Sober Spirits

Karma

2009-12-10T12:23:00.002-05:00

I fear karma. Too many good things are happening to me, a bad person. I can't count the times I've lucked out, slid by. Today three fantastic things happened in succession. My reason tells me that there is no cosmic justice, but my heart feels otherwise. My conclusion is that I should share my good fortune by bringing similar good fortune to others.

Utilitarianism Sucks

2009-09-22T20:35:00.003-04:00

No, seriously, I don't like it. Let me tell you why.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist philosophy, which is to say that it judges actions by their outcomes. A person is in the right if his action results in the greatest possible total happiness for all people affected, and he is in the wrong if his choice leads to any other outcome. Even if one means well, poor foresight equates to immorality. I, on the other hand, feel that if anything can be said to have moral worth, it is the intent behind an action. Everyone has reasons for the things they do, and that is what must bear the scrutiny of ethical judgment.

Personally, I suspect that many people who claim to be utilitarians wouldn't hold with consequentialism if they knew of it; probably their beliefs are actually pseudo-utilitarian, in that a person would be in the right as long as he meant to make as many people as possible as happy as possible, even if he didn't quite succeed. Anyone who is actually a utilitarian proper is a jerk in my book.

Sartre

2009-04-13T13:20:00.003-04:00

Sartre's first principle of existentialism as stated in "Existentialism is a Humanism," namely that existence precedes essence in man, is flawed.

First of all, the idea that essence (i.e. production or design) precedes existence in all other objects and beings is foolish. What mind holds the essence of air or dirt before it comes to be? It simply arises as the natural result of physical processes. Essence precedes existence only for things conceived, designed or produced by some person.

His argument is that man first comes into being and then defines himself. That's not entirely accurate; one comes into being as a result of two humans reproducing, an act with the results of which they are surely well acquainted. Therefore, one's essence can exist already in the minds of one's parents before one is ever conceived, at least as far as the fact that one will exist. As to the essence of one's person, the parents normally have an idea of that as well, some remnants of which often shape one's development and supposed self-determination of one's identity long past the time when one has left one's parents' house. Surely this could just as easily be construed as a case of essence-precedes-existence as vice-versa?

Love,
S.S.

Art and the Meaning of Life

2009-02-16T10:39:00.003-05:00

I've been accused of nihilism occasionally, and it's simply not true. I happen to think there is meaning in life. So, here we go. Fun with definitions again. Hopefully less dry overall this time.

Artist: one who creates.
Art: something created.

In my opinion, it's the interaction between the audience and the art that gives rise to meaning. Whatever the artist may have intended, once he has finished a piece it is out of his hands. Anyone with a meaningful interpretation is "correct," as far as that goes.

This connects interestingly to creation mythology. If one accepts the above definitions, then whatever god created life was an artist, and life is a work of art. In that case, life means whatever it seems to mean to you. I like that idea.

(Not that I necessarily happen to believe in a creation myth.)

Belief and Choice

2009-02-10T19:28:00.006-05:00

The other day, I got into a discussion over whether or not belief is a choice. We didn't reach any conclusion. There seemed to be semantic issues involved, so I thought a bit and managed to scrawl the following definitions:

1) Belief
a. That which one holds to be so.
b. That which one thinks to be so.
c. That which one knows to be so.
d. That which one thinks that one knows to be so.
e. That which one trusts to be so.
f. That which is basic to one's understanding.

2) Choice
a. Deliberate action.
b. Deliberate selection from a set of alternatives.

3) Deliberate
Conscious, willed, and intended.

1a is a no-go, as there even exists a term for holding to be so that which one does not believe. It is known as "playing devil's advocate." Think in 1b is too weak. The phrase "I think so" can be used to express uncertainty, which seems inappropriate in a definition of belief. 1c seems somehow too strong, but since I can't see how to shoot it down at the moment I will treat it as viable. 1f was what I asserted in the original discussion, but on reflection I noticed that we already have a word for such a thing: assumption. 2a is incomplete, as it doesn't reflect the idea that there exist unrealized possibilities as a result of making the choice. 3 is included for clarity.

I'll treat 1c, 1d, and 1e separately in conjunction with 2b.

To restate the question: Is belief a choice?

1c and 2b:
How do we come to know a thing? Well, assuming that we do know anything, we learned it. This can happen through study, or it can happen through experience. We can all agree that at least some experience is unplanned and unintended. However, most study is entirely intentional. Under this definition, it looks like the answer depends on the specific belief in question. That's pretty boring, so let's move on to the next one.

1d and 2b:
What makes us think that we know something? In most cases, I would say that we first learned it at some point, and then it was subsequently borne out by experience. However, we also use the word belief for things that have not been--and indeed in some cases cannot be--supported by any earthly experience. This definition seems lacking.

1e and 2b:
This one feels closest to the truth to me. It opens up a can of worms, though. How do we come to trust something? Well, when it comes to people, generally we have to at least feel safe about them. I'm not sure how this transfers to ideas, though. I do know, however, that betrayal is a prominent and powerful way to lose someone's trust. This, I think, does transfer to the realm of ideas. Take the example of a soldier who lost her faith as a Christian during a war. Why? Presumably, she believed in a good and loving god, and she couldn't reconcile that image with what she saw. Feeling betrayed, she was no longer able to trust in the idea of a benevolent "God." In this respect, I'd have to say that she had no choice, since her loss of trust was not a decision at all, but rather an automatic reaction to betrayal. My intuition is that the ability to trust something is equally non-deliberate. As to whether one has a choice to trust or not trust in X under the condition that one has the ability to do so, I am not yet sure. Again, my feeling is that I trust anything I am able to trust.

Peace,
Sgt. Sake

Re: Republic, I

2009-01-13T01:35:00.008-05:00

Concerning certain issues arising in Book I of Plato's Republic
Wherein Socrates and several others debate the meaning of justice

Me: You seek to define a pair of terms, each being the opposite of the other, and the names of those terms being justice and injustice. Am I right so far?

Socrates: Yes, that is correct.

Me: And would I also be correct in saying that you seek to do this not per idle whim but with significant intent, namely to live your lives so as to do what is just and not do what is unjust?

Socrates: Indeed, that is so.

Me: According to what Cephalus has said, those who are unjust are punished in Hades, while those who are just are not so punished. Do I understand him correctly?

Socrates: It seems so.

Me: So another way to state what I have just said is that injustice is that which, when performed by a man, leads to his punishment in Hades, and justice is that which does not. Tell me, then, how may you know a man's mind?

Other: By what he says.

Me: Is it possible that a man may willingly speak other than his true mind? Or that he may do so unwillingly?

Other: I suppose.

Me: And is it possible that you may misunderstand him?

Other: That is possible.

Me: Then a man's words are no useful indicator of his thoughts. So it is also with actions, for the same reason.

Other: Apparently.

Me: And do not the gods determine who shall go to Hades?

Other: I think so.

Me: Then the gods determine what is just and what unjust. Since we cannot know the mind of another, we cannot know for sure what justice and injustice are. A man can only guess.

Evil

2008-12-03T01:30:00.005-05:00

"This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that the same event happens to all. Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead."
Ecclesiastes 9:3

Insofar as there is such a thing as evil, this is probably true. However, I might say that evil and good are better viewed as useful concepts, often employed to classify behaviors that are ultimately harmful or helpful to society. More real is the idea of erroneous decision. What some might term an act of evil, such as Hitler's persecution of the Jews, I would instead label as a (in this case very large) mistake. It did not take him where he needed to go, it did not improve his life, and it eventually led to his death before he could make any real progress. Foolishness, pure and simple.

Misery

2008-11-12T00:34:00.008-05:00

It used to be a common opinion among Westerners that cultures less 'enlightened' than their own must yearn to be lifted out of barbarism. I don't know, maybe it still is. I doubt that relative primitiveness implies less happiness, though. Are we as a people happier now than we were, say, four hundred years ago? I think not. People tend to take things for granted, so having indoor plumbing or fancy computers doesn't change much.

I do think there is such a thing as misery, though. Example causes might include starvation and prosecution. A people living in a state of misery would certainly have a lower average happiness than otherwise.

Peace,
-S.S.

Lectures by the Uninformed: Government

2008-11-10T16:47:00.005-05:00

Yesterday, I read V for Vendetta. There's a very pro-anarchy message in the book, and it set me to thinking. The thing about the various different forms of government (when I talk about forms of government here, I'm including anarchy) is that none of them work very well on a large scale.

For example, consider democracy. In a small community, it is realistic to give everyone a voice in all community decisions, but in a country with hundreds of millions of people, it's just not practical. That's why countries like America, although often referred to as democracies, have actually adopted the model of a Republic. The people elect representatives to vote for them, because it's much more practical that way. But that's not such a great system, is it? These representatives are bound to make decisions that reflect only some people's opinions (ideally the majority), leaving the rest of the people dissatisfied. The larger the country being governed, the greater the number of people who will not be satisfied with their government's decisions, no matter what the mode of government. The fact is that it's difficult to shove so many people under one umbrella.

Many types of government have this problem of practicality. For instance, communism might work in a small community of consenting individuals, but if you try it in a large country, there will be too many people who don't agree with the ideology. V for Vendetta defines anarchy as the absence of leaders (not the absence of order). Supposedly, under anarchy, a society has voluntary order, rather than order that is forced on the people. This type of government would offer the most freedom, provided that everyone takes personal responsibility for his own freedom. This sounds very nice indeed, but again we have the problem that it couldn't operate on a large scale. There would be some ambitious power-broker who would take over by force.

The only kind of government I can think of which doesn't work better on a smaller scale is fascism, which just never works at all.

Peace,
-S.S.

P.S. Sorry for the poor quality of the writing this time. I wrote this in a hurry and didn't edit it.

Offensive

2008-11-04T16:37:00.005-05:00

Twice today have I given offense where none was intended. I happen to possess this Penny Arcade shirt:
I wore it today. Now, I would contend that this ought not to offend Christians. I think people see a joke involving Jesus, and they automatically assume that it must be at his expense. They don't stop to think. Jesus preached that one should have an attitude of kindness, charity, and love, and I feel that "don't be a dick" is a valid phrasing of part of his message and is a sentiment with which he could do no other than to agree. The humor of the image, in my opinion, is in the unexpected wording. I feel that if Jesus were alive for the first time today, and trying to promote his message, he might even use these very words in a lecture or conversation.

My curiosity provoked, I asked several friends of mine, both Christian and not, whether they thought the shirt was offensive/would offend someone. All replied in the negative, even one who was particularly devout. Interesting. Apparently the percentage of people who find this joke offensive is pretty low, even among Christians. However, just because someone is in a minority of people does not make me feel justified in offending them. In the future, I shall try to wear this shirt only on days when I know for sure that I will not be in the company of anyone who finds it offensive.

Peace,
-S.S.

Love?

2008-11-02T17:03:00.003-05:00

I've said much already on the subject, I know. You'll have to forgive me, but my opinions keep changing, and it's hard to keep up sometimes. As time passes, my actual experiences grow more distant. My memories are a little hazy. This may have an effect.

At any rate, I'm no longer so impressed with the urgency of love. It doesn't seem very real to me anymore. Whatever I once experienced, which I came to think of as 'love', I don't expect to encounter again. I neither desire nor expect anything more than the comfortable warmth of friendship. It should be enough, I think.

Achtung!

2008-10-13T10:59:00.002-04:00

I've been suffering a sort of philosophical crisis lately.

Is it possible to make people any happier as a whole? individually? Is making a few individual people happier worth anything? Is that not an accident, the randomness of life, that I am here and able to make someone happier, which is counterbalanced by the accident of someone somewhere else who makes people unhappy? What is the point of all this, whatever this is? If we can't make people's lives better, what can we do? What is there to aim for? And is it right to bring more people into a world like this?

Neue Entwicklungen

2008-10-08T18:41:00.003-04:00

A new pessimism has begun to settle on me. Suppose that I am on the right track here. If I am able to convince some number of people, to awaken them, as it were, to these truths I think I have discovered, what will happen? Won't they only suffer, because they will want to live in a way that would make them social outcasts? Won't I be doing harm rather than good? Consider this quote from Lu Xun, the Chinese writer of the early 20th Century:

"Imagine an iron house without windows, absolutely indestructible, with many people fast asleep inside who will soon die of suffocation. But you know since they will die in their sleep, they will not feel the pain of death. Now if you cry aloud to wake a few of the lighter sleepers, making those unfortunate few suffer the agony of irrevocable death, do you think you are doing them a good turn?"

To this, his friend replied, "But if a few awake, you can't say there is no hope of destroying the iron house."

I wonder.

My new theory of intimacy

2008-06-30T02:07:00.009-04:00

After months of developing my ideas on things but not writing anything about it, I've come up with what I think is a much better way to explain my thoughts. Here goes.

I have this triangle-diagram theory of intimacy. Picture the groove radar from DDR, but triangular instead of pentagonal (or whatever). Let's break "intimacy" into three general categories: emotional, informational, and physical. Emotional intimacy would include things like trusting someone, being able to let your guard down around them, feeling safe around them, and being able to share your true feelings with them (you could argue for putting this one under informational; it's probably some of both, really). Being able to relax around someone enough to simply hang out would be mildly emotionally intimate, while being able to cry on their shoulder would be more intensely emotionally intimate (a bit of physical in there, too, obviously). Informational would include sharing things like what you did today, stories about your past, your thoughts on various things, your beliefs, your opinions of people or music or whatever, etc. Sharing the latest gossip would hardly be informationally intimate at all, while sharing your darkest secret would be very informationally intimate. Physical intimacy would include, for instance, the following roughly ordered list of things: breaking the touch barrier, being comfortable hugging, cuddling in private, sleeping together (literally, not the euphemism), cheek kisses, holding hands in public, mouth kisses, making out, and so on. This one's pretty self-explanatory.

My theory is that in order to continue to grow closer to someone, you need to balance these different categories. If you lag behind too much in any one category, it becomes difficult or impossible to grow any closer than wherever you currently are. Too much emotional lag, and you won't really feel that close to them. Too much informational lag, and you might feel like you don't really know them very well. Too much physical lag, and it feels like they're keeping you at arm's length; the message is "Okay, that's close enough! Not another step!" Now, I'm not promoting any particular order in which to develop these categories; I just think that since it's good to keep growing closer, it must therefore be good to balance them.

Note: between two same-sex heterosexual individuals, or between two opposite-sex homosexual individuals, or any combination of two individuals whose sexual orientations do not align, the progression of physical intimacy obviously takes a different course.

Peace.
-S.S.

Ignorance

2008-05-12T12:21:00.002-04:00

Yesterday I was distraught over what I believe to be an epidemic in the 'intellectual' society - the overuse of the accusation of ignorance.

I use the term intellectual loosely, as the individuals I speak of may more properly be defined as 'pseudo-intellectuals'. My anger stems from a recent debate on facebook. Yes, I realize that this is the worst place to look for an intellectual debate, but I've ran into this so many times in actual conversation that it's safe to say that it's not just an online problem.

The debate was started by a person stating that they did not like Islam as a religion (or any other religion for that matter), stating the extremists and conflicts in the middle east as a justification of his feelings. Of course, I knew this was merely flame-bait, but I was intrigued since I happen to have attended several seminars about Islam and have personally studied it (to a light degree). Most of the initial posts were valid, but one struck me as... typical. A girl posted that the person who started the thread was completely ignorant and furthermore challenged the prospect that a religion could even be disliked.

This kind of thinking disgusts me. It's the thought that since someone has an opinion you think is wrong, they must be uninformed. This is absolutely untrue, and most of the time the accuser is less educated on the subject. But they seem to know more by pulling the you're ignorant card that it almost lends their argument merit. I am now very wary of people debasing each other's arguments for this reason.

As it turns out, my opinion (as unpopular as it may be) is actually in line with the original poster, which is where I turn to next in this post. I believe that most Muslims are actually ignorant, or more so dishonest with themselves about their own religion. In just about every debate I've had with a Muslim about their beliefs, they counter any negative aspects with a 'you just don't know enough about it' or 'that's not how most Muslims are'. The point I'm trying to make is that again, the ignorance card is pulled. No, I have not read the Qua ran, though I plan to. What I have done as I've already mentioned is attend lectures by experts (non-biased) on the subject and also read histories of the life of Mohamed.

So while I base my arguments and opinions on what most (including the court system) would consider evidence, they base theirs off of anecdotal reference. What I learned is that the majority of the world's Muslims are 'social Muslims' - the kind of peace loving people that everyone likes to refer to as a 'real Muslim'. However, the truth is that Islam is a very violent religion and that the History actually shows that Mohamed did many violent things. Yet people adamantly deny these things! They claim that they're out of context, or that they're disputed, or misinterpreted. It drives me nuts when there's no real counter argument other than 'you just don't know'. Then tell me!

I was raised christian with no ill-feelings against any religion other than cults. My opinion of Islam is formed the same way as my opinion of Christianity: from evidence. Now it's important to emphasize that I am not saying anything about the people. I am friends with many Muslims and I think that they are all great, god-fearing people. I do believe that they edit their own religion to be better. The difference is that in the bible, you are instructed to love your neighbor (who is clearly defined as ANYBODY) and even more your enemy. This is not the case in Islam. You are not instructed to show love towards anybody, and though this is disputed, I think it's pretty clear that you are supposed to be hostile. People like to quote what people in both religions have done, the crusades, the inquisition, terrorism, etc. But that's not what's important. People will always be weak, there will always be bad ones. But a christian that hates and kills another person is wrong by their religion, while a Muslim who does the same could be right.

This is getting long so I'll sum up. The ignorance excuse is used too often. Though the people are good, a religion can be bad. Is the state of the world the fault of religion? I don't think so. That's humans and people being bad. But when a religion facilitates things like that, I don't like it. Christianity, directly following Christ's words, is peaceful and loving towards everybody. Anyone who does otherwise is not acting with christian principles. Out.

Human Nature 1.1

2008-03-30T18:37:00.002-04:00

Human nature is a tricky thing. Even though it is hard to start here, maybe a metaphysics would be better, but there are things that I think are very obvious about human nature regardless of how we view the physical world.
I think it would be hard to refute the fact that everyone has desires. Although each desire is individual in it's own out right, I think it is possible to categorize them. There have been people that have tried to categorize them, such as Freud, who put them into categories called the Id, Ego, Superego (although these are just the latinized terms for what he used). Although he saw it more of division of the mind than categories of desires.
But similar division can be made, we could make a division of desires that we could call animalistic impulses, such as the urge to eat when one is hungry. These sets of impulses could related to the Id. Likewise there are social impulses which would be similar to the Superego. Even though these can be classified like this it is not necessary to do so. Unlike Freud who believed that clashes between desires occurred between his three parts of the mind, I think it is important that any two desires can class depending on their natures. Two social based clashes can happen along with animalistic clashes.
These desires are the basis of our motivations. If we did not desire a certain outcome we would not be motivated to do a given action. And it is this basis of motivation in which every action a person does it self-centered.

Success

2008-03-15T18:55:00.005-04:00

Lately I have been thinking a lot about the idea of success. So much pressure is put on individuals in our society to be 'successful', but what does this mean?
A very simplistic way of defining success is how much money one makes. The richer you are, the more successful you are. Society clearly agrees with this definition, with people such as Bill Gates and Donald Trump being viewed as highly successful men. I, however, believe that success is much more complicated than simple numbers.
Success is what one makes it; if you attain what you want in life, then you are successful. It doesn't matter what other people view as success, it only matters what you personally want. I am reminded of the movie Family Man. The main character realizes, by visiting a parallel universe in which he is a devoted father instead of a successful businessman, what he felt he was missing in his life.
The reason that I've been thinking about this lately is that I've been under pressure to make plans for my future and be 'successful' in the monetary sense. What I realize about myself, though, is that having a lot of money is not what will make me happy. Yes, money is important to me being happy, but it pales in comparison to the value I put on having a family and strong, solid relationships.
Some people will forgo these things to become 'successful' in their careers. I see it everyday, workaholics and people too devoted to their careers to have fun. This is not the kind of person that I want to be. If it means having to live without the fancy car and the giant house, so be it. I'll still be happy. Will you?

Re: The Past

2008-03-15T18:46:00.003-04:00

I do not disagree with the validity of Sgt. Sake's arguments. However, I have a more personal take on the issue of reliving past memories.
The past is, unarguably, important. However, in the course of one's life, there can be many tragic events. The fact is, we do not always grow from these experiences. Sometimes certain experiences do nothing but hinder our growth. I would be very careful in stating that we should relive painful memories.
I believe that there is a reason for the psychological construct that represses memories. Being reminded on a daily basis of something terrible that happened to us would be detrimental to our psychological well-being. Should we face these memories? Perhaps, but only if doing so will help us progress and not set us back. If re-living a painful memory does nothing but harm us, I argue that it is better that the memory is repressed - but not forgotten.
We must not forget our past, that's not what I'm saying. I'm simply saying that there are certain memories that we best not think about very much. Not everyone has memories of this type, so this is less a post contradicting Sake than establishing a special case.

The Past

2008-02-14T18:10:00.000-05:00

Lately, I have been thinking about the past and its significance. When I say "the past", I mean the sum of one's personal experiences. I am not referring here to actual, objective events. They are irrelevant. The real past is what one remembers.

Memories are the fluid, lingering impressions left by one's experiences. I think everyone can agree that if one never had any experiences, one would never change. Growth is a form of change (I'm not patronizing you; I state this merely for the sake of completeness). Experience, then, is integral to personal growth. However, this does not mean that one is defined by the past. To say that would be to contradict the very idea of personal growth. The past is but a map of how one has grown.

Still, I think it appropriate to cherish the past and not to forget it. No memory, even the most unpleasant, should be buried and ignored. Repressed memories represent the refusal to accept and embrace certain experiences. Denial does not change the fact that those experiences helped shape one's growth and are a part of how one became who one is today. Furthermore, it inhibits closure, without which claims of genuine well-being are highly suspect.

I therefore find it prudent and desirable to bring repressed memories to the surface—to relive them, as it were. Alas, I know not how one may go about this task, as I have yet to accomplish it.

One Love: Addendum

2008-02-11T00:00:00.001-05:00

I suppose I may have made it sound like being in love with someone and loving someone feel the same. They don't. The former is so much more intense, it can feel like an entirely different emotion. It feels different, but it is the same at the fundamental level. That's all I was saying.

Sexuality: Addenda

2008-02-10T22:08:00.001-05:00

On reflection, I realized I should clarify something. When I talked about "sex", I was indeed referring to intercourse, but not exclusively so. I meant the term in a general sense, including a range of things from kissing on.

Sex is whatever one makes of it—no more, no less. If one wishes to use it as an affirmation of exclusive intimacy and unique love, it can be; this is even regarded as beautiful in our culture. However, I strongly disagree with this idea.

Naturally, I didn't mean that one should necessarily jump straight into having intercourse with those one loves. The sexual aspect of one's relationships should be allowed to develop at a natural pace, just as it normally does in a romantic relationship. Maybe one never gets to the point of actual intercourse; that's not the point. I merely wish to emphasize that the traditional boundaries placed on non-romantic relationships are unnecessary and, in my opinion, a bit foolish.

EDIT: (18.02.08)
Incidentally, I am also strongly in favor of cuddling, holding hands, and other non-sexual physical means of expressing and celebrating closeness.

Introduction and Basics

2008-02-04T18:41:00.000-05:00

One of the few reason I am part of this blog is to state and build my own personal philosophy, and as such it maybe subject to change as my revelations occur during this process. There will be other things I may post about, most of which will involve it's own logical thinking but will be a complaint on some aspect of the world and won't directly tie into my overall progress on my theory.
But as far as the basis for my philosophy, I need to start somewhere logical, a base to my foundation. Something on which the rest of my philosophy must be based. Therefore I cannot logically start with something like ethics because it only exists within man. First, I must obtain a gingerbread base for my gingerbread house.
There are a few potential starting points. I could start by examining the meta-physical foundations of the universe, or I could start with what is human nature. Man is bound within his universe so picking the meta-physical world would seem like the correct choice, but the meta-physical world can only be based on what a human sees. Not only that but a man's senses can deceive himself into believing things about he universe that may not indeed be true.
The second option I have considered so far is making a philosophy of the nature of man. Even though man is bound by the universe he is in, his nature would exist regardless of the universe he inhabits.
Before I can adopt this as my philosophy's foundation I must first take the time to develop that stretch of my theory and see that is it sound. So until then, I wish you all farewell.

Over and out,
Lt. Lager

Sexuality

2008-02-04T02:35:00.001-05:00

I have another theory. This one is about sex and sexuality, and it is supported by my personal experience. Disregarding its reproductive properties, sex performs one of two mutually exclusive functions: it either brings you closer to someone or alienates you from them. I see sex as a means by which two people who love each other can grow closer.

A number of factors influence whether one achieves this desired result. The first and most important is the presence of mutual love in the relationship. Neither party should maintain the delusion that sex is somehow 'dirty' or 'impure', or otherwise wrong. Neither party should be inhibited, by fear or otherwise, such that they shall later feel guilt about having performed the act. There may well be—and probably are—other factors that I have failed to mention.

I think that sex can and should be a part of any loving relationship in which there is mutual sexual attraction (I am required by the Blogger Content Policy to exclude incest from this assertion). I think that by restricting one's sexual interactions just to one's partner, one limits the growth of one's other loving relationships.

Using exclusive sex as a way of showing one's fidelity is ludicrous if one accepts the principle I postulate in "One Love", below. Fidelity? What does that even mean if one accepts that one loves more than one person?

One Love

2008-02-03T18:39:00.000-05:00

So, I have this theory that there is essentially only one kind of love. I am not saying that all love is the same. On the contrary, no two are alike. The experiences that forge it are necessarily different in every case. All I am saying is this: I have heard it said that the way one loves a girlfriend (or boyfriend) differs fundamentally from the way one loves a friend, and that these both differ fundamentally from the way one loves one's family. I disagree.

Hold on a minute! Isn't there a difference between romantic love and friendly love? To put it another way, isn't there a difference between loving someone and being in love with them? Yes, and it is this: when one is in love with someone, the future is involved. One is at least considering—if not actually anticipating—building a life together with the subject in question. That's it. Just that.

Of course, different types of relationships have different dynamics, and I am not disputing this. As to what those dynamics may be... Well, that will be the next subject I talk about.

Hello, world.

2008-02-03T16:26:00.000-05:00

We, the Sober Spirits, greet you! I am Sergeant Sake, coffee addict extraordinaire and owner of this blog. I founded this establishment to serve as a portal to the surreal realm that is my mind, right here on the Interwebs. You're in my world(view), now!

I am Viceroy Vodka! Hear me, you damnable world, for I exclaim: Having been thrust from the womb of my muteness, and briefly washing my face, I come to proclaim all things true and false!!

I am Lieutenant Lager, a man of a few obsessions and many vices, and I am here to speak the truth and lead the masses. Listen closely because I speak way too fast.