There's a building that I'm in love with. It's not perfect, but it has
character, and an uncommon beauty, whimsy and delight all its own, and I
see much of my own character in it as well-- although I'm unsure if its
architects would agree.
When I pass by the building, sometimes its lights will turn on, lighting
up my face. But when I try the door, it's locked, or doesn't open
easily, or opens, but sometimes there's a chain-lock on the inside.
Sometimes the lights won't come on at all when I pass by, while at other
times, they will, and the door will open, but remain open, allowing in a
chilly draft or a bit of rain after I've entered.
If the door does close, sometimes I'll discover that there's no hot
water, or a ceiling tile will fall.
There's the timer on the door-lock, too, that, when it starts, I'm faced
with the prospect of either being trapped inside with no heat, running
water or in the dark, or again outside-- as has always been the case.
To my further dismay, the building seems to allow in questionable
tenants or visitors that, at least in one particular case, apparently
Unfortunately, AFAIK, it's a very rare building, with perhaps only a
handful of its kind in the area, and one of the rare few of a character
that especially seems to fit me. Not only that, but its knowledgeable
experts-- its architects, builders, renovators and design-experts-- have
all but vanished, and the town seems to have little value for that kind
of building as far as I can see.
So for the time being, I don't know what to do.
If you'd requested the picture from Ken about a building he liked,
without the admonition, you'd get one of him standing in front of the
building naked...and waving...in the breeze. =:O
There's a building I've always liked that faces the LIRR tracks. I
always enjoyed seeing the Art Deco edifice plunked down in the midst
of trash (literally and figuratively). It stood there abandoned for
years. Then someone - sorry - something bought it. Apparently an
Asian church had a need for a lot of space and the desire to desecrate
good design. I no longer commute and had not seen the building in a
while, when I saw it a couple of months ago I was dumbfounded. The
church added a horrendous, huge addition. It looks like two buildings
sailed together in a fog.
Ironically, the building is a metaphor for a woman. I almost kept that
indication in the subject header, but decided to remove it and see if
anyone might have noticed anything odd about my description of it, or
offered something that might have had actual application back to the
subject of the metaphor.
By doing that, it also remained on topic; architecture as metaphor.
Anyway, I decided to give up on "the building", seeing as I think it
would take too much time and effort to deal with. As a result, I'm a
little bummed out today. :/
But I'm still open to advice, especially now that you know.
Well, the water's pretty warm... Are you just going to stand there on
the wharf then?
...If my heart spontaneously loves something or someone, I imagine it
can instruct my mind something about it, and then vice-versa; an
"...I've seen the nations rise and fall
I've heard their stories, heard them all
but love's the only engine of survival..."
-- 'The Future', Leonard Cohen.
Oddly enough, that seems to make sense, especially if we assume that it
isn't really love, just insanity. ;D
Do you think love conquers all? I mean, would it conquer marriage and
the intricacies of living together?
Sounds like the head talking... What if it's love at first sight? Do you
believe in love at first sight?
I wonder how many couples are/were actually in love, or know what it is.
I'm beginning to think that there might be something to that-- the idea
that one can be in love, but not realize it, say until something changes
that suddenly confronts the issue.
Depends upon what one means by love. Being "in love" is usually actually
infatuation, excitement with the New, and sexual atraction. It's not
sustainable. The development of long-term love depends upon the
individuals, upon htei rindividual capacity for that different sort fo
love. IMO, aprt fo it is emotional and part is intellectual, but then,
everyone always tells me that I "overintellectualize" - OTOH, I've been
in a stable and rewarding relationship for 30 years.
Not first sight, but I do know that sometimes, two people just fit
together, compliment each other not only emotionally, but also
intellectually, physically, and , dare Isay it?, spiritually, in terms of
"weltanshau" or basic/fundamental philosophy.
A lot fo people have *plans* - meet someone at this age, marry at that
age, have kids X years later, and so on. ANd have specific ideas
concernign the type of person who would fit in with those plans, i.e.
whom they could "love".
The test of love is when those plans hit the skids. Maybe one person is
infertile, maybe one turns out to be gay, maybe one says "I have to give
up this damn rat race, and move to the middle of Alaska" - most people
would react in a predictable way, and that way proves that, by and large,
love is *not* unconditional, not by any stretch; a lot of "love" is as
above, how well two peole's plans mesh.
I'm not even saying that these plans are conscious - many times, poeple
are so non-introspective that they have no idea what their own
motivations really are. And those plans can be completely sub-conscious
- then they're called "expectations".
IOW, most people, IMO, do not separate the reality of love, from the
fantasy of love, and bya nad large, taht fantasy isn't even their own,
doesn't even spring from their own souls, but rather, are inculcated
That's because part of the fantasy of love is that it *always* MUST start
off as obsessive infatuation, as irresistable sexual passion.
What/Who were you looking for, what were the strategies involved, and
was it different from what it would be now if you were single again, and
how would it be if so? IOW, can, say, your concepts of, and capacities
for love, evolve along with your age and experience, and would the
results and the resulting person chosen be different? And who chooses who?
That's an interesting take and seems to have some relevance to my above
Just got it and will be viewing it shortly.
Understood, although I suppose that the time component might be
"adaptively re-usable"-- a love template.
For each successive generation, everything has to be
re-taught/learned... Everything's new again.
I wonder if it will ever be possible to upload knowledge or wisdom into
Better safe than sorry I suppose, but the above seems all part of life
anyway, part of the experience of learning and making mistakes along the
If regret is part and parcel of that, where flops are rites-of-passage,
then maybe there shouldn't be any regret.
It looks that way... Many people seem too scared to ask, say, know, or
Should I be so lucky... Thanks for the thoughtful replies, BTW. I had a
rough week, but feel better.
Ah yes, Rush (I assume)... Good production, sound, and a decent tune.
...A ghost of a chance ay?
THat question probbly has as many answers as thre are people on the
planet; to answer it, you can't look at what others do, you have to look
deeply *and honestly* into yourself and explore your own motivations,
desires, responses, and so on.
Do they actually battle? Or it is just that the superego, that part of
us which is created by society, tells us to not be who we are and to not
want what we want, because we're "supposed" to be, and want, what we are
told to be and want? Society teaches us to present a persona, because ti
is our "duty", our "obligation" - we are supposed to do and be what
society tells us we "should" do and be - i.e. present a persona rather
than to honestly be a person.
That screws up relationships, because the whole dating game, with its
little rituals, is designed to encourage the persona while relegating the
person to the distant background. Ritualized behaviors, such as a male
bird presentign a female with bits of nesting material and/or plump
insects, work for other animals, but with humans, it's eventually a
hindrance, because all too often, people marry the personas, and then
start having problems when it becomes inpossible to live a facade 24/7
and the real person comes out - then people wail, "You're just not the
same person I married!" Well, of course not, all of the rituals are
designed to set up baby-making couples, NOT form the basis of emotional
One of the offshoots of the dependence upon ritual is thae perennial, and
perennially stupid, question of "What do women/men really want?" Such a
wuestion assumes that ALL women and ALL men are simple, are
simplistically capable only of following instinctual patterns. THe fact
is that humans have *drives*, but not *instincts* - an instinct is a
specific bahavior that is inborn, i.e. carried out by compulsion AND
*exactly the same* in all members of a species - even if an animal is
raised in isolation, it will still attempt to carry out the stereotypical
behaviors; learning from other members refines behaviors but the
bahaviors are largely intact.
Humans are not that simple. So it's not just a simplistic matter of
"give gift, get sex" for males and "give sex in return for child
support" for females. What a woman wants depends upon the individual
woman; what a man wants depends upon the individual man.
Re: specific cases? I dunno, it depends upon the people involved. And I
don't have any intuitive understandiing of people, just facts and
Met my wife in January '64 and we married in July of '64. Back then we were
considered old at 28 and 27 years. Going on 44 years now. Invited our
parents to our wedding the weekend before. Simple and economical. The
wedding business made nothing from us.
THat's IMO part fo the whole insanity wiht it. In terms of the legalities,
marriage is a contract, pure an dsimple. As with any other conttract,
poeple can bend it or ignore it, and penalities exist for breaking it,
unless both parties agree to an amicable dissolution. Basically, IMO, it's
also a contract that exists mostly because so few peole are trustworthy
when it comes to sharing prpoerty - too many have the motto: "what's mine
is mine - and what's yours is mine, too". But there is never *any*
"guarantee" that either party (or both!) will adhere to the terms of the
As for moral and emotional concerns, tehy're added over and above the
contract, and do not require a contract to exist - two peole can be
completely committd to each other, and never have a contract; OTOH, two
people can have a contract, and no commitment whatsoever.
Deopel talk about th e"sanctity" of marriage. btu that is a religious terms
and has nothing to do with th elegal realities - whatever sanctity might
surround a relationship, it comes fromt eh people involved, not this ro
that "authority" or bureaucracy.
Er, historically, as in, long-term history as opposed to part fo 19th,
and of 20th century history, marrige has been about property, and keeping
property with families, more than about personal relationships. Property
and propagation of the family line, with chastity being a female
"virtue" rather than a male one (since you always know who your motehr
is, but rigorous social controls are set up to supposedly "guarnatee" who
one's father is...).
Actually, social strictures have been, to some extent, preplaced by laws,
but all in all, it's *much* looser than it was even when we were kids.
No, sorry, that's inaccurate. THere are a bunch if implicit legal
restrictions and allowances, it's just that few people ever actually read
them. I'd have ot look it up myself, but there are implict, but very
real, legalities that are part and parcel of getting married.
Thsi is true. If people don't marry, they really ought to go ahead and
meet with an attorney so as to have as much in writing as is possible.
There is no right to inheritance, for example, which, depending upon
one's situation, can be either good, or bad. If the people are odler,
and want to be sure that, should they die, their property/money will only
fo to their ownkids, then marriage is often not really a good choice. I
don;t remember the details but I remember reading and hearing about
various reasons for seniors to *not* get married.
But again, ti all has to do with the fact that thre are definite
legalities that come along with getting married.
No, but it unfortunately does have increasing weight when it comes ti
*making* law - being more or less unfortunate depending upon ow closely
your own religion or spiritual beleifs coincide with those of the epople
influencing the creation and/or modification of laws...
Sure, because of the money involved. Andteh desire for the parties to
wreak vengeance upon the one whom each perceives as being "to blame".
It seems to me that the simple weddings I've known of have also been the
most personal. IMO, an insistance upon an orgy of spending that ends up
putting people into debt literally for decades, does not bode well for a
happy union - IMO, it indicates that priorities are askew.
Of course - two reasons, in my own personal and prob rather jaded ideas
base dupon what I've personally seen: (1) the emphasis on all the
materialistic "queen for a day" stuff shows where the bride's true
priorities lie, which is, fantasy and illlusions of grandeur, and (2) the
guy has missed the first major opportunity to have a say in things, IOW,
has wimped out right from the start.
Actually, there is a third reason, related to what I said about
most/common dating rituals being about presenting a persona rather than
being a person - this rushing headlong into the whole insanity of
spending thousands upon thousands of dollars to create this elaborate
fantasy of a royal fete IMO is erally setting people up for a hug let-
down, because the fantasy quickly fades, and the couple is left with the
reality of the daily grind: morning breath, dirty laundry, hair in the
bathtub, gas, and all of the other plain everyday things that nobody ever
mentions, never mind admits to, during the whole fantasy phase.
ANd fourth: money. It's extremely rare for peole to have frank, honest,
and practical discussions about finances before marriage. And money is,
IIRC, the number one reason people give for divorce. OF course,
bickering over money is usually a symptom of a deeper realization by the
two people that they had no idea who they were actually marrying...
That's why I don't hold traditional/"conservative" notions of marriage in
high regard - it's all very plan-oriented, and the "important" thing is
to mary young and have kids ASAP and then justtolerate the other person
"for the sake fo the kids" (who in turn grow up and just do the same
thing) and, once the kids leave home, just slog it out in misery for the
next 50 years.
There is so much emphasis upon "finding that one person who will make you
happy", and so much time and energy spent upon running down potential
spouses, that few people ever have the chance to learn that (1) nobody
else can *make* you happy, it has to start from within; and (2) a person
who has never spent time developing his/her Self isn't going to have much
to bring to a relationship - it's like trying to get a harvest of wheat
from land that has been let go to dust.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.