go about it is another matter entirely.

But you know me - I'm full of...opinions. For what it's worth, I'll offer a few suggestions on how to go about it which may be of some use for those who are truly looking for a way to make a deeper connection with someone in their life.

• Consider what you want to know - and why you want to know it

Although this may not be very important in the early stages of a relationship (when people expect to ask and answer questions as they get to know one another), asking someone you have known for years a lot of unexpected questions will almost certainly make that person, if not suspicious - at least curious. (Think about it: in the same way that we often assume we know more about our loved ones that we probably do, the people we love will often assume that we understand them better than we really do. They assume we have figured them out. Can't you just hear your mother saying: "After all these years, don't you know?") So the person asking the questions should be prepared to explain him/herself.

• Ask a thoughtful question to get a thoughtful answer

If you are trying to resolve a misunderstanding that has been going on for years, you should be prepared to spend more than a few minutes thinking about the best way to ask for the information you seek. Don't just shotgun a list of questions that require nothing more than "yes" or "no" answers. Leave the questions open-ended so that the person responding must elaborate. Try not to be too leading with your questions; if you supply the answer in the question, the person may simply be inclined to go along with your preconceived ideas. Be direct with your questions - but don't use words and phrases that are accusatory or judgemental. Don't try to tell the other person what (you think) they are/were thinking or feeling - ASK.

Consider asking questions that begin with statements like:

"I've wondered for a long time why you... "
"What were you thinking/feeling when that happened?"
"What influenced your decision to..."

In the process of preparing questions for the other party to answer, consider how you would answer the questions yourself (if both you and the other person were directly involved in the situations or incidents you are asking about).

• Be prepared to reveal yourself in the process

Don't expect that the other person will be willing to reveal her/himself to you, if you are clearly not willing to do the same. In fact, you may need to set the example by sharing first in order to break the ice. Keep in mind that you are not planning an interrogation; you want your loved one to share their thoughts and feelings with you - so you need to be prepared to follow suit (or maybe even lead trump**).

Well, I hope that this discussion and these ideas are helpful to someone out there. I know it has been good for me to think it through - so that I will have a better chance to honestly share myself with the people I love - and perhaps help those around me to connect with me and the ones they love.

The stated policy of the U.S. military with regards to homosexuals in their ranks used to be: Don't Ask / Don't Tell.

In answer to the question, how can I learn more about the people I love?
Jim Styro says: If you Don't Ask, you Don't Know.

Take care.


* "These go to eleven"
** That one's for all you euchre players out there.

Revelations: Jim Styro's Meaning of Life, Part Ten

Yesterday, we began considering how well we know the people around us. And I covered our first idea in some detail.

Idea #1: You may not know (or understand) as much as you think you do.

Today, we move on to a second idea in the same vein.

Idea #2: The only things we can truly know about others are the things they reveal

Sherlock Holmes may have been a great detective - but I'm here to tell you, I don't think he'd have lasted five years (maybe not even five months) as a husband. Why? Because I submit that deduction is the enemy of emotional understanding. People (you may have noticed) aren't always rational, emotional responses aren't necessarily repeatable with mathematical precision. The only way to know and understand another person in a meaningful way - to understand the way someone thinks and feels - is for the person to reveal themselves to you.

Of course, the process of revealing yourself to another person is, dare I say it, complex. It requires willingness. It requires honesty. It assumes a certain level of self-examination and understanding (If you don't understand yourself, how in the world can you reveal yourself honestly to anyone else?). And it requires the right circumstances - a level of privacy that can be difficult to achieve. (I believe few people are brave enough to reveal themselves honestly to more than one or two people at a time; and oftentimes getting the opportunity to be alone with another person is hard to arrange.)

Another factor that affects this revelation process is a person's own security with him/herself; to use an old phrase - how comfortable are you in your own skin? I believe the more secure you feel about yourself, the less risk you feel in revealing yourself to others. Having this comfort level increases both the likelihood of revelation and the chances that the information shared will represent an honest glimpse of person being revealed.

I could never understand why a fiction writer would, for example, be afraid to talk about her/his life for fear of having people misinterpret their work (by attempting to infer what is autobiographical in their stories). It seems to me that, the absence of any authoritative information on an author's personal life is likely to spur deductive reasoning concerning parallels between a writer's work and private life, rather than minimize it. Of course, maybe authors just use this as a smokescreen; people are certainly entitled to keep their lives private, if they wish. But the trade-off of fame, it seems to me, is that people can express a legitimate interest and curiosity in the lives of the famous (it can and does get out of hand in many cases - but it is not in and of itself, wrong).


In any case, receiving information from the source (so long as the original source is trust-worthy and true) is certainly superior to any amount of deductive conclusions that might be obtained through Holmesian detective work. Intention or motivation are difficult or impossible to deduce from observed behaviors. Think of the situation where a man purchases an expensive gift for his beloved; is he doing this as a true expression of his strong feeling - or did he feel obligated because of a previous gift received? Is he giving the gift to compensate for the fact he can't express himself emotionally - or is the gift intended to distract his beloved from discovering that he is involved with another lover? Because deduction is not a tool best suited to the information sought, we must be prepared to engage our loved ones in a dialogue that will offer them an opportunity to reveal themselves to us.

And that leads us to tomorrow's concluding post on
"Knowing the people in your life", wherein we look at
Idea #3: How can I learn more about the people I love?

Don't miss it.

Take care.

You think you know a person: Jim Styro's Meaning of Life, Part Nine

You think you know a person...but you don't.

"After all, is there anyone who knows the qualities of anyone except his own spirit, within him?"

--1 Corinthians 2:11

Since I'm a glass half-full kinda guy*, I don't believe that most of the unhappiness issues arising from marriage and other central relationships are caused by deliberate acts of meanness or sabotage. But neither do I underestimate the extent to which people misunderstand, not only themselves, but those around them - even those closest to them.

So today, let's begin the process of kicking around a few ideas concerning what we can know about the people around us, the difference between what we think we know and what we really know, and how to obtain additional information.

Idea #1: You may not know (or understand) as much as you think you do.

If familiarity doesn't necessarily breed contempt, I would say that it at least fosters a unique over-confidence combined with interpersonal laziness. To some extent, I think people just assume that they know and understand certain people because they have been around them a long time. But that's a big assumption. The end result is - we take for granted those who have been around us for a long time. We assume we know and understand things about them that either we never knew - or were true a long time ago - but not anymore.

Let me tell ya a little story that may not illustrate this idea perfectly - but hopefully it's at least somewhat amusing. The Middle-Aged Woman and I were going to visit some friends last weekend and were packing up a few things to take with us in our travel cooler. Because I knew Snoplum's back had been particularly bothersome to her that day, I said:

"Hey, honey - why don't you put a couple of your ice packs in the cooler we're taking to Chico and Chickadee's?"

Although the MAW acknowledged the remark, there was no real response to my suggestion (no surprise since: a) none was needed, and b) after being married a long time you just get used to that). I packed up the cooler, added a bunch of ice to keep everything cold (the MAW observed all this) and went about my other preparations for departure.

We left home a few minutes later and had barely made it around the corner from our home when Snoplum said:

"Oh!...can we go back to the house? I forgot to bring an ice pack."

"Uhm....OK. I thought you were going to put them in the cooler." I headed back to the house.

She ran in to get the ice packs. I wasn't going to make a big deal out of it; I figured she'd just forgotten - despite my mentioning the idea just prior to our departure. But when she got back to the car, I thought maybe she had assumed I was going to put them in the cooler. So I said:

"Did you think I was going to put the ice packs in the cooler? If so, I'm sorry."

"No, I knew they weren't in there."

"So you didn't forget to pack them?"

"No."

Snoplum then proceeded to admit to me that she had assumed my suggestion regarding the ice packs pertained to the idea of using them as the sole source of coldness within the cooler. And since she felt that was such a ludicrous idea, she dismissed it. She did not realize that my suggestion was simply a reminder that she ought to take ice packs on our trip because she would need them to soothe her back. Until the moment she asked me to go back to the house so she could get them.

Now who can blame Snoplum for this? I blame myself - for the constant bombardment of stupid ideas which I have (apparently) forced upon her in the past. If she hadn't been required to wade through so much of my previous bullsh*t, perhaps the ice pack idea might have gained more traction before being tossed on the ash heap of Jim Styro's Cacamaimey Suggestions.

Anyway - hopefully you get the idea. Even people who have known each other a long time can misunderstand simple things. They may even be more prone to misunderstanding - either because they're not listening carefully - or they make assumptions about what has been said that aren't correct.

One last thought concerning Idea #1 - The more confident you are that you know and understand another person, the more care you should take in validating your understanding. One thing that many thoughtful people over time have come to acknowledge is that - the more you learn and understand about a thing (or a person), the greater appreciation you have for how much more there is to know.

Tomorrow we'll move on to Idea #2:
The only things we can truly know about others are the things they reveal

Take care.


* Maybe even three-quarters full

Would I lie to you?: Jim Styro's Meaning of Life, Part Eight

When last we went in search of the elusive Meaning of Life, we were confronting the distressing concept that those around us might not always have our best interests at heart. These situations frequently involve, if not outright lying, then at least the avoidance of full honesty. Avoiding the truth is, I believe, an ultimate happiness killer.

Let's take a look at some of the possible scenarios that could arise in failing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. To keep it simple, I'm going build each of these examples around a decision concerning whether to have children - something many couples consider at some point or other - and oftentimes can be a "deal breaker" in maintaining a relationship.

#1 - The "I know better" scenario

This is the one where both partners tell each they are on the same page (in our example, let's say they have decided to welcome little creatures into their lives) but one of the parties has decided that the time is not right to proceed. Or perhaps the husband doesn't really believe that having children is a good idea - but he's not telling his new bride that. He's just stalling in the belief that she will come to her senses and change her mind - because he knows better.

In these situations, I'm assuming that the deceptive party believes they truly have their partner's best interests in mind. "We don't have enough money for kids, we don't have the right house, we don't have enough time to spend together now - what will it be like with a child?" However valid these points may be, if the party that feels this way is unwilling to share their misgivings, hard times lay ahead. No matter how pure they may feel their motives are.

#2 - The "Kid Yourself" scenario

There are lots of ways that people feign agreement - and lots of reasons they do it. At it's most innocent, this involves agreeing to something without considering the implications. Let's say both parties truly believe they want the same thing - but only one party has thought about it enough to stay the course. The person that agrees without thinking may believe that they are "going along to get along" - but they are likely only deferring either an argument...or a betrayal.

Once circumstances present themselves which one or the other party hadn't envisioned - the situation could quickly turn into a scenario #1 (if , when confronted with what must be done to follow through on the previous agreement, one of the parties decides they know better) - but it could also turn into a scenario 3...

#3 - The "Lyin' A$$ B*tch" scenario

In this situation, of course, one of the parties (in our example, let's say the husband - since we all know men are scum) knows from the outset that they don't agree with their partner about a decision. They don't care whether or not the desires of the other party might be in the best interest of all concerned - they just know what they want - and they intend to try to get their way regardless.

So a guy wants to maintain a relationship with his lady; she wants a kid, he doesn't. He knows she'll dump him if he lets on he has no intention of procreating, so he puts her off. He lies. He makes excuses. He tries to create an environment where having children would be difficult or impossible. Years later, she either dumps him - or her biological clock has stopped ticking and she's screwed - but not pregnant.

I used having children for these examples - but you can fill in the blank with almost any major (or minor) decision that couples must struggle with. Buying a home, changing jobs, what school would be best for the kids - you name it.

How does any of this affect our journey towards the meaning of life? Hopefully, it gives us at least two insights that may be of use. It reminds us that we should not make commitments lightly, nor should we assume silence is assent (just because our partner didn't say "no", doesn't mean they would say "yes"). Discussion of important life decisions should encompass the details of what will be required to make the thing happen. And we need to pay more attention to what people do than what they say. If our partner's behaviors contradict their words, trouble is a-brewin'.

Relationships are hard enough when everyone is pulling in the same direction. When they're not, someone is going to suffer. And then, your only choice is: do you like your suffering long and drawn out - or short and sweet.

And these are not good choices. So - let's keep things on the up and up, shall we?

Take care.


RED WINGS PLAYOFF UPDATE:
The Stanley Cup Finals - Detroit vs. Pittsburgh
The Wings defeated the Penguins Saturday night by a score of 3-1.
Detroit leads best of seven series, 1 game to 0

"Learning the game": Jim Styro's Meaning Of Life, Part Seven

Ah, the unadorned eloquence of pop music lyrics; they can convey as much as the Bard, the Bible or the Beatles (hey! - wait a minute...)*

When Buddy Holly sang:

"When you love her
and she doesn't love you
You're only learning the game..."

He was talking about one situation I haven't considered much in previous MOL musings ...when we find ourselves in relationships where the feelings, desires & intentions of partners aren't mutual. Or, in extreme situations, where the other parties are concerned solely with their own interests; or worse yet - where the one we love doesn't love us, doesn't like us - is "playing" us.

The concept of life or love as a game has been around for...well, for a long time, how about that? But there's something about it, that rubs me the wrong way - how about you? Although from a positive angle, viewing love as a game might emphasize the fun and playfulness of a relationship - an equally valid perspective could focus on the competitive aspects of all games, the fact that games have winners and losers, the underlying idea that life is a zero sum game** - for me to win I need to acquire more while everyone else gets less.

Although I can't prove that life is, in fact, not a zero sum game - I choose to believe that is not the case (based on my own experiences) and behave accordingly.

But I suspect that all of us (or nearly so) have experienced an unrequited love - where our devotion was either not reciprocated at all ("I'm busy this Saturday - and every other Saturday night for the rest of my life") or not reciprocated in kind ("I hope we can just be friends"). Who during adolescence, with their hormones raging, hasn't "fallen in love" (or, at least, lust) with someone who really didn't want to have anything to do with them.

Of course, what can make things really interesting (depending on how you look at it), is to become involved with someone who is deliberately leveraging your devotion, good-will or good-naturedness for their own gain - without regard for what would be best for you.

It's getting late - so I'll defer some of the finer points to a subsequent post. See you next time.


Take care.


* Redundancy is my friend
** Where the gain of one player is offset by the loss of another player,

"I guess I'm talking about Love"*: Jim Styro's Meaning of Life, Part Six

So - the last time we talked, I played a little trick on you. I put forth a Love Quiz that was really my attempt to define love by describing its component qualities and behaviors. Let's review!

Love requires: Patience, kindness, trust, and hopefulness
A loving person: isn't jealous or conceited or rude or easily offended, doesn't try to take advantage of others or hold grudges, feels bad when wrong is being done, feels good when the truth is told, is willing to overlook shortcomings, and can endure difficult circumstances.

I don't know about you - but that doesn't sound too easy to me.

It sounds much more difficult than what is shown of "love" on TV and in the movies usually. That tends to be more a parade of beautiful people in beautiful places exchanging witty banter and falling in and out of relationships so casually it's hard to tell the players without a program. If you're used to thinking of love in these romantic and (dare I say it) shallow terms, my whole Love Quiz thing must seem like a bunch of b*llsh*t.

But think of it this way: It's one thing to enjoy watching a Woody Allen movie (if you don't like Woody, insert your preferred director here) - but would you want to live a Woody Allen movie?

Have any of your past relationships caused you to think or say something like:

• Oh, he drives me crazy half the time - but when he looks at me with those big, blue eyes, I just melt. Or,
• She's only like that when she has too much to drink; the rest of the time, I have more fun with her than I've ever had in my life. Or,
• Whenever he holds me, I'm completely filled with desire. The sex is incredible. I just wish my parents could forget about the time he hit me. Everybody loses their temper sometimes - and it was really my fault. Or,
• I've never been with a girl so beautiful before - it's like a dream. I think we were meant to find each other. She really needed a loan to keep her car from getting repossessed - and I've been so lonely. I don't care what my friends say - we need each other.

So if you began reading this thinking that the 14 "elements of love" I outlined earlier are hopelessly complex, consider this:

• How may hugs it would take to compensate for having your arm broken by an abusive partner?
• How many kisses would it take before you can forget that your partner has a "swelled head" and never seems to forget the smallest mistake that you make?
• How much "make-up" sex is required for you to overlook that your partner hides the truth from you and takes advantage of you, financially and emotionally?

Sure - these may be some pretty dramatic examples of how our romantic views of love can interfere with a serious evaluation of how loving our partner really is. But are these scenarios that uncommon?

I guess what I'm saying is:
I'd rather be kind than be a great kisser.**
I'd rather be hopeful than a hunk.
For as the Bard said,
"Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come."***

I'll set my sights on the things that will last longer. True love may not be easy - but it beats the alternative.

Take care.

* Or, for you multi-lingual types: Creo que estoy hablando de amor. Thanks to Mssrs. Page and Plant for the title (from Trampled Under Foot) and Jim Charlie for the Spanish.
** Of course, I'm fortunate enough to be both.
*** From Shakespeare's Sonnet 116 - my other favorite meditation on love (after 1 Corinthians 13)

"What is this thing called Love"*: Jim Styro's Meaning Of Life, Part Five

Twenty-five years ago (I don't feel really old until I say or write stuff like that)...
Twenty-five years ago, Don Henley sang:

Love's a little word that's been kicked around
Used too much, beaten down
What in the world are you thinking of?

I couldn't have said it better myself - so I didn't bother to try.

I been using that word - Love - quite a bit in recent posts; but I haven't been very specific about what I think the word means - other than to say that I think one of the important qualities of a person who loves is that they are more concerned with the happiness and well-being of others than themselves. But there's more to it than that.

Want to find out if you're a loving person? Then take...(drum roll please)

Jim Styro's Love Quiz

1. Are you patient? [Score no points for "No", 1 point for "Sometimes", 2 points for "Usually"]

2. Are you kind? [No=0, Sometimes=1, Usually=2]

3. Are you jealous? [Yes=0, Sometimes=1, Never=2]

4. Are you conceited? [Yes=0, Sometimes=1, Never=2]

5. Are you rude? [Yes=0, Sometimes=1, Never=2]

6. Do you seek your own advantage? [Yes=0, Sometimes=1, Never=2]

7. Do you take offense easily/frequently? [Yes=0, Sometimes=1, No=2]

8. Do you store up grievances / have a long memory of wrongs done to you?
[Yes=0, Sometimes=1, No=2]

9. Do you do things you know are wrong easily/frequently? [Yes=0, Sometimes=1, No=2]

10. Do you hide the truth from people? [Yes=0, Sometimes=1, No=2]

11. Will you overlook the shortcomings of others (Do you "cut them some slack")?
[No=0, Sometimes=1, Usually=2]

12. Are you trusting? [No=0, Sometimes=1, Usually=2]

13. Are you hopeful? [No=0, Sometimes=1, Usually=2]

14. Are you a "fair weather friend" - unable to endure difficulties when they arise?
[Yes=0, Sometimes=1, No=2]

Total up your points for all fourteen questions - and locate yourself on the rating scale below.

22 - 28 points = You're a Lover - not a fighter

15 - 21 points = You are well on the way to the Love Shack

8 - 14 points = You need to get on the Love Train and turn things around

0 - 7 points = I'm going to steer clear until you start behaving

OK - Cosmopolitan magazine probably won't hire me on the strength of this effort (especially since I completely ripped off Paul's Letter to the Corinthians** to make the quiz). But you get the idea.

Let's review:
If happiness is important, and
Most of us like having other people around, but
Having other people around can make being happy really complicated, then
Love may be what holds the whole thing together.

The results of this quiz should be pretty interesting. I'll show you mine, if you'll show me yours.


Take care.

* Title courtesy of the late, great Cole Porter
** I wonder if I can be consigned to eternal damnation for that? C'mon, you knew there was something familiar about the quiz, didn't you. Heck, most of the married persons reading this probably had the thirteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians read at their wedding. Didn't think that would come back to haunt you, eh?

Why marriage is so hard: Jim Styro's Meaning of Life, Part Four

Was there ever an endeavor so burdened by outrageous expectation as marriage?

And I'm not even talking about sex...* (OK, I'm going to keep my focus here.)

I think people have a hard time avoiding the fantasy that they can marry someone and change them into their "dream spouse" - and assume (whether they would admit it or not) that their beloved won't develop any new undesirable qualities under their watchful eye. Often, in this scenario, one party has a plan how they can "improve" their flawed partner and transform her/him more fully into the spouse of their dreams. If you aren't married yet - and this is your plan: Please sober up before you tie the knot. The harsh reality is: the cares of life are as likely to push a relationship apart as keep it together.

I'm sure all of this sounds pretty pessismistic - certainly not very romantic. And maybe that's the point. While I think romance is wonderful**, it's not very helpful in dealing with the day-to-day reality of marriage. Marriage is hard work - and if you enter into the arrangement thinking otherwise, you are at a definite disadvantage.

Let me put it this way: Marriage vows are a declaration of love without criteria. Love for better or worse, richer or poorer, sickness or health.*** (Or as I like to put it: I don't love you because you're not an @$$hole - I love you in spite of the fact that you are an @$$hole.****)

That's why marriage is so hard. Even if you can control your initial expectations for this person - that you've chosen to be closest to in the whole world - how do you deal with the changes that time and experience will inevitably bring about? Particularly when those changes are for worse rather than better, or poorer rather than richer, or sicker rather than healthier?

Here's where the fact that love is not rational, that it can't be measured or proven comes into play. These qualties - that could be a detriment in other areas of life - become a distinct advantage in marriage. Because, if one of the unique aspects of love is its willingness to put the interests of the beloved first, then it helps us to understand how to bear the times in a relationship when our expectations are not being met. We can know, at least, that our spouse is not set out to undermine our happiness - because they desire the best for us, as we do for them.

Outside all but our closest relationships, there aren't many situations where we can count on other parties being more concerned with our well-being than ourselves. Imagine having this conversation with your boss:

"Hey, Boss"

"Good morning, Valued Employee"

"Boss, I know my timing isn't very good - but the birth of another child and my wife losing her job is really putting a strain on my finances. My wife is worried sick and life at home is really making it difficult for me to do my best here in the office. You know that I've been busting my hump just to make sure I don't get laid off. Any chance that you might be able to see your way clear to get me a small raise or a bonus?"

"Well, Valued Employee, I feel your pain. Perhaps I should take a temporary pay cut and free up a little money in the budget to get you that raise. I'll have to put a little less in my 401(K) or skip eating out so often - but you need that cash more than I do."

Once you pick yourself up off the floor and your sides stop hurting, remember this: The whole scenario of seeking the best for others rather than ourselves can only be sustained if that love is reciprocated. If our love is unrequited - if one side is always giving and the other taking - the dysfunction of that situation can only be sustained until the giver has nothing left.

If you find yourself in a situation like that, whatever fantasies you may have entertained at the outset of your relationship will need to be abandoned. Even our closest relationships should be able to bear the scrutiny of dispassionate reflection.

Love can't be taken - it must be given. But love that is not returned - or love that is rejected - will turn rotten, like manna from heaven (edible for one day only). If you find yourself in that situation, my advice is: find someone who can love you back.

And if you've found someone who loves you truly: return their love in kind - and keep them close for as long as you can.


Take care.


* Although I will be following this case closely. I don't think this guy stands a chance. Maybe if the ban had latest for a quarter or something. But a week? What a p*ssy! I hardly even notice anymore until after the first week has passed.
** I don't like to make many judgements about myself that I feel are better left to others. But I am very affectionate - quite the touchy, feely guy. I don't think that necessarily comes through much in my writing - 'cause I'm also a hard@$$. But my inclination is more in the direction of Chubby Hugs.
*** You made up your own wedding vows that left open larger loopholes, it may be that none of this post applies to you.
**** A statement which I have often applied to friendship - not marriage. My wife is like Mary Poppins.

"Uva Uvam Videndo Varia Fit" - Jim Styro's Meaning Of Life, Part Three

(Or - The Grapes of Change*)


If John Donne was right and "no man is an island, entire of itself"**, then we can't - or, at least, shouldn't - deal with the meaning of life in a vacuum. Although our previous discussion on happiness and the Meaning of Life was simplified by narrowing in on the expectations of the individual - on what makes me happy - we know that real life is a little more complicated.

Most of us choose to live in the company of others - understanding that to maintain a relationship will involve compromise. Only the most unreasonable people expect to maintain good relations with those around them and still be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want to. It is generally accepted, as part of the unspoken contract of a friendship, that each party cares about the happiness of the other - and is willing (if not always eager) to facilitate that happiness. In our closest relationships, we may even put the needs and desires of the other person(s) ahead of our own - as some do with their children, or their spouse, their immediate family or very close friends.

Where I come from, it's called love - when you put the good of someone else before your own desires.

But love or not - having other people around does complicate the equation. And it's amazing to me how it can impact even the simplest things. For example: Where to eat dinner? How difficult can that be, right? Oh, sure - if it was a larger group, ten people, maybe even two couples having dinner together, you might understand a little haggling, it might take some discussion. But if you have two people. And both of them are hungry. And one of them is willing to eat anywhere (except Arbys***). Then it should be pretty easy to settle on a location.

Unless My Son is involved. In which case, he will not be able to make a decision on where to eat until the top of my head pops off. The conversation begins with my son sprawled on his bed at 7:30 pm. I had to stay late at the office and I'm starving.

"Jim, do you want to get something to eat? If you do, get up right now."

"Uuuuuhh, yeah. I'm coming." I wait while he drags himself out of bed. I'd like him to pick up the pace - but I'm holding my tongue because I know that riding him will only slow down the process.

"Where do you want to eat, Jim?"

"Uuuuuhh, I'm not sure." He only likes to eat at about 3.5 different places (since he knows I won't go with him to Arbys - and he knows I don't want to bother bringing fast food back to the house) - so this really shouldn't take long.

"Well, you need to get sure pretty quickly - or I'll pick." He's pretty sure I will pick a place he'd rather not go (since I like more than 3.5 restaurants) - and he's right. This is called "motivation".

Soon we're in the car. He's had plenty of time to eliminate 2.5 places from consideration and give me the name of the one where he wants to eat but...

"Jim, where do you want to eat? Tell me or I will start driving to a place I'd like to eat."

"Well, I thought of a place...but...I'm not sure...you'd think it's OK"

"Jim - just tell me."

"How about Arbys?"

"No." I keep my voice flat - but I'm starting to get frustrated. I'm starting to sense where this headed.

"Well...couldn't we just get a pizza and take it home?"

"No - but I'll give you some money and you can take your car and go buy a pizza if you want."

"No..." That would require effort on his part. Now I'm getting pretty p*ssed off.

"Jim, I'm heading for KFC." I have picked a place I know he would rather not go. This is called "Forcing the issue".

"Can we go to Taco Bell?"

"That's fine." But why the hell do we have to do this dance EVERY SINGLE TIME!!!!!

Clearly, every decision doesn't have to be this agonizing (since The Boy will not be involved) - but, in the overall scheme of things, where to have dinner should be an easy question. When you get to more important stuff like:

• Should I move in with you?
• Do you want to get married?
• When will we start a family?
• I just got a great job offer in another city - should I take it?
• Boxers or briefs?

things can get really dicey.

Most of us choose to live in the company of others. And while this doesn't necessarily make life easier - and can sometimes complicate the quest for happiness (for all parties concerned) - it also has the potential to make life immeasurably richer.

To paraphrase those Mastercard commercials:

A late dinner at KFC by yourself - $9

A late dinner at Taco Bell with your 17-year-old Son, who's still not embarassed to be seen with you in public, even if he can't make up his mind to save his life - Priceless


Take care.





* Sorry Mr. Steinbeck. The latin motto in the title is taken from Larry McMurtry's Lonesome Dove. There's an explanation here.
** In fact, there is probably no wisdom from previous centuries that the march of time has proven more true than this one. As technology shrinks the world, I believe we become ever more interconnected and dependent on one another. And though there is clearly a dichotomy in the impact of technology on relationships (as we develop new ways for our electronic personas to interact, do our physical selves become more isolated?) - it would seem that the general inclination of humankind is still to reach out to one another. Crap! I could probably milk a whole 'nother post out of this...
*** Their food is OK - but it is too d*mn expensive for a fast food joint

Jim Styro's Meaning Of Life: Part Two

(or - The Tools of the Trade-off)

Let me be my own devil's advocate for a minute:
Trade-off schmade-off! Who the hell says I can't or don't want to be happy all the time?!?!
This is America, dammit! I can be happy all the time if I want to!!!

I guess I would have to agree that perpetual happiness is at least a theorhetical possibility. However, I would still argue that, in the long run, it is neither practical nor desirable. Constant happiness is a practical impossibility for several reasons:

1. It presumes that you can control your circumstances and/or expectations to a degree that is improbable. In this mythical happiness-world, will no one close to you ever die? Or get sick? Will you never have an accident? Will you never be in pain? Will you always be in a position to do the things that you want to do - rather than compromise with what others want? Or will you just keep your expectations so low that disappointment is never risked?

2. It presumes that being happy all the time is good for you. But didn't you ever learn a valuable lesson as the result of a hardship? Could you have learned that lesson any other way than going through that difficulty? Aren't some of the qualities that we value most in others - dependability, strength, composure, maturity - aren't they developed in large part when we are forced to deal with adversity, to overcome an unanticipated challenge? Better yet - turn the question around and answer this: Is it your experience that people who always seem to get everything they want, who always seem get their way, who never seem to compromise or have to do without - are they people of good character? Do they possess qualities that you wish to emulate, that make them good role models? Are these people you would like to spend a lot of time with?

If your answers to these questions are similar to mine, then hopefully I've been able to substantiate my assertion from yesterday's post that happiness, while desirable, has its limitations. So, in our journey towards the MOL*, we've covered a couple of important trade-offs that we'll need to keep in mind.

• Increased risk/reward of high expectations vs. lower risk/reward of minimized expectations
• The potential benefit of building character through dealing with adversity vs. the destructive impact of constant, unrelenting hardships

Some have said that whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger - but I don't necessarily believe that. Some difficult experiences will scar us in a way that no "character building" justification makes sense. Is there some way to rationalize how a young woman being raped can serve to make her a stronger person in the long run? Should I get hooked on heroin so that I can (hopefully) prove that my will is stronger than the chemical's hold on me? Should I put myself and those around me into intentionally stressful situations to test whether I can retain my composure in those circumstances?

It seems to me that no one needs to seek out trouble to prove their worth - each day has trouble enough of its own. But, hopefully, we can each find ways to minimize the difficulties we encounter. And, perhaps, be wise enough to make the kind of decisions that will increase the opportunities for happiness - both for ourselves and those around us.

KEEP IN MIND: There is no substitute for happiness. If you are unhappy, the fact that dealing with hardships and adversity have improved your character may be of little comfort. You'll be strong and dependable and mature and...unhappy. On the other hand, if your desire to always be happy leads you to shy away from tough decisions, to avoid sacrifice - even when your conscience tells you otherwise, to sever relationships - rather than do what the other person wants or needs...well, I don't think that whatever happiness you find will be long-lived. Or satisfying in the long run.

Before I close this chapter of our journey together, let me do what I told my wife (the Middle-Aged Woman) I would do.

Some things that make Jim Styro happy:

• Causing someone to smile or laugh
• Singing
• Finishing something difficult
• Reading scripture
• Enjoying a good piece of art - a book, a film, or an image that is uplifiting
• Big TVs

Most of the other things I thought of aren't appropriate to bring up in public.

Thanks for listening to this latest rant. I'm not sure how far we have to go to the MOL - but I think we're headed in the right direction.


Take care.


* Meaning of life

Jim Styro's Meaning of Life: Part One

(or - More on the whole "happiness thing")

As the Dude once said: "My thinking about this case had become very uptight."

Last night as I wrote the over-commitment post, I felt my focus was drifting. I had one other nearly finished post in the hopper - and a bunch of unfinished stuff that didn't seem to fit together - but no sense of where things were headed or what I would write next.

But then my wife, the lovely Snoplum (aka the Middle-Aged Woman), posted the following comment:

It's not that I see NO value, it's just that I see no value as great as your happiness/contentment. Sweet, but true. Oh, and not too weak, too kind.

And quickly, the whole thing seemed to come into focus. I knew where the plane was headed - even if its only good engine would take it no farther than the scene of the crash (a half hour before the paramedics would arrive).* Boys & girls: we are on a mission to uncover the Meaning Of Life (MOL - according to Styro). Discussions of happiness, expectations, honesty, relationships and faith loom on the horizon as we get this whole thing figured out.

Let's review the ground we've covered so far, shall we:

1. The road to unhappiness is paved with unmet expectations.
2. High achievement requires high expectations.
3. High achievement requires focusing of energy and attention.
4. Long-term relationships have a unique value for which there is no substitute.
5. There does not appear to be any direct relationship between how much a person does and how happy (or unhappy) they are.
6. I can be a real d*ck sometimes.

I'm not sure that last point really fits into the whole "meaning of life" discussion - but it may be extremely helpful to you later on when considering whether or not I'm completely full of sh*t.)

I think our next stop on the road towards the MOL involves additional scrutiny of the whole "happiness thing". Clearly, most people think happiness is important in life. The country where I live is founded on the idea that all people should have the right to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. I have emphasized the word "pursuit" as a reminder that the Declaration of Independence does not presume a right to happiness itself - just the pursuit of it.

I will go further to say: The goal of understanding what makes you happy - and how to do those things, to let yourself be happy - is not to be happy all the time. I think anyone with the insight to figure out the what and how of happiness also knows that happiness has its limitations. I certainly believe happiness should be valued - even sought after (although I suspect that happiness flees from those who seek for it too vigorously; in many cases, they didn't realize that the ingredients for happiness were close at hand - and probably within).

But if a person felt constantly happy, how would they know what happiness was? It wouldn't need a name; it would just be called "The Way I Feel All The Time".


Take care.


* apologies to Ron White