Having A Rotten Life and Anger

Hi Roady,

Me again. I thought something more about your idea of Rejection and Abandonment: that there may be a kind of Dysfunction that is Generated in the Personality because of Repeated Rejection and Abandonment. but here the people would not be Angry directly at their Original Rejectors, but instead they would use Anger to keep People at a Distance... using Anger to Reject Other People First. But that would be really Indirect. almost any source of constant pain or displeasure could lead to the formation of a Dysfunctional Personality. So I would have to stick with the idea of Territoriality, Defending or Advancing one's self in Group Status, or Fighting for Survival as the primary Motivations for Aggression and thus for Anger, which is simply misplaced Aggression.

laureat wrote:What about dogs?
There are dog breeds who happen to be more protective, territorial, hunters than the other breed

The same is, some human are more egoistic than other, some are more jealous than other,

Dogs dont think logically critical about things, they simply follow their instincts

But still develope frustration, anger,

Hi Laureat,

I think that when ordinary people speak of things being 'Logical' what they really mean is that it can be understood in terms of Cause and Effect, or that it is Comprehensible. In THAT sense, it is all the same whether it is Comprehensible in terms of mathematically precise Logic, or Comprehensible in terms of Animal Instinct.

Leo Volont wrote:
Hi Olga,

Always so nice....

Your thoughts and reacts are exactly what can be expected. As I said, people are conditioned into thinking that Relationships are essentially "Good Things". But the 'tip off' there is that we always hear that Relationships need 'Work' and 'Commitment'. But, What For? What is the Benefit of being in a Relationship? What if after we Add it All Up, in the End, everyone comes out a Loser. For instance, isn’t it true that the Lives of Men are Compromised from having to give up so much of themselves to get along with Women, and Women have to give up so much of themselves (and their Time!) to Get along with Men. Everyone gets Angry. and when you look for the Purpose -- the 'why' of it all, well, it is only because people are doing what they think is Expected of Them. But what if the Expectation is outdated? What if Our Modern World does not Support the necessary under-pinnings that make Relationships viable?

Now, in Old Traditional Times when Men and Women had Separate but Symbiotic and Complementary Roles in Marriage and Society, then Relationships had some actually Utility. In short, Men Needed Women and Women Needed Men, because they could not do it all alone. Men did the heavy work, and cared for the Large Animals, or went to Work to support the Family. Women maintained the Household, Garden and became the Social Center of the Family. But Equality between the Sexes has eliminated the Need for each Other, especially Women’s Need for Men. Women don't NEED a 'Bread Winner', as in many cases nowadays, Women ARE the primary Bread Winners... and they probably can't help but to resent Men for being parasites and leeches… loafing around the house in their dirty underwear playing video games while the Woman has to go to Work. And even if the Man does contribute a Pay Check, well, most men expect women to do the Cooking and Cleaning, but of course this is Totally Unrealistic as the Women are Working Too, and the Men have as much opportunity to cook and clean as the Women. So it All creates Friction. So, why bother with it? they Can live with less friction by living separately.

So, no, I am not going in the direction of having people expect to find "Perfect Relationships". Indeed, I am thinking about the very opposite -- that All Relationships are inherently Flawed (in the context of this present Day and Age)... that all Relationships should be suspect and evaluated for their possible utility. People need to ask themselves what they Think the Relationship will ever provide for them, and to consider the real world likelihood of that ever happening. People seem to Want Something out of Relationships which Nobody, nowadays, seems to be getting. Instead everyone gets Stuck in these Dead End Relationships and then they are told by All the Experts that 'It Takes Work and Commitment". Again, for what? People need to ask themselves how it is in the least bit likely that Happiness can be derived in a Relationship, given the constraints and limitations of Modern Conditions and Attitudes between the Sexes.

Hi Leo,

There is no doubt that the change in social roles caused a lot of confusion and problems in relationships. But to me it is obvious that the benefits of being in a relationship are not limited to the functions you've described. I think that people want to be in a committed relationship for 3 main reasons:

Firstly, we all want our lives to be witnessed. I don't know about you, but the moment something great or bad happens in my life, I want to share this experience with someone. I call my husband, my Mom, tell a friend. When you are in a relationship, you have a 24/7 witness of your life - the person who sees you as you are, witnesses your life, and still accepts you with all your strengths and weaknesses.

Secondly, most of us want our legacy to live on in the "form" of our children, which are mostly conceived in committed relationships.

And thirdly, there is the sex drive.

Of course, to meet those needs, you do not have to be in a relationship. But still a relationship is the most convenient space to meet all of those needs in one place.

And sure, there are a lot of secondary reasons to look for a long-term partner, but I see the ones mentioned above as the primary ones.

So I am convinced that as long as us humans are going to exist on this earth, we will keep looking for that long-term, committed, "happy-ever-after" relationship, no matter how much heartbreak it can cause.

P. S. This is just my view of this world, and I'm not trying to push it on anyone

osenych wrote:Hi Leo,

There is no doubt that the change in social roles caused a lot of confusion and problems in relationships. But to me it is obvious that the benefits of being in a relationship are not limited to the functions you've described. I think that people want to be in a committed relationship for 3 main reasons:

Firstly, we all want our lives to be witnessed. I don't know about you, but the moment something great or bad happens in my life, I want to share this experience with someone. I call my husband, my Mom, tell a friend. When you are in a relationship, you have a 24/7 witness of your life - the person who sees you as you are, witnesses your life, and still accepts you with all your strengths and weaknesses.

Secondly, most of us want our legacy to live on in the "form" of our children, which are mostly conceived in committed relationships.

And thirdly, there is the sex drive.

Of course, to meet those needs, you do not have to be in a relationship. But still a relationship is the most convenient space to meet all of those needs in one place.

And sure, there are a lot of secondary reasons to look for a long-term partner, but I see the ones mentioned above as the primary ones.

So I am convinced that as long as us humans are going to exist on this earth, we will keep looking for that long-term, committed, "happy-ever-after" relationship, no matter how much heartbreak it can cause.

P. S. This is just my view of this world, and I'm not trying to push it on anyone

Hi Olga,

I admit to all three of your points, that one needs Social Connections because Humans are Social Beings, and that children are very important to us, even to Men (the Love of a Parent for a Child far transcends any sort of Romantic Love… which is why after Divorces (the death of Romantic Love), Parents still very often insist on a continued relationship with their children (the Strength and Tenacity of Paternal Love), and of course there are those embarrassing demands of the Sex Drive. BUT, I still insist that many people would be far better served by keeping their ‘exposure’ to Relationship at a necessary minimum. Is it REALLY necessary to be together “24/7”? The constant togetherness must cause friction, but if each person lived in separate quarters, and only met on certain days or certain hours (we can call it Quality Time), when they could be on their Best Behavior, I feel all would go much smoother.

And as for providing for the Creation of Children and the Sex Drive, well, I have what I think is an amusing story from my old College Days, a Millennium ago – it was a History Class and the Social Institutions of Ancient Sparta were being discussed. A strange point was discussed about how young men, who if they thought they needed anything, were encouraged to go out and steal it, as it would develop their courage, cunning and ingenuity. And then, almost the very next point, the Discussion moved onto to the Barracks System were all the Men lived in a Barracks and all the women lived separately in Women’s Quarters. Then this one rather naïve Student raised his hand and asked “where would the babies come from”? Yes, we were all just young students then, but most of us knew enough of the World to know that Rules are only Rules and that “Rules are made to be Broken”. Oh how we all Laughed at that Question! Well, the Point of that Story is that The Sex Drive is Such a Strong force in young people that there will never be an absence of Babies… unless, of course, Birth Control becomes quite universal, but that’s another subject.

Now about raising Children. Well, if Women lived in Compounds limited to other Women, well, the Mutual Support System for raising Children would be tremendously effective. As it is nowadays, the Man is needed simply because there are no available Women to help (Grandmothers, Aunts, Friends). Of course the Father could visit during the Relationship ‘Quality Times’. Fathers could see their children when they are fresh from their naps, clean, and fed, that is, when they are perfectly lovable, adorable and delightful. And why would a Man want to see a child at any other time?

The Children could live with the Mother up until the age when they approach their own sexual maturity when they would be shipped off to Boarding School, which may be local enough to admit of many visitations, but, the influence of the parents would have to be limited to guarantee that the School would be able to have the Primary Influence on the Character Development of the Children. This may seem like an appalling idea to many, that is the people who assume that Parents have First Rights to form the character of their Children, but the answer to that is that Parents are doing an obviously terrible job of it, and in many cases allowing their children to run free with gangs or to waste all their time with Video Games or Social Media. A Strictly Run Boarding School would be able to Control for all of that. And, subsequently, we would have a far Better Society for it.

And, to Conclude, because of the Minimal Contacts within these Important Relationships, everybody would appreciate each other more. The Time given to each other would be Less, but the Sum of the Total Quality derived would far far More.

Hi Leo,

I find this theory interesting and definitely not appalling,

I would much rather prefer spending time with my husband when I am fresh from my nap, clean, fed and therefore lovable, adorable and delightful This is how things usually are when a couple is dating, and the quality of such time spent together is definitely much higher.

The only thing I do not agree with in your post is sending kids to strict boarding schools. I disagree for 3 reasons. Number 1: I want to be the primary formative influence on my kid, because I do not trust the teachers from the boarding school to instill all those values that I find important. Number 2: I want to spend a lot of time with my daughter or at least see her daily. Number 3: I am a product of a strict upbringing, but the moment I became a teenager and my parents could not control me as much, boy, did I go wild. I did a lot of things that I'm not proud of, and I cannot help but think that if my parents gave me more freedom as I was growing up, I wouldn't have craved it so much as a young adult and wouldn't have done all those stupid things.

So I believe to exposing your kid to video games and social networks, but rather to focus on teaching them moderation in everything. They ARE going to get access to those things anyway, so it's better to expose them to them on your terms.

osenych wrote:Hi Leo,

I find this theory interesting and definitely not appalling,

I would much rather prefer spending time with my husband when I am fresh from my nap, clean, fed and therefore lovable, adorable and delightful This is how things usually are when a couple is dating, and the quality of such time spent together is definitely much higher.

The only thing I do not agree with in your post is sending kids to strict boarding schools. I disagree for 3 reasons. Number 1: I want to be the primary formative influence on my kid, because I do not trust the teachers from the boarding school to instill all those values that I find important. Number 2: I want to spend a lot of time with my daughter or at least see her daily. Number 3: I am a product of a strict upbringing, but the moment I became a teenager and my parents could not control me as much, boy, did I go wild. I did a lot of things that I'm not proud of, and I cannot help but think that if my parents gave me more freedom as I was growing up, I wouldn't have craved it so much as a young adult and wouldn't have done all those stupid things.

So I believe to exposing your kid to video games and social networks, but rather to focus on teaching them moderation in everything. They ARE going to get access to those things anyway, so it's better to expose them to them on your terms.

Wow, Olga,

You are definitely and Organized Thinker.

I understand your reservations, but find that you do not so much disagree in principle as that you are skeptical that my Ideas could ever be implemented in a positive and beneficial way. Of course I agree with you there. In this modern day and age when everything is being done ‘on the cheap’ and when the Eyes of any foreseeable Administrators and Managers would be set primarily on the Profit Motive, well of course it would get all screwed up. For Anything to Work, first, a lot of trial and testing would have to be conducted to ascertain what Really Could Work, and then a Capable Cadre of Specialists and Professionals would have to be Trained to Implement the programs. None of that could be accomplished without thorough Government Support.

Now about supposing that YOU could have confidence in Such a System, should it ever Exist, well, I am thinking of using the Example of the old English Boarding Schools. Of course they were not perfect, BUT they had established and traditional ways and procedures for Doing Things, and the people had a high level of confidence in the Final Results. That is, they were Generally Seen as Good Things. And I would suppose that if we were to Transport you Back to There and Then, that you would also think the Boarding Schools Good Things.

Of course while you believe you can do Better than any slipshod fly-by-night silly kind of Fad-School that might crop up, which sells itself like a Product, and only cares about its shareholders, still I must think that you would appreciate your own Families Experience with yourself, and your own experience of having been on the ragged edge of having turned out ‘bad’. Your parents did the best they could, with what they knew, and with the power they had over you. This is exactly the same Postion You Will Be In with your Daughter. You will do your best with whatever Knowledge you have, and with whatever Control you can keep over your Daughter, BUT, can you really assert that you will be Successful? What IF there really were Known Good Boarding Schools available? What if we could take the Doubt and the Skepticism out of the Equation?

But, yes, I admit that our present day Society is very far from implementing anything like what I have suggested. We are degenerating into a Society where schools – all kinds of Schools – are being eliminated for everybody but the Super Rich, and where the Super Rich smile at the Decay and Turbulence in the Lower Classes, as that will prevent any Upward Mobility. You see, if there is anything that Rich People hate more than anything else, it is sharing their Money with New Rich People. If they can only Keep the Poor in their Poverty, it delights them no end.

Hi Leo,

I have been thinking about this idea of "resurrecting" boarding schools. Yes, you are right, I do view them with significant skepticism and doubt. But for the purpose of this discussion let's assume that they provide excellent education, instill wonderful values and are generally good. Even if that would be the case, I'm not sure what kind of psychological impact on a child being sent off to a boarding school can have. I'm not sure how I would feel at say age 7-8 about "Mommy and Daddy shipping me off to a weird place where I know no one" and seeing my parents only a couple of times a year. I would see other kids who are living happily at home with their parents and I would think, "Johnny's parents must love him so much, because they didn't let him go to the boarding school. I wonder why my parents don't love me as much. There must be something wrong with me."

And also forgive me for being overly attentive to detail and the way you word things, but I just don't like when all wealthy people are being tarred with the same brush. I have seen a lot of very rich people who are extremely kind, generous and want others to succeed as well. I just can't help but think that when you say things like that, those words imprint in your subconscious that "all rich people are bad". And then you will subconsciously sabotage yourself when great financial opportunities come up, because you wouldn't want to become "that rich person". This might not apply to you. Maybe that was just a slip on your part, but for all people out there who might be reading this discussion, I feel like this is a very important point.

osenych wrote:Hi Leo,

I have been thinking about this idea of "resurrecting" boarding schools. Yes, you are right, I do view them with significant skepticism and doubt. But for the purpose of this discussion let's assume that they provide excellent education, instill wonderful values and are generally good. Even if that would be the case, I'm not sure what kind of psychological impact on a child being sent off to a boarding school can have. I'm not sure how I would feel at say age 7-8 about "Mommy and Daddy shipping me off to a weird place where I know no one" and seeing my parents only a couple of times a year. I would see other kids who are living happily at home with their parents and I would think, "Johnny's parents must love him so much, because they didn't let him go to the boarding school. I wonder why my parents don't love me as much. There must be something wrong with me."

And also forgive me for being overly attentive to detail and the way you word things, but I just don't like when all wealthy people are being tarred with the same brush. I have seen a lot of very rich people who are extremely kind, generous and want others to succeed as well. I just can't help but think that when you say things like that, those words imprint in your subconscious that "all rich people are bad". And then you will subconsciously sabotage yourself when great financial opportunities come up, because you wouldn't want to become "that rich person". This might not apply to you. Maybe that was just a slip on your part, but for all people out there who might be reading this discussion, I feel like this is a very important point.

Hi Olga,

It is always nice to talk with you.

thanks for looking seriously at the Boarding School Idea. but about any adverse Psychological Impact do to being separated from the Parents...well, when you mention the Ages of 7 or 8, well, THAT is very young. I think that children don't really reach the Age where they can Conceptualize until about 8. Of course, when they DO hit the Age of Conceptualization, the Education should really be turned on big time. but, even then, it is too soon to leave home. I think I had mentioned that the Time to ship them off is upon their approaching Sexual Maturity. Incidentally, THAT is also the Age when Children become Rebellious and wish to start Asserting themselves as Individuals. that makes it the PERFECT time to ship them off. Realistically speaking, they no longer 'love' their Parents at this Age anyway. they mostly just fight and argue with Mom and Dad. and it doesn't settle down until the 'children' are in their thirties. Because of all this Tension between Parents and Children, I feel it advisable to ship the kids off, in order to Protect what is left of the Parent/Child Bond. If Parents and children are separated during this Age of Rebellion, there is less danger of them making permanent enemies of each other. Let them Hate their Teachers... that is what they get paid for.

Oh, yes, I agree with you about my over-generalizing about Rich People. I read your book and you mention over-generalizing as one of the things we ought not do. so let it be understood that when I am criticizing "Rich People", that I am criticizing them as a "Class". As Individuals, they are Many and taken One at a Time they may each have certain unique characteristics, and not all of them Bad; but as a Class, they are One Megalithic Entity, with a distinct set of Interests and a distinctive form of Political Behavior. In that sense, I think it is fair to speak of "rich people" and to be critical of them as a Class.

Also, in contemplating the use of Generalization, when considering just being able to Discuss things, one must be allowed to Generalize. Only God knows all the particulars and every detail about everybody and everything. For the Rest of Us to be able to talk intellectually, or even for us to be able to make any Use of our Knowledge, we MUST be allowed to Generalize... since we cannot know Every Particular, we must be able to Think in terms of Types, Kinds, Patterns and Classes. Yes, Knowing as Many Particulars as Possible would be a Good Thing, however, we would be Paralyzed if we had to know Everything before we could make a Decision. It reminds me of a Philosophy Class I sat through about 50 years ago -- that Ideals are Generalizations, for instance, the Idea of "Horse". In the actual World each Horse is a little bit different, and no two horses are the Same. So what is it that makes both of them "Horses"? Well, we can call all of those Big Four Legged, Ride-able Things with Hoofs, Mains, and Swishy Straight Haired Tails... we can call them All "horses" because we have agreed to Generalize on that one Ideal. Each living breathing Horse is a Nominal Horse, but the Ideal Horse exists only as an Idea. ,,,, now, why aren't Zebras 'horses'.... just kidding.

Hi Leo,

Now that you've explained in a little bit more detail the boarding school system as you see it, it does make a lot more sense to me.

And yes, I agree that it's OK sometimes to generalize, as long as in the back of your head you are aware that you are overgeneralizing for the sake of the discussion.

I just love how in my conversations with you by asking questions and disagreeing sometimes I find a lot of new ideas and have so many "aha" moments! I guess that's what Socrates meant when he said that the truth is born in dispute

Hope you are having a great weekend!