Lament of the Wife of a Psychoanalyst

By Beatrice Allen

I never get mad: I get hostile;
I never feel sad: I'm depressed.
If I sew or knit and enjoy it a bit,
I'm not handy- I'm merely obsessed.

I never regret- I feel guilty,
And if I should vacuum the hall,
Wash the woodwork and such, and not mind it too much,
Am I tidy? Compulsive, that's all.

If I can't choose a hat, I have conflicts,
With ambivalent feelings toward net.
I never get worried or nervous or hurried:
Anxiety- that's what I get.

If I'm happy, I must be euphoric;
If I go to the Stork Club or Ritz
And have a good time making puns or a rhyme,
I'm a manic, or maybe a schiz.

If I think that a doorman was nasty
I'm paranoid, obviously.
And if I take a drink without stopping to think,
Alcoholics B. Allen, that's me.

If I tell you you're right, I'm submissive,
Repressing aggressiveness, too.
And when I disagree, I'm defensive, you see,
And projecting my symptoms on you.

I love you- but that's just transference
With Oedipus rearing his head.
My breathing asthmatic is psychosomatic,
A fear of exclaiming, "Drop dead!"

I'm not lonely- I'm simply dependent.
My dog has no fleas, just a tic.
So if I seem a cad, never mind- just be glad
That I'm not a stinker- I'm sick.

Humanity Under Fire

I may be naive, but I am a believer in the general goodness of mankind. I believe that men (and women) are, in general, considerate and rational people. Sure, maybe we're all prone to do wrong, but I believe that humans are predictable when it comes to morality: we care about those we love and do the best we know how for them, and we hate anything that we perceive as a threat those we love.

Where things go wrong, though, is how we "perceive" threats and how we respond to them. It's when our desire to care for ourselves and those we love clashes with other people's perceptions of what's in their best interest that conflicts arise.

Take for example Adolf Hitler. I believe that his primary motivation was to further the standing of himself, his family and friends, his country, and his "race" in general. Basic human nature, nothing really WRONG with those wants. But what WAS wrong was how he responded to the Jews, whom he perceived as a threat/competition to his race. He shouldn't have murdered them, to put it mildly.

But can you not see his primary motivation there? He thought he was doing what was best for his nation/race. If he hadn't killed all those people he would probably be remembered in history as a great conqueror along the lines of Napoleon, a hero of the German people.

In other words, even those who commit great atrocities are motivated primarily by the same feelings that drive all of us: a desire to advance the positions of ourselves and those we care for. That's the survival of the fittest. That's natural law. That's NATURE through and through.

Take, as another example, slavery in the US during the 18th and 19th centuries. Sure, slavery is wrong, we know that now. But can we really look down on or despise those who were part of the slave trade? They were trying to live their lives to the benefit of those they cared about (mostly), earn money to feed their families, gain wealth for the benefit of themselves and those closest to them. Is that wrong? Perhaps the means with which they employed to achieve those ends were wrong, but I don't think you can say their MOTIVATIONS (to feed their family, etc.) were wrong. Think about this: what if you had the choice of engaging in slavery and feeding your family or NOT engaging in slavery and going bankrupt because you cannot compete with other farmers, thus letting your family starve? Which would you pick?

Or to involve a topic much closer to heart, the "quota" system the government uses when giving scholarships, places in university, etc. They call it a "meritocracy", but we all know that Malays with 7As are getting scholarships whereas Chinese/Indians with 10As get nothing. "UNFAIR!!!" we Chinese/Indians cry. We perceive the system as an injustice, a threat to the future well-being of ourselves and those whom we care about. It's just not RIGHT that we are forced to work three times harder just to compete with the "lazy" Malays, yes?

But look at it from a Malay point of view. Without the system as it is, urban Chinese/Indians would dominate and grab up most the scholarships/uni positions available. This says nothing about the intelligence of the Malays, merely that the urban population (and thus majority Chinese/Indian) is better educated than the rural population. A fact whether we like it or not. And thus the Malays would be confined to a substandard level of education. Without the system as it is, the Malays would lose out, and they certainly don't want that either.

So who's right? Neither, I'd say. Both parties want to further their own interests, which is completely to be expected and natural. We want the best for those we care about it, and like it or not, Chinese people are going to care more about Chinese people and Malays about Malays. It's a conflict of interest to which both sides have reasonable aims and motivations.

The same, I think, can be applied to almost all social issues. Racism, religious warring, caste systems, poverty, even global warming. Both sides have, if not morally correct, at least reasonable motivations for their actions. We humans want to further our own interest, and inevitably some of those interests are going to conflict with others. It's a rat race in which the fittest win, and those less fit get crushed beneath the throng. The only way any of those issues are going to get solved is if one side wins out, "crushing" the other.

I guess my question is whether the human instinct to further the interests of those we care about is morally justified. Is it right that we want ourselves and our families to be the richest, the best educated, the healthiest of them all? I'm sure that most of you would agree that it IS right, or at the very least that it is NOT wrong. We protect those we care for, nothing wrong with that, right? But what I do know is that causing distress on others just because I want to further my own interests IS wrong. And furthering my own interests is in some way inevitably going to cause others some measure of distress, since everyone else is trying to further their own interests too. Thus we have ourselves a moral dilemma.

I guess I just don't trust the term "survival of the fittest" anymore. Survival of the fittest implies that some people are inherently better than others, and I'm a firm believer in the equality of all human beings. I don't want to be part of the global rat race, to compete, to beat others, to dominate, if it means that others get hurt. And get hurt people do, in one way or another, inevitably. Perhaps that's why I hate competitions. I don't want to be part of it, yet I can't extricate myself from it. Because I want to live a good life too, free of troubles. I want to see my friends, family, nation, and yes, even race, prosper. And that means crushing others beneath my shoe.

My humanity is under fire.

Is this sexist or what?

*Chuckles*

*Photo courtesy of Waqas

Afraid of the dark

I found a better way to share my music. Just click on the link below.

Afraid of the dark.

The unknown is always scary.

Oliphaunt Mourn

Oliphaunt Mourn

This one's dedicated to Eu Fern, for her constant admonitions to play "softer and sadder". And titled "Oliphaunt Mourn" to reflect her dedication to Tolkien.

Weather woes

Residents clean up after storms in South
February 18, 2008 12:09 EST

PRATTVILLE, Ala. (AP) -- Thousands of homes and businesses are without power and more than two dozen injured after storms and tornadoes in Georgia, Alabama and Florida.

Ten people are injured in Crawford County, Georgia, with two of them in critical condition. At least 14 homes have been destroyed in the area.

Meanwhile, rescue crews are going door-to-door in Prattville, Alabama, looking for people trapped in wreckage after a tornado blew through town. No fatalities have been reported but two people are critically injured. About 200 homes have been damaged or destroyed.

About 60 structures are damaged after a tornado blew through Escambia County in Florida. Residents are now working to clear debris, cover broken windows and spread tarps over roofs.

In the Midwest, freezing rain and snow forced schools, malls, libraries and churches to close.

-The Associated Press-





And thus I spent half an hour yesterday morning huddled in the "Bat Cave" (nickname for our laundry room/basement) of my dorm with about 20 other people when they sounded the tornado warning. An interesting experience it was. I almost wish the tornadoes had struck a little closer to Sewanee, though, just so that I could have actually seen them.

Stuff like these makes me glad I'm here. Malaysian weather is boring.

You know, it hit me suddenly that dying in a tornado wouldn't be bad way to die. Imagine standing in an open field with your arms raised, then being picked up by a tornado and thrown a hundred feet up. Imagine the sensations involved, surrendering yourself to the awesome might of nature. Imagine the thunder in your ears, the feel of the wind on your skin, the sensation of flying UPwards.

Hmm. If I ever contract a terminal disease, maybe that's what I'll do. Go out with a bang. Or in this case, a roar.

That's what I'd call a beautiful death.

Nature is weird.

As I discovered in my Anthropology class, evolution works in funny ways sometimes. Here's a graphic example.




This is an x-ray of a "pregnant" kiwi bird. Just look at the size of that egg. I think that's the epitome of the phrase, "Like sh*tting a ton of bricks".

Whew.

And people complain that childbirth is painful. Imagine what this fella (or rather, gal) here must go through.

God and the Stone

A long time ago I came across a question regarding God's omnipotence that had me frustrated for the longest time. Most of you have probably heard it, for it is one of the best known Catch-22 questions. The question, simply, is this:

"Can God create a stone so massive that He himself cannot lift it?"

As you can see, at first glance this poses a problem for a believer in God's omnipotence. It seems, that if God CAN create such stone, then there is something beyond his power (lifting it). On the other hand, if he CAN'T create such a stone, then he is also limited in his creating power, and thus no longer omnipotent.

So, what have we here? An unsolvable dilemma? Not quite, thanks to George Mavrodes.

There are two ways in which to answer the question without having to deny God's omnipotence, and they are both more simple than you might think. Simply put, the answers are "Yes, He can", and "No, He cannot".

Before you start mouthing obscenities, allow me to explain.

Method 1

The first answer, "Yes, He can", is the more complex of the two. It seems at first that answering the question in that manner would lead us straight into the original dilemma. However, it does not. This is because by answering the question thus, you forcing the objector to assume that the creation of such a stone means that God is omnipotent, and he can therefore no longer use the same answer to prove that God ISN'T omnipotent.

Confused? Allow me to elaborate further. First, examine the original question and you can see that it is a two part "if...then..." question, such as follows:
1. If God is omnipotent, then He CAN create a stone that He cannot lift.
2. If God is omnipotent, then He CANNOT create a stone that He cannot lift.

Realise that the two postulates contradict each other. Therefore, logically, only one can be correct.

By answering "Yes, He can", you have effectively ruled out number 2, and thus you've eliminated the dilemma. This is because you've fulfilled the criteria for God's omnipotence as postulated in rule No. 1. You are effectively limiting the definition of God's omnipotence to the ability to create such a stone. In mathematical terms:

[For lack of the proper symbol I will use "=/" to mean "does not equal"]

1. God is omnipotent =/ God is not omnipotent (Duh)

2. Yes, He can create a stone He cannot lift (your answer)=God is omnipotent (your meaning)

Therefore,

3. Yes, He can create a stone He cannot lift =/ God is not omnipotent

You see, for the objector to use your answer to prove that God isn't omnipotent would require him to accept that:

God is omnipotent=He can create the stone=God isn't omnipotent

(This is because based on your answer and conclusion, the objector cannot reject that God is omnipotent=He can create the stone)

Or, in clearer terms:

He can create the stone=God is omnipotent=God isn't omnipotent

Obviously, this is wrong, for God cannot be omnipotent and NOT omnipotent at the same time.


Some objectors would try to phrase it this way.

1. If God CANNOT create a stone so large that he himself cannot lift it, then He IS omnipotent.
2. He can create such a stone (Your answer).
3. He isn't omnipotent.

This, however, is a logical fallacy because it requires one to assume He isn't omnipotent BEFORE one can arrive at the same conclusion that He isn't omnipotent. This is called "begging the question" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question), and although the procession of ideas is valid, it tells us nothing about whether God really is or isn't omnipotent and is thus worthless.


Method 2

To answer the question negatively ("No, He cannot") is slightly easier to understand, and is based on the notion of infinity. Those of you who have studied math would know that infinity-x=infinity. Keep that in mind.

So, what are the implications of the answer, "No, He cannot"? You are, of course, limiting God in a certain way. But what is that limitation? That He cannot create a stone larger than He can lift.
Note, however, that this does not restrict God's lifting power. Assuming God's omnipotence, God still has infinite lifting power.

To make it more sensible, lets define God's lifting power as the number of kilograms he can lift.

Thus, assuming God's omnipotence, God's lifting power=infinity kg

Because we've already limited God's stone-creating ability to a number smaller than he can lift, that means He can create a stone with the mass of God's lifting power - 1.

Assuming God's omnipotence, this means that God can create a stone the size of (infinity-1) kg, which is equal to infinity kg! The supposed limitation turns out to be no limitation at all!

To put it in words, anything that is limited by something that is infinite is itself infinite. Thus God can create to infinity without outstripping his power to lift (also infinity), and you have not contradicted yourself. In this manner, limiting an omnipotent God is an exercise in futility.

So, the next time someone pops you the question "Can God create a stone so large that He himself cannot move it?", just look them straight in the eye and answer either "Yes" or "No". Either way, God can still be omnipotent, and you can chuckle to yourself about the worthlessness of the question.


p/s This argument in no way proves that God IS omnipotent. It just intends to show that certain arguments intended to prove that He CANNOT be omnipotent fail.

Reference: George Mavrodes, 1963. "Some Puzzles Concerning Omnipotence", Philosophical Review 72.

On the tree top

Rock-a-bye baby, on the tree top,
When the wind blows, the cradle will rock.
When the bough breaks, the cradle will fall,
And down will come baby, cradle and all.

Don't you think that's a little too morbid for a lullaby?

I imagine the careless nanny/mother singing afterwards:

Oops, I did it again,
I was playing cards,
Got lost in the game,
Oh baby baby
Oops!.. Never knew you'd get hurt
But I'm an idiot
I'm not that innocent

Touching.

Great skit.