The Suck Thread

[DÛke]

Chances are you are single. Don't even get me started with the "I'm single because I choose to be" thing. So find a relationship. Stay with the person longer than a year. Don't play games. Have faith. With that person use your heart, not your mind. Appreciate them. Love them. Expect highly of them.

If you can do that, god bless you. I don't think you can for many reasons.

1. There's a law of life: expect, and you shall be disappointed. And this applies to simple things too, like expecting to be hugged every now and then, or even expecting to have a conversation about things that shouldn't be kept inside.
2. Drama is inevitable because people can't be honest about what they want, and in order to say what they want they don't say it, but they say a million things that you are supposed to connect and toy around with, think about, consider, until you are led to it, whatever it is they wanted to say. And when it takes few weeks to figure out the simple things, by then they would have built so much resentment against you for "not understanding" their needs.
3. You have to learn telepathy.
4. You can't have your own beliefs because it would risk their weak beliefs. So in return, you don't talk about anything stimulating or remotely intellectual just so that they don't "get offended." Hence: a boring relationship, which ultimately sucks.
5. No one has many principles. But when it comes to you, they will have so many of them, and when you need them to use their heart's judgement rather than a rational judgement, they will without hestiation use the rational judgement. Because, sure they are depraved and sinful in every other aspect of their lives, but when it comes to you, they can't help but "be logical." Which is...illogial. Hence they suck, and they'll drag you down with them to the point of sucking.
6. Chances are, you don't know what you want in life either and have to ruin someone's life in order to figure out yourself. It sucks, I know.
7. Finally, and I can't emphasize this enough: people suck. Love them, and they'll resent you for it, because they can't love you back so they feel guilty; so they hate you, but you love them anyway, which makes them really hate you, but you still love them: it sucks, I know. Give them a hand and they'll take the entire arm: you can't give them enough because they suck and like garbage dispoals they are ever-hungry for things to take in since they are always empty. (Hence, there is no such thing as "full of s**t" because I haven't met anyone who really is full of it. It seems there is no limit, actually, to how much they are "full" of it.)

It's as if people are meant to be alone. Words have lost their weight; what is within is within and what's without is without; there a very narraw bridge that connects what's inside to the the outside world; music, for example, just music, without lyrics - it is a better means of communication than any book, any letter, any sincere declaration. Because no one believes what anyone else says anymore, unless its nothing serious at all. Other than that, practically speaking: you are alone; whatever it is that you are is unknown, and when you speak about yourself, trying to shed light on whatever essence you may have, your words always become poor reflections of what it is you really want to communicate.

It sucks, I know. My advice? Learn how to compose and write music. Or become a scientist who will invet a device that will enable empathy and telepathy.

What a wonderful world.

 

[Killer Joe]

How did that Homer Simpson quote go?

"They were the suckiest suck that ever sucked a suck...." I can't remember

 

[Istanbul]

You know, there are lots of people with successful relationships.

Maybe it's just you?

 

[DÛke]

You know, I guess that depends on what you mean by "successful."

For example, I know people who have "open relationships." They're pretty happy. I know people who have 3-way relationships; they're happy too. Does that mean they're...successful? Maybe to you. And I guess that all depends on what we want out of life, what we believe of life, too. Let's just say, I'm "not like that."

Suppose I'm in a relationship. Suppose I'm happy in it, and so is my partner. Does that mean we are successful? No. In fact, suppose we think our relationship is successful, does it mean we are in fact successful? No.

Unless you want to "go there" and tell me "well, actually, it would be successful if all parties involved are happy with it, because after all, it's just 'subjective.'" At this point, we come to complete disagreement about subjective-objective sense-perception: two completely different ways of sensing reality, hence needless to argue about. Let me take that back: they're not "two different ways." They are the same reality. More like...it depends on how honest you choose to be with yourself regarding what you sense and feel.

We all feel the same things in our lifetimes; we all run to similar experiences. It's how much we accept them, how much we decieve ourselves, how much we lie to others...it's these actions that make it so that it seems we have "different' experiences even though essentially it is the same experience.

Oh, and it's not like I've been in hundereds of relationships. No. I'm not like that. My love is slow - slow but deep. I've been in one. Just one. If we are to only count the one's I took seriously, I mean.

And of course it could be "just me" who's so...gifted at picking up 32-year olds who haven't past their 13's yet! But, I don't think it is. Because my friends, including my ex's friends - agree with me. They agree who really sucks in this situation, and it's not me. My ex's best friend? Agrees with me. Someone sucks, and it's not me.

But people are stupid, and they're idiots. Need I mention that they suck?

 

[Notepad]

It sucks, I know. My advice? Learn how to compose and write music. Or become a scientist who will invet a device that will enable empathy and telepathy.

They have those already. Honestly. They're called guns. Buy one, point and shoot. Your targets will learn real quick to read your mind how you feel about them.

Too bad you have to be in the military to use them often...on people...

Meh...so I guess that leaves music. Go become a jam mastah, Duke.

 

[Chaos Turtle]

I am single. I don't necessarily choose to be; I just am. So in order to demonstrate that I don't suck, I have to get into a -- presumabley romantic or sexual -- relationship and stay in it for a year? Suppose I don't "play games" anyway, whether I'm screwing someone or not? I still suck, just because I'm not "in a relationship?"

I'm not in a relationship (of that kind) precisely because I am waiting around for the peron who will be faithful and not play games or have unrealistic expectations. I'm willing to wait as long as it takes for the person who will be honest and "real." I will give that person all the same.

So I haven't found that person yet, therefore I suck?

 

[Killer Joe]

"No", you DON'T suck. Why listen to the 1 nay-sayer?

Really.

 

[DÛke]

What?

Virgos suck. People suck, in general. It's nothing against you Chaos Turtle. Sorry that I've been let down without fail and have yet to meet one decent human being. Well, I met few, but that's pretty sad when one considers how many people I've met.

You don't suck because of a relationship or a lack thereof. That would suck wouldn't it? But like I said, the rule of sucking is this: guilty until proven innocent. Because everyone sucks, until they show that they don't.

 

[train]

"show" is not objective... it would be subjective.. which would make it unequal for all involved...

 

[DÛke]

Yes, train...

If reduced, everything...becomes subjective. And then subjectivity itself is forced to become objective. Basic rule in philosophy. Let me illustrate:

Let's say that everything is subjective. That said, we have to at least declare that "truth" as objective, because it is in fact stating an objective "truth": that everything is subjective, which is in fact essentially false because the sentence is stating that even the truth that it provides is subjective, thereby killing it, because if the truth that it offers, too, is subjective, than...here you start the issue of relativity; it is subjective, to which subject? And since everything is subjective (that's the basic premise), the truth (that it provides) is subjective to its subject too (because we have to ask "relative to which?").

I know, all that sucks...

Saying that "show" is subjective and therefore is unequal to those involved is like me saying language is subjective therefore we can't communicate. Both premises are untrue.

My god. That sucked.

 

[Istanbul]

Sorry, that's sort of like one of those "The following statement is true. The preceding statement is false." arguments.

 

[DÛke]

Sorry but that didn't make sense.

That's why you suck.

 

[Chaos Turtle]

Sorry, that's sort of like one of those "The following statement is true. The preceding statement is false." arguments.

No, I think you misunderstood. What DÛke is saying is not really tricky at all. It illustrates that it is a common error to believe that everything is subjective. Clearly it is not, since if it was then there would be an objective truth: "Everything is subjective." A paradox.

But.

If reduced, everything...becomes subjective.

...does not lead us to...

Saying that "show" is subjective and therefore is unequal to those involved is like me saying language is subjective therefore we can't communicate. Both premises are untrue.

...as the two are not alike except ino the way that a lake is like an ocean.

Language, while subjective in a very broad sense, since after all we don't all speak the same language, and even those of us who share a language don't all speak it the same way, and of course those of us who do speak it the same way often find that there is still significant amiguity to be found in meaning. Nevertheless, two people who understand one another can still engage in meaningful conversation without too much trouble.

"To show" one doesn't suck, on the other hand, is utterly subjective. Forced to define specific criteria to determine suckiness -- an inherently ludicrous task, but nevertheless -- it is unlikely one would find two individuals with the same criteria. The trouble with your assertion is that "to show" a lack of suckitude, one would need know what you think of as "not sucky," or put another way, one needs to know the "language."

So until you explain specifically how one can show you that one doesn't suck (and I am genuinely unsure why one would in fact wish to do so) it is pointless to insist that one make such an demonstration.

In short, and I think I have proven this. Your argument sucks.

 

[DÛke]

My argument does suck, Chaos Turtle, but so does yours.

Let me ask you this: do you believe it is ok for a man to expect more from people, to expect more highly of them? do you think it is ok for a man to have standards and principles which he would never break, or only under really special circumstances?

Of course, you can say that "to each his own standards and principles." In other words, every one should live by his own values. But do you really believe that? Do you really believe that every one is responsible enough, great enough even, to live by his own values? And let me just say the obvious: that only rare occurrences here and there throughout history that really lived and acted in accordance to their own rules with very little regard to the more broad, and even more acceptable, norms.

So in other words, suppose we have a great man. A man which you agree is great. Suppose I agree, too, that the man is great. In fact, he is the ideal of man. Do you think it is proper for us to expect every other man to live up to the ideal which is embodied in one great man, even though we know very well that no one can be and can become what he is not? but nevertheless, is it ok for us to expect?

Shouldn't one's values be great enough so that if theoretically speaking they were the values of every man, the world would be a better place? doesn't that mean something? But let's look at it from a different angle: who really expects from people? who really wants people to live up to ideals and ancient Romanticism? Only the one who posses in him such ideals and such principles...no? In other words, the great man demands greatness - indeed, he demands. Everyone else? There are plenty of "everyone else." Some will say that it is wise to let everyone be their own; some will revert to philosophical labyrinth of subjective-objective reality or existentialism or post-modernism even; the more petty will "agree to disagree" and tell you to "lighten up." And there are other reactions, of course.

But all that talk is losing the point. It's not about subjectivity, objectivity, god, morality, existence...no.

It's about this:

Do you think you are great enough of a human being, and I mean this in a more spiritual, moral, humane sense than anything else, so that should the world be made after your image, it would be a great world?

Does that not require you to have sense of self-security, braveness, faith…in yourself and in what you believe you are living for (unless you are merely existing for the sake of existing, drifting, without any purpose, ambition, or fire in you)? And doesn’t having those qualities alone make you a greater man than one without them?

 

[Chaos Turtle]

Do you think you are great enough of a human being, and I mean this in a more spiritual, moral, humane sense than anything else, so that should the world be made after your image, it would be a great world?

Good god, no.
I am spiritually wandering, morally corrupt (but reformed), and, well I suppose I am humane. But if the world were made after my image, I don't suppose I'd find it very interesting. Most of my joy in life is in the experience. And I'm the last person who'll presume to know what's better for any other one. I barely know what's "good" for myself.

As for expectations, I generally eschew them. I find it more satisfying to accept what is, to enquire, than to expect. Certainly, being human, I'm a man of multiple passions. Often things do not go in a way that I would have preferred; often people (I include myself) make choices I consider foolish; often I think, "I should have done that differently." But what's the point in dwelling on such things? Learn and move on.

So in other words, suppose we have a great man. A man which you agree is great. Suppose I agree, too, that the man is great. In fact, he is the ideal of man.

You're asking me to agree to a lot here, but I'll go along with it.

Do you think it is proper for us to expect every other man to live up to the ideal which is embodied in one great man, even though we know very well that no one can be and can become what he is not? but nevertheless, is it ok for us to expect?

Is it okay to expect? Sure it's okay. Is it okay to insist? In my opinion, no. It it okay to have an Ideal? Sure. Will it ever be universally agreed upon? No. Therefore, is it right or proper or sensible to expect a universal aspiration to it? I think not.

Shouldn't one's values be great enough so that if theoretically speaking they were the values of every man, the world would be a better place?

Should they? I don't see how they could be, theoretically or no. How would anyone know if theirs were the Greatest Values? Would there not always be some set of Greater Values? I mean, if My Way of Thinking somehow had the power to transform the world into a "better place" by virtue of being universally agreed upon, does that not prevent everyone from having an Even Better Way of Thinking? At what point do we as a species/culture know we've attained the set of Truly Greatest Values? I think it can't be done.
The flaw is in the premise -- the notion of the universally agreed-upon ideal. Can there ever be such a thing? One can theorize 'til the heart's content, but at the end of all things, can everyone agree upon what constitutes Perfection? Can they ever? Certainly not.

Ah, well.

Speaking of things that suck, here's one for you: I have to go now. I won't be back around for quite some time, a couple of months at a minimum (and I really mean that's the soonest I can expect, if things go really really well). So if you don't mind me co-opting your thread for a bit, I'd like to announce my departure from this cyber-realm for a time. I shall return, have no doubt of it. I will miss these forums, the one place that has been my cyber-home for years. I hope it's not too abrupt. Those of you who simply can not bear to go without my singular wit and uh... wisdom -- all none of you I suspect -- can probably figure out how to reach me via email, which I shall try to check regularly.

Until next time, True Believers!

Ciao!

 

[DÛke]

My argument was in no way talking about or leading to ideals that are universally agreed upon. In fact, I was hoping to eventually show you how it is quite the opposite.

But that sucks. You're leaving. I noticed that when I leave, you're on the verge of coming back, and you come back. When I come back, you're on the verge of leaving, and you leave.

You don't like me or something? (Just kidding.)

But that's life. It's lovely, but a lot of things in it sucks.