Honesty is the Best Policy?

Dear Chris,

I'm not sure how hip you are with Kant, so forgive me. The ideas I will discuss here aren't that complex, though, so it shouldn't be too much of an issue.

So, a bit after that conversation, I talked with Katie, who confirmed, in a much less arrogant manner, that I had in fact been veritably insane and in violation of societal rules in at least 5 dimensions. Besides the high frequency of my pursuits, she took main umbrage with my MO of "Speak as you wish and carry a large stick of brutal honesty". This was a perhaps unfortunate foray into an experiment in which I just spoke my mind carefully, but entirely honestly. The problem, here, seems to be that not everyone is equipped with the ability to deal with complete and total honesty and be able to function regularly, as I strive to. For example, I remember one of my campaigns which ended abruptly when I was told a direct quote from my interest was "no way". And that was fine. I dropped my suit, and continued as her friend. She didn't say it to my face, but she very well could have, and it didn't change anything. I rather have a definite, clear response. My error was that I assumed everyone would think likewise. In this I was sadly mistaken. It seems not everyone wants to hear or handle the truth, that that is not the MO at which society operates. For a variety of reasons.

Kant rears his analytic head yet again here, now with respect to lying. He said, with no exceptions, one should not lie. No exceptions. Of course, the clearest objection is the "Hiding Jews in the attic when the Nazis come a-searching" example, but I would rather ignore extremes for now and look at application.

A less concrete example is what you say to the dreaded question "Do these pants make me look fat?" Now, the worldly, conflict-avoiding answer here is "No, of course not." Now, let's assume this is a lie. So, what is the correct answer. Maybe "Yes, it does, you shouldn't wear it." Or, "Yes, it does, you should eat less and workout more if that bothers you." Or, "Yes, it does, but I think you're sexy and attractive anyway, and I don't care." In an ideal world, I think the questioner should 1) Be able to deal with any truth; and/or 2) Not care about whatever the answer in fact is. I feel like I have this kind of honesty with, among other people, you and Katie. I think that's one of the things I like about the two of you. You will tell me what you think, without regard for how I might take it. For example, one morning, when I was about to go spend the day with my mom in the city, Katie looked at me and said "You need to get a haircut." I said, jokingly "Now you're going to make me be self-conscious all day!" "Oh," she retorted, "I thought your shirt would have done that anyway." I was wearing a Hawaiian shirt that day, the nicest short-sleeved shirt I have. And, while I knew she was kidding somewhat, she was being honest at the same time. And, I appreciated it. Yes, I did need a haircut. Yes, I was wearing a shirt that was less than conventional. But, frankly, I accepted these truths and just didn't care. At a time, these things would have bothered me, and I would have preferred the not-truth. But I went through a very nice day in a very gaudy shirt with the beginnings of a mullet, and I just didn't care, and my mom didn't care.

Now, I know that not everyone can deal with that kind of honesty. Yet that's what I strive for and hope that others can accept from me. I obviously need to tone it back a little bit, perhaps be more cognizant of my audience, accept that not everyone can accept the full truth and the brutally honest conversations I try to have. Some people can't accept these truths to themselves, much less accept them from, or tell them to, me.

Honestly missing you,

Alan

Your Blessed Freedom

Dear Chris,

My dear friend. I know you are sorry. I know you will continue to be sorry. Please stop saying so. Tell me if you're not sorry. Otherwise I will just assume you are. I know there were times during the year in which we went over two weeks without really talking. Life got in the way. Life will probably get more and more in the way as the school year begins. No matter. We do what we can, sweat the rest, but are sure to take showers.

It's interesting to hear about the conservative-ness of your humor. I have found that my humor was much liberalized by coming to Yale. I have never felt comfortable with words like "retarded" or jokes regarding disabilities and the like. But I find myself humorously trading in racial stereotypes with my friends, usually around the friends of said races, although I do it with a tad of adhesion. I have had friends mention they do this because they feel that making fun of something or treating it humorously is the best way to take away any power that such rhetoric or comments can have. I am so far unconvinced, personally, as to whether or not this is fact the best. I feel personally I should perhaps try to tone down my humor, but am unsure as to this will really happen as I appear to be in a culture that delights in humourous offensiveness.

As to your blessed freedom from the angst and anxiety of searching for a relationship, I wonder how much of such anxiety is caused by being in an environment where such things are present or standard. I know this past summer was very relaxing and low key, but became less so once one of my friends began pursuing another. While I became invested in his campaign perhaps more than the average friend, I did notice a higher than usual (for that summer) thinking about relationships and their merits. At the same time, I looked with bewilderment and bemusement upon his campaign, thinking it had been a while since I embarked on such an endeavor myself (at least, an endeavor with a remote chance of victory).

At the same time, I marvel at the energy with which he waged his campaign. He reminded me that such a campaign can be a great source of energy and passion that can lead to great improvements, as you yourself mentioned not long ago to the impetus for your achievements.


But returning to my main point, I wonder if part of your blessed freedom stems from the absence of such examples in your current environment. When everyone is single and happy, it seems it would be much easier to be the same than if everyone is coupley happy while you are single.

I write with the dream of your response, and the reassurance that you bear witness to my thoughts.

-Alan

Fresh off the Echoing Walls

Dear Chris,

I give you a non-response, a conversation still fresh on my mind and being recounted right now.

During the year, as I am told, I was displaying quite irregular behavior. My functions were quite discontinuous, as I flitted from girl to girl, violating standard rules and regulations regarding the rising and falling of interest in people while insofar treating them not as ends in themselves but as means to that end. This echo of Kant resonated with me and made me question my actions, and wonder whether or not I should re-calibrate them

The proposal has been made that these discontinuities were in fact continuous on a different set of axis, which raises the question as to whether or not I was treating these interests as ends in themselves or means to a different end. Now, I can think of several ends I was pursuing, and it is reasonably true that all of them can be mainly set up with my interests as means, and not the ends.

The ends I was pursuing, was exploration. My little homunculi were not in agreement or aligned, and going all over the place. I wanted experience, not in a purely physical sense, but more in a seeing-what-is-out-there testing-the-waters how-should-I-lead-my-life kind of experience. And it could be agreed that this is using people as means to an end and not as an end in themselves. But now the question is, is this wrong?

Yes of course it is.

But it is interesting how the band judged me so, or so I am told. Quite disapproving of the muck I made, my source tells me. Now, my first response, of course, is "Fuck the band." I mean, people on an individual basis seem pretty dysfunctional to the point that I certainly try not to judge them for all their mess ups and troubles and hope that they don't pass judgement upon me. Which, I am told, they did. And fuck them, but mainly for not intervening earlier and explaining things from a different point of view.

But, the question I pose to myself, is rather if my flitting about (for I did flit about quite a bit weighing perspective interests) is whether there was anything wrong with this, or if in fact I was breaking any societal rules in doing so. Because, I am told, my flitting about was detrimental in the sense that instead of showing a gradual increase in interest in a person, I would suddenly (apparently) switch to them very strongly, and then as soon as I saw it not working, switch away just as rapidly to someone else. Now, this, I am told, violates a general rule by which potential suitors clearly see the other suitors and the ground they have marked off / the people they are pursuing, and therefore go after someone else. I think this just might be complete bullshit, but am as yet unsure.

I mean, this whole painting that was illustrated for me rests on the condition that we are completely rational beings with a completely rational basis for everything we do. Which is wrong. Because I do not currently believe that we can explain and justify away all the feelings and emotions that we have. Quite simply as that.

Thought: the importance of taste in the subconscious in a potential mate. This sounds horribly technical, so let's try again: if you don't enjoy someone's taste while making out, is this a subconscious sign that you should get out, or is it just a matter of their particular chemical makeup? Because if it's simply a matter of your subconscious disagreeing with your choice, then it makes a very good deal-breaker. However, if it is nothing more than chemicals, perhaps it can be worked out or around.


But I've noticed that is a habit I tend to get myself into. I tend to approach people very strongly, but drop them and back out very quickly if I suddenly find that there is a potential that they will become strongly dependent on me. Or I drop my intensity if I find they are not interested. Or, I simply fail to keep the same level of intensity. Now, the question is, is this a problem? Debatable. No, what am I saying. Not debatable. Totally uncalled for. I should be beat with a large stick for such transgressions. I can think of several instances in which this was the case, and I think I managed to resolve two of the three scarred friendships, but the third never recovered, nor do I think it will. But I can see that behavior back in high school, as well, being really into getting to know someone but backing the fuck off at any indication that they may become even slightly dependent, even if I've worked hard at helping them out just previously.

But, back at the event at hand. I failed to treat my interests as ends unto themselves. But what would it mean to do so? Does the way I treated you and Katie count as such? I would think it did, because I certainly came to you not necessarily for your wisdom, intelligence, and comfort, but more for the sheer enjoyment of your company. Of course, those qualities were intrinsic my enjoyment of your company. Now, was I intent on treating all my interests the same way? I mean, from a certain point of view, I was interested in all of them for their views of the world and the way they functioned in it. I was not merely looking for comfort or someone to care for: I was looking for someone to explore with, to spar with, to lead me down new uncharted (for me) paths while experiencing a sense of wonderment at the whole process as well. The question now is whether or not that constitutes as using them as means to an end or an end in themselves.

The second concern is whether or not this is really nothing more than a highly intellectualized and romanticized version of events, which bears little resemblance to the truth, or the way I actually behaved.

Also, my most recent conversationalist seemed very convinced that his Modus Operandi was the absolute correct one and it was a pity that I didn't see it and embrace it as such immediately. A slight, if not overt, touch of arrogance, to which they themselves admitted. The saying "You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" says it all. It assumes a singular MO, a singular truth, a singular system by which all should meld. I do not think this is the case. The "you can't make him drink" part seems to be a condescending pitying that the poor student can't see the light. I have to reject this outright. Rather, I would prefer that this be simply a part of the puzzle that each individual is trying to solve. No one says we are going to reach the same conclusion. No one even says society with agree with your choices. My conversationalist was very clear in this regard, that the view of the masses, of the public, was most likely to be correct, as they have had a lot of practice. While I'll respect collective wisdom, every character I read in my Nietzsche and Taoism class cried out against such conformity and adhesion to society.


But, the concerns raised did resonate with me, and make me think. So they cannot be rejected outright. But now I must go into life with the question: "Am I treating this interest, or these people in general, as a means or an end in and of themselves?" Or should I? I must sleep now. Joe and I are jogging in three hours. Ah, the curse of an overactive sense of curiosity and penchant for conversation.

I will respond to your post soon, because we really should start actually responding to one another, instead of talking past each other. I would like an eventual response to all the questions I've raised, although you must know that I totally understand the necessity of living your life, and would not discourage you from that for the world.

Love, now and always,

Alan

Ends and Beginnings

Dear Alan,

It's been a long time since I've posted to our blog. I'm sorry. When I developed the concept for our blog, I was very sincere in my desire to keep our blog up-to-date, our friendship up-to-par, and my thoughts and emotions in a central location that is not my brain, which has a tendency to distort and misplace. That desire is still very much alive, though it has been eclipsed by my current life up until now and will have to remain as such for probably a good bit longer (leave Beijing Friday, 10 days of intensive teacher training in Hong Kong, then I move to my school and start teaching a few days later). Again, I'm really sorry that I've been a flake, and I feel like I've killed this blog, if not yet, than soon.

That all being said, I don't want it to come to that, so in an attempt at revival, I have a post, albeit a short one (I think...I haven't written it yet).

This summer has seen a lot of change in me. I've become much more conservative in terms of my humor (I reflected on this in a recent post of my own blog). I recently watched the first music video that I posted on my blog, the parody of "Part of Your World." In the video, I show two photos that I pulled from the Internet: one of women in the Chinese army, marching; the other was a Lego rendition of the now-(in)famous photo from Tian'anmen Square, June 1989 (which, though I didn't realize it at the time, had its 20th anniversary this year). Given the change to do it over again, I would not use these images: both are too offensive (I now think) in their own way (especially the latter, which blatantly disregards the lives lost and the moment in whose name they were lost). I also no longer feel comfortable using the word "retarded," and I no longer feel comfortable making jokes involving children in any way, really. A lot of this is regurgitated material from my blog, and I'm sorry for that, but the point is, I've changed. I've changed a fuck-ton. I'm becoming an adult.

Although, I have done some things that are pretty immature (blatantly not preparing for class/tests, going out on weeknights (like, out all night, or a very significant part of it)), but I've learned a lot from it, and I think it'll make me a better teacher: I think that I'll remember what it's like to try to balance books with life, what it's like to grow up...yes, my students' lives are different from the one that I lived, but that doesn't mean that those issues that I experience don't still play a role in their lives, and some are certainly amplified for them in a way that was never so for me (it's difficult for me to imagine being gay in China, for example...actually, come to think of it, it would probably be very similar to Alabama, so maybe not).

Anywho, these have been a few recent reflections. Other than that, I've been putting energy into Chinese (so much Zhongwen!) and pondering my curriculum (which right now may be an off-shoot of the DS concept...I'll explain more after I get through my language program, and have a chance to talk to my teaching partner and the other Fellows a bit more...basically, when I have something a bit more concrete).

In terms of relationships, I haven't really thought about it...for the first time in years (and by years, I mean since I got to Yale, possibly since I hit puberty), I'm simply not thinking about "finding someone." I'm focused on other things, and I'm really happy. The other Fellows are stellar, I'm really enjoying China (also, Chinese food = heavenly), and I'm psyched to teach/learn cello/direct/read/write/you name it. I've also recently discovered that I actually have quite a thing for astronomy and have been reading up on different subjects within the field in my free time. It's been pretty sweet. (I also recently subscribed to NOVA podcasts, as well as a couple NPR podcasts, and it's been lovely, lovely, lovely.)

Anywho, although the next few weeks are especially...um, AHHHH, I have every intention of making this blog a priority from here on out. I think we can work out our differences. Round 2?

Yours, always,

Chris

On the Roof

Dear Chris,

This post is over a week old, but here it is. Take your time in responses, for I will continue to post.

Today, I write to you from the roof of Gibbs Laboratory. After first being taken up here by a professor in February, I have always held this place in slight romantic idealization, as a place I would go to to relax and get away from it all. Only I was always to busy to do. Working in Gibbs over the summer, I was always so close. So finally, I have come. I brought a foldable lawn chair, and am sitting overlooking the city, East Rock, and ocean. It is absolutely gorgeous, and offers me a view not often available. It is quite windy here, which helps fight the heat, which I actually can't feel at all at this writing.

I find I am most primed to write late at night, when it is past my reasonable bedtime. I just don't seem to have the drive to write will sitting here peacefully on the roof. It's funny how that works, that we want to write the most when we have the least time to do so.

I think the Quality mentioned in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is very close to the passion after which we strive. Because Passion does make us more interesting people, and someone who lolls around all day (this is a word, no?) is not as interesting as someone who actually does something. But is this then Quality of Life? I mean, they say in the book (I'm sorry that I'm going on about a book that I would assume neither you nor our dear readers (Wizard People, Dear Reader is awesome, for the record. Watched it before going to see the midnight showing of the sixth movie, which was equally awesome) have read, but I think I can explain out the ideas a necessary amount) that you know quality when you see it, and I think it can be agreed to that someone who sits around all day watching TV doesn't have a very high quality life.

Why is it that we judge someone (we = me) much more harshly for spending a day watching TV or watching movies than we judge those who spend the day reading? Is it because reading is more interactive, at more of an individuals pace, leaving time for thought and reflection, while TV shows and films just whip right past us. Or is it the higher quality of books on average to TV shows? Or is it really that if I look closely I'll find that I despise people who spend the whole day doing solely one activity in such a solitary manner as that? Perhaps that is the case.

Back to Quality. You can certainly see this in day to day conversation. I think we call it being earnest, don't we? Or sincere.

But you know what I mean. Some people seem to do everything with the same calm attention and detail, and I feel like we all coalesce around such people.

Love,

Alan

This is Not a Post

Dear Alan,

I am still alive, and I am still pondering, though the things that I have been pondering have changed dramatically in the last two weeks. Unfortunately, it's been difficult for me to find time to even send worthwhile emails to friends, let alone post on this blog or my own. However, I am working on entries for both, which should be up by the end of the week. I'm sorry that's it's taken me so long.

Yours,

-cy

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenace

Dear Chris,

Like you, I have been torn between reflecting on life in this blog and living it. Usually recording such things is completely separate from the living of life, but I like to hope that by encoding this record in a letter open to the world, it somehow counts as living life, or at least eventually furthering the living of life. I should be updating daily, with little snippets of ideas. No matter now. I can promise to start tomorrow, but it is hard to be kept to such a promise. We shall see.

I just finished reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, a book I have been meaning to read and finally gained the opportunity to when Joe checked it out from the library and I stole it from him. He has On the Road, so I don't feel bad I stole it.

This book is as much about philosophy as it is about motorcycles, and it was really quite interesting. What I'd like to focus on, though, is a few passages that when I read them I jumped and said, "This is what I was talking about! Right here. This is what I meant." Every major epiphany I had last semester was here! Of course, had I read this book cold a year ago, I would have simply glossed over such things. That's why we have to live and discover them ourselves. But it's good to have some positive feedback.

Page 204 (in my edition, a black-covered utilitarian Yale copy)
"Mountains should be climbed with as little effort as possible and without desire. The reality of your own nature should determine the speed."

Page 209
"Cromwell's statement, 'No one ever travels so high as he who knows not where he is going.' applies here."


Page 291
"It was beautiful because the people who worked on it had a way of looking at things that made them do it right unselfconsciously."

Page 357
"Or if he takes whatever dull job he's stuck with-and they are all, sooner or later, dull-and, just to keep himself amused, starts to look for options of Quality, and secretly pursues these options, just for their own sake, thus making an art out of what he is doing, he's likely to discover that he becomes a much more interesting person and much less of an object to the people around him because his Quality decisions change him too. And not only the job and him, but others too because the Quality tends to fan out like waves. The Quality job he didn't think anyone was going to see is seen, and the person who sees it feels a little better because of it, and is likely to pass that feeling on to others, and in that way the Quality tends to keep on going."

Page 377
"Arete implies a respect for the wholeness or oneness of life, and a consequent dislike of specialization. It implies a contempt for efficiency-or rather a much high idea of efficiency, and inefficiency which exists not in one department of life but in life itself."

It's past my bedtime, so I'm going to let these sit in cyberspace for the world to see and then edit them with my thoughts.

I will continue to write, even if my writings become unrequited.

Love,

Alan