Tag Archives: comprehensiveness

Loving Half a Person, or, Love’s Complaints….

How often have you heard someone say the immortal (or rather significantly transient) words, “You know, I really love/like him/her, but sometimes his/her temper/pokiness/vanity/fastidiousness/false modesty/hairdo/stinginess/gregariousness/flightiness/shortness/slovenliness makes me angry/sad/amused/sick/etc.”?  It’s that old “I love that person, but…” disease.  And what it means is that one is trying to sort through someone else’s psyche and discard some annoying habit or quality that provokes or otherwise exasperates one, and keep only the “good” part or parts to cherish and foster.  We’ve all done it, even the most tolerant of us.

I’ve said that these words can be transient, but they can be transient in two senses, a positive and a negative.  The positive sense is one in which the words are uttered, accompanied by a sigh or swear words, and then shelved in the awareness that “no one is perfect, I love him/her anyway, I guess I should put up with it (after all, I have my own faults), there’s nothing I can do about it, I accept that life is just that way,” and so on and so forth.  These are the words and sentiments of those who like to think of themselves as realists, but who are perhaps even a tad optimistic in their outlook.  They think that what goes around comes around (in spite of the fact that sometimes it doesn’t, to judge by any newspaper’s headlines), and an ounce of toleration is worth a pound of bitching and griping in coming to grips with life’s unfairnesses.  These folks are the ones who by and large save at least themselves a lot of pain and emotional groping for a solution and avoid grief, because they go along their way with an amount of equanimity which sees them through the rough times and the uncertain fortunes of love and love’s qualms.  As the I Ching notes in one of its more tongue-in-cheek passages, love sends people up to the stars in joy and down to the depths of despair, and this variation in altitude is a matter of happiness or unhappiness, “left to the subjective opinion of the persons concerned.”  Since the oracle offers an opinion on almost everything else, this refusal to comment tells its own story.  Thus, having an even temper and an accepting frame of mind about life and its vagaries is decidedly an advantage.

The negative sense in which these words (“I love him/her, but…”) can be transient is that they can recur, time and time again, when what we are doing is not accepting a person’s foibles and traits, but instead have apparently forgotten in between times that these traits annoy us, and are instead complaining yet again about something which bothers us about this person.  This is what I’m referring to as “love’s complaints.”  But the source of love’s complaints goes even deeper:  it is that whereas we have fallen in love/like with a person’s “good” traits, we are trying to reject the traits which seem to us less “good.”  We are in fact loving half a person.  This puts us in the somewhat ludicrous position of the speaker in Monty Python’s song, who loves “Eric the Half a Bee,” a “hive employee” who lies “half-asleep upon my knee,” and whom the speaker is said to love “carnally…semi-carnally” (for of course it’s impossible to love something as small as a bee in any way whatsoever without making it a “half” or “semi” of something, once living, hence the crazy comedy of the song).

It’s perhaps stretching a point to suggest that making “half a person” is what we in fact risk doing when we describe someone’s characteristics to others or even in our own minds as less than satisfactory, but it’s nevertheless true that we do this.  We are not just criticizing, we are excluding.  We are saying that we only accept half of what is there, and sometimes when things go on long enough this way, we end up accepting even less than half, or rejecting the whole in an effort to attain wholeness of mind in our own psyche, where it’s often uncomfortable to exist in a half state.

So, what’s the solution?  We either end up accepting, once again, that people and life are not whole and perfect (though perhaps someone’s being constantly consistent would eventually begin to plague us as much as inconsistent imperfections), and are in fact like Andrew Marvell’s bird, “[waving in their] plumes the various light,” or we fail of humanity ourselves, variable creatures that we are.  For, humanity itself, loving and complaining as it does, seeks itself in other people, and we too have quirks and inequalities that make us less than satisfactory.  The only way not to be half a person oneself, thus, is to attempt to the best of our ability to love and accept our lovers and friends as fully as possible, because it is only then that we allow ourselves to exist in our fullest being.  This is not just moralizing and being sweet, it is a necessity of daily living, unless one would want to be constantly dissatisfied and complaining about all the adversities and unfairnesses of life, which would be grim indeed.  For, it is through extending ourselves to love not half a person or half-people, but whole people, even if we do sometimes find ourselves making “love’s complaints,” that we keep from grousing all the time, and find occasion to cherish.

2 Comments

Filed under A prose flourish, Other than literary days....

This is a meta-post–do you know what your browser is?

Hello again, folks!  This is a short meta-post.  “Meta-” in this context means, “beyond, transcending, situated behind.”  Which is to say, this is just a short post to test whether or not the Google Chrome browser works differently on my site than the Internet Explorer one.  That’s all!  Really quite simple!  I’ll be back to post again later this week, I hope tomorrow, on a literary topic or with an essay in hand.  Ta-ta!

2 Comments

Filed under Other than literary days....

“To correct an error and rectify a fault….”

This post is put up basically to correct an error I made a day or three ago, and to rectify a possible fault.  In writing about Richard Bausch’s novel Peace, and a short story of his, “Something Is Out There,” I passed along my misunderstanding that Caroline’s site “Beauty Is A Sleeping Cat” was already finished with its Literature and War Readalong for 2012.  In actual fact, that readalong is still going on; Caroline is writing about the Bausch novel Peace starting September 28, 2012.  The next novel to be read will be one by Maria Angels Anglada titled in English The Auschwitz Violin.  That part of the readalong starts on October 29th, 2012.  My apologies to Caroline for giving readers of mine and readers we may share a mistaken impression.

The possible fault I wish to rectify is only a potential fault, though I understand that it concerns important issues.  When I read the two works I covered by Richard Bausch, what I was struck by was the coincidence of structure, theme, and weather cues in two forms as different as the novel and the short story.  It’s not that I was unaware of the issue of the moralities (or lack thereof) of war, simply that I was writing about a different issue as it is reflected in fiction.  Still, I have read Caroline’s most recent post today on her site about just the novel, Peace, and she is greatly concerned with the morality of the book, and I understand her concern.  My comments on her site, should she accept them, should provide further apologies for not having discussed, perhaps just in passing, these issues relating to what soldiers actually are called upon to do in wartime, and the suffering of both soldiers and especially civilians in WW II, with emphasis on pogroms and mass executions.

Caroline is a worthy correspondent and commentator and her site is immensely valuable for its learning and acceptance of many different world literatures.  Again, my apologies for not having given correct information and for perhaps appearing to neglect important literary features.  I’m not sure I’ve got down the principles correctly of doing a pingback or a backlink, but I’m going to try:  see this link for Caroline’s site and her posts on Literature and War 2012.

4 Comments

Filed under Other than literary days...., What is literature for?

“I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him.”–Mark Twain

Yes, it’s a matter of intention vs. action, isn’t it?  Mark Twain points up in a comic way something related to a much disputed philosophical issue, as might be illustrated by one of the differences between the followers of Emmanuel Kant (Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals–a mouthful, isn’t it?) and those of John Stuart Mill (Utilitarianism).

As Kant’s introducer, Marvin Fox, remarks in the Introduction to Kant’s work (stay with me here), “Kant arrives at the conclusion that the supreme principle of morality can be formulated in this manner:  ‘Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a Universal Law of Nature.’  He defines the term ‘maxim’…as the ‘subjective principle of volition’….We must note with care that the categorical imperative is directed toward the maxim, the principle behind the action, rather than toward the particular act itself….Only the maxim can be judged morally.”

Taking the opposite tack, Mill says, “I submit that he who saves another from drowning in order to kill him by torture afterwards does not differ only in motive from him who does the same thing from duty or benevolence; the act itself is different.”  He goes on to clarify (if not to make murkier) the distinction between motive and intention (or motive and “morality”)–“The morality of the action depends entirely upon the intention–that is, upon what the agent wills to do.  But the motive, that is, the feeling which makes him will to do so, if it makes no difference in the act, makes none in the morality:  though it makes a great difference in our moral estimation of the agent, especially if it indicates a good or a bad habitual disposition–a bent of character from which useful, or from which hurtful actions are likely to arise.”  Got that?  This footnote (for this is part of a footnote) appears only in the 1864 edition and was dropped after that.  It does seem to imply, doesn’t it, that even accidental bad outcomes from good intentions may be estimated as otherwise than good, doesn’t it?

Anyone able to shed a gentler and more able light on this issue is encouraged to do so–I for one find it a real conundrum, apt to make me break into the Monty Python “Philosopher’s Song.”  But seriously, I’d like to hear from someone about this.

Leave a comment

Filed under Literary puzzles and arguments

“A clear conscience is often the sign of a bad memory.”–Unknown

Just a footnote (known to non-academics as a “second thought”) to my post of yesterday about originality and quality in literature:  though I went to bed last night with a reasonably clear conscience about my post, I thought again this morning that perhaps I should’ve remarked somewhere in all that article-like post that I didn’t once mention the great Romantic and Victorian American, French, German, Russian (and other) novelists.  This was and wasn’t deliberate.  I didn’t forget them, nor was I neglecting to mention as a matter of my own national chauvinism or spite the many cross-currents literary thought follows.  I was merely following and detailing the sources and literary traditions of the English novel because it has been a particularly welcome comic inspiration to my own work.  As you may have noticed, some of the sources of the English novel itself were from other countries, as I mentioned in yesterday’s post.  And if you’ve read my “About” page, you will know that I am myself an American, and I have enjoyed both novels from the U.S. and from all the other countries listed above (though most of them in translation).  So, now that I’ve given credit where credit is due, my conscience is truly clear, and in the posts to come I hope to be able to “get on with it.”

Leave a comment

Filed under What is literature for?