Last year i wrote about the dark side of Valentines' Day, and i'm not likely to change my mind much about the unfortunate character of this "holiday." I imagine that others who feel like i do have described their objections well enough, so anything i could write in that direction would be redundant.
One of my objections to the observation of St. Valentine's feast-day as a romantic celebration is ... the time of year! It must be granted, the "church" which gave us the holiday in the first place has always been AGAINST earthly love, save as it might be a means of procreation = more church MEMBERS = more power = more income. "The church" is scared to death of sex because it's such a powerful thing, and they've wrapped all sorts of myths around it, like "original sin." Kiddies, "original sin" is your own bad karma you brought into this life with you, from the last -- it doesn't have a bloody damned thing to do with the fact that we all are "conceived in sin"! The misogynist "saint" Paul and the raging pedophile Augustine are largely responsible for the ridiculously anti-feminine slant of Christianity and all its writings.
In the middle ages, this feast day (thought to be a cleaned-up version of Rome's Lupercalia) became associated with the convention of "courtly love." If you're a history buff, you know that it was rare for anyone of wealth or importance to wed a person they were in love with -- marriages were mergers or alliances, and some really inappropriate matches have been made through the centuries with those "ideals" as a guide. "Courtly love" was all about sleeping with somebody you actually WANTED, although it was dressed up in prettier finery than that.
But from an esoteric point of view, could one possibly choose a WORSE astrological signature for a holiday meant to celebrate affection, romance, and devotion? I can't see it! The sun is currently in Aquarius: the "intellectual" sign; the 50-years-ahead-of-everyone-else sign; the cool-headed, reasonable, detached sign. Piss-poor time for romance, to me! And since the inner planets (Mercury=mental, Venus=hedonistic) signs can never be far from the sun, there's a darned good chance they'll never be in an auspicious sign, either. This year, the moon (emotions) is in Aries (hot-headed, stubborn, selfish, rash), Mercury is in Pisces (a wild-card), Venus in Aquarius, Mars ("drive") is in Pisces also, and Jupiter (good fortune) in Gemini (duality). Frankly, i don't think it looks good.
If we MUST have a holiday "for lovers" i would lobby for May as a much better time than February. The first three weeks, the sun is in Taurus, the sign associated with hedonism (also fertility). Or July, September or October, for various reasons. Even March! Give people a CHANCE to have something to celebrate!
[sigh] Since we're stuck with what we've got, the least we can do is try to make sure our honeys know we CARE. Be extra nice today, because most people need it!
Showing posts with label love. Show all posts
Showing posts with label love. Show all posts
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Monday, December 24, 2012
enough love
I treated myself to a new DVD copy of my favorite Christmas movie, the 1951 British production of "A Christmas Carol," starring Alastair Sim. This one is very faithful to Dickens' story, and the cast is full of GREAT character actors of the era. It's heartfelt without being maudlin.
To me, the theme of this movie IS Love -- the "Christmas" aspect is almost incidental. You see the Cratchit family in their respectable poverty, mutually supporting each other in an atmosphere in which Love keeps the threadbare aspect of their lives from dominating. Ditto for Scrooge's nephew, though he obviously has a better job than Bob does. (Compare this to my favorite Dickens novel "Our Mutual Friend," in which poor Rumty Wilfer's living room -- cold with selfishness -- is a very uncomfortable place indeed.)
Bearing in mind this IS fiction, you can still connect that when children are raised with the knowledge that they are warmly loved and that their real best interests are considered important*, they learn by example HOW TO LOVE, themselves. Conversely, the hero of the tale grew up convinced that he was NOT loved, which put him emotionally on his own -- no good formative example for HIM! Of course he didn't prioritize love in his life (or anything else besides money) -- he had no idea that it had any value.
We see all the time that some people just don't know HOW to love. Why??? Could it be comparable to a person who has never seen a meal cooked from scratch not knowing how to cook? Is it like a person who has never seen printed materials before not knowing how to read? I sure think so.
For a household, or any other group of people, to enjoy the kind of harmony that makes light of privation, truly caring about the comfort and troubles of each other is a seed which will bear the kind of fruit everyone rejoices to see.
___
* I didn't say "happiness" mind you -- trying to "make children happy" frequently backfires.
To me, the theme of this movie IS Love -- the "Christmas" aspect is almost incidental. You see the Cratchit family in their respectable poverty, mutually supporting each other in an atmosphere in which Love keeps the threadbare aspect of their lives from dominating. Ditto for Scrooge's nephew, though he obviously has a better job than Bob does. (Compare this to my favorite Dickens novel "Our Mutual Friend," in which poor Rumty Wilfer's living room -- cold with selfishness -- is a very uncomfortable place indeed.)
Bearing in mind this IS fiction, you can still connect that when children are raised with the knowledge that they are warmly loved and that their real best interests are considered important*, they learn by example HOW TO LOVE, themselves. Conversely, the hero of the tale grew up convinced that he was NOT loved, which put him emotionally on his own -- no good formative example for HIM! Of course he didn't prioritize love in his life (or anything else besides money) -- he had no idea that it had any value.
We see all the time that some people just don't know HOW to love. Why??? Could it be comparable to a person who has never seen a meal cooked from scratch not knowing how to cook? Is it like a person who has never seen printed materials before not knowing how to read? I sure think so.
For a household, or any other group of people, to enjoy the kind of harmony that makes light of privation, truly caring about the comfort and troubles of each other is a seed which will bear the kind of fruit everyone rejoices to see.
___
* I didn't say "happiness" mind you -- trying to "make children happy" frequently backfires.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
time for a little more "woo"
I'm occasionally troubled by the attitudes of "friends" on Facebook. Some get very wrapped up in one or another group ideology, and seem to lose their humaneness. Others seem to feel privileged to rebuke complete strangers for being too sensitive about some very loaded subjects. There are those who can't be happy, and must always have something to complain about, however small. Then there's the ... never mind, you get the point.
Is it the anonymity of the internet which encourages people to express themselves in ways they wouldn't dream of, face to face? Is this the "real person" behind the facade they present to the everyday world? Are some displacing rage they actually feel in a different direction, toward targets unable to effectually give them the response they might otherwise expect? Or is it self-hate to which they are reacting, trying to justify their choices, to themselves, by making virtues of either vices or plain necessity?
In whatever case, i pray for something which i really have no hope of seeing -- that they would all take a quiet hour and examine their hearts.
A young man i know complains of his bad karma. It's no wonder -- bad karma it truly is, and all of his own creation. Whether religiously-inclined or not, most of the people i know believe in some kind of repercussion from their behavior, be it heaven/hell, the self-approbation/condemnation of a rational humanist, good results in the Judgement Hall of Osiris -- whatever. Myself, i believe in both lifetime and afterlife rewards.
I believe that emanating hatred earns you hatred, and hostility, hostility. You know, the old "as you sow, so shall you reap" thing. A little understanding and compassion toward others goes a long way. "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and "forgive us commensurately with how we forgive others"....
Conversely to what disheartens me on some social websites and forums, i also see much good ... and more is possible. Goodwill is just as contagious as nastiness. As long as i'm in a quoting mood, there's this one: "Smile! it'll make everyone wonder what you're up to" -- remember that? :-) Smiling is contagious. I even read once that the physical act has a mental response, in increased cheerfulness, and it seems to bear out in practice.
Do YOURSELF a favor, and cultivate cheerfulness and compassion -- it pays more than you might expect.
Is it the anonymity of the internet which encourages people to express themselves in ways they wouldn't dream of, face to face? Is this the "real person" behind the facade they present to the everyday world? Are some displacing rage they actually feel in a different direction, toward targets unable to effectually give them the response they might otherwise expect? Or is it self-hate to which they are reacting, trying to justify their choices, to themselves, by making virtues of either vices or plain necessity?
In whatever case, i pray for something which i really have no hope of seeing -- that they would all take a quiet hour and examine their hearts.
A young man i know complains of his bad karma. It's no wonder -- bad karma it truly is, and all of his own creation. Whether religiously-inclined or not, most of the people i know believe in some kind of repercussion from their behavior, be it heaven/hell, the self-approbation/condemnation of a rational humanist, good results in the Judgement Hall of Osiris -- whatever. Myself, i believe in both lifetime and afterlife rewards.
I believe that emanating hatred earns you hatred, and hostility, hostility. You know, the old "as you sow, so shall you reap" thing. A little understanding and compassion toward others goes a long way. "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and "forgive us commensurately with how we forgive others"....
Conversely to what disheartens me on some social websites and forums, i also see much good ... and more is possible. Goodwill is just as contagious as nastiness. As long as i'm in a quoting mood, there's this one: "Smile! it'll make everyone wonder what you're up to" -- remember that? :-) Smiling is contagious. I even read once that the physical act has a mental response, in increased cheerfulness, and it seems to bear out in practice.
Do YOURSELF a favor, and cultivate cheerfulness and compassion -- it pays more than you might expect.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
happy St. Valentine's day!
...or not, as the case may be....
Back at the time of the Chinese New Year, i posted of my enthusiasm for celebrating all sorts of holidays. This one, on the other hand, is one which i rather wish could evaporate into the aether.
It's a "loaded" day, and i strongly suspect that very few really enjoy it. For a lot of people it's bound to be "Christmas revisited" -- WHAT to get one's best-loved-one that will be appreciated and not break the bank (the winter holiday bills not forgotten, and tax-time just around the corner...). For the single, it's got to be even harder: choosing a gift which is not indicative of too much affection, nor too little. My sympathies are most strong for children at those appalling school parties -- if you're not among the popular crowd, you HATE reminders of how little you're regarded by your contemporaries!
It's tempting to point the finger at modern entertainment media, for deleterious and unrealistic visions and expectations. One of my most-despised films is "The Truth About Cats and Dogs." It's got an amusing variation of the Cyrano story going on (anytime you add animals, you add charm), but the message of the movie itself is highly disturbing: if Janeane Garofalo is too "ugly" to be a possible recipient of affection, how must REALLY homely girls feel while watching this movie???!! My husband, in fact, finds her MUCH more attractive than Uma Thurman....
Unfortunately, classic literature is full of "bad" love stories, too. One of my favorite "discouraging" books is Charlotte Bronte's "Shirley": published in 1849 (and written during the time her siblings were dying right and left), it was set during one of the worst economic times in recent British history, 1810-11. Both of the heroines are having romantic troubles; one, who is beautiful and sweet and "perfect" cannot get together with the man she loves (and who apparently loves her too) because she has no fortune and he desperately needs money for noble purposes; the other, also very attractive but charmingly-flawed and rich, cannot get her man because he's poor, humble and proud, though totally crazy about her. Bronte writes movingly about women's positions in such times and situations -- "Shirley" isn't her best book, but i recommend it wholeheartedly.
Then there are the poisonous stories that so many find romantic, like "Wuthering Heights".... Heathcliff and Cathy were a pair of unevolved, selfish asshats who SHOULD have ended up with one another -- so as not to ruin anyone else's lives! "Gone With the Wind" is not much better. I (and some other friends -- hello, Jules!) absolutely DEPLORE whoever first wrote about the glorification of the "bad boy" and all the STUPID women who want to "fix" them. This moronic trend got a new lease on its bad life in 1950s films.
Even in comedy.... We just re-watched "Shrek" the other night -- entertaining fantasy for adults as well as children! -- but it wasn't the movie itself that i'm referring to. Oh, NO, it's a cartoon, for heaven's sake -- one isn't supposed to find it a rational guide to life. It's that brain-dead song, "I Need a Hero." :-P THINK ABOUT IT! In modern society, the qualities which make a great classic HERO (warrior) are not going to result in anything but trouble. "Heroes" in this sense make appalling husbands and fathers. And yet, silly young girls still want their knight.... BAD CHOICE!!! Short of the zombie apocalypse, he'll be a millstone rather than a benefit -- and there IS no zombie apocalypse, kids -- that's FICTION!!!
<sigh>
Everyone wants love, but the kind that's promoted in this season is a phantom seducer. It's exciting in theory, but it has a bitter aftertaste and it can't last. The more people go hunting for it, the more it will elude them, because a truly desirable partner isn't needy in that fashion -- needy partners can be a nightmare! The best thing everyone can do is cultivate self-esteem and universal benevolence, love your TRUE FRIENDS, appreciate the ones who care for you, and practice tough-love on the ones who would take advantage of your good nature without reciprocating in kind.
Loving oneself is NOT selfish; looking out for oneself is a serious responsibility.
p.s. -- for the record, i have a husband who IS a friend and a blessing, affectionate, responsible and mostly considerate. ;-) he only drives me crazy some of the time.
Back at the time of the Chinese New Year, i posted of my enthusiasm for celebrating all sorts of holidays. This one, on the other hand, is one which i rather wish could evaporate into the aether.
It's a "loaded" day, and i strongly suspect that very few really enjoy it. For a lot of people it's bound to be "Christmas revisited" -- WHAT to get one's best-loved-one that will be appreciated and not break the bank (the winter holiday bills not forgotten, and tax-time just around the corner...). For the single, it's got to be even harder: choosing a gift which is not indicative of too much affection, nor too little. My sympathies are most strong for children at those appalling school parties -- if you're not among the popular crowd, you HATE reminders of how little you're regarded by your contemporaries!
It's tempting to point the finger at modern entertainment media, for deleterious and unrealistic visions and expectations. One of my most-despised films is "The Truth About Cats and Dogs." It's got an amusing variation of the Cyrano story going on (anytime you add animals, you add charm), but the message of the movie itself is highly disturbing: if Janeane Garofalo is too "ugly" to be a possible recipient of affection, how must REALLY homely girls feel while watching this movie???!! My husband, in fact, finds her MUCH more attractive than Uma Thurman....
Unfortunately, classic literature is full of "bad" love stories, too. One of my favorite "discouraging" books is Charlotte Bronte's "Shirley": published in 1849 (and written during the time her siblings were dying right and left), it was set during one of the worst economic times in recent British history, 1810-11. Both of the heroines are having romantic troubles; one, who is beautiful and sweet and "perfect" cannot get together with the man she loves (and who apparently loves her too) because she has no fortune and he desperately needs money for noble purposes; the other, also very attractive but charmingly-flawed and rich, cannot get her man because he's poor, humble and proud, though totally crazy about her. Bronte writes movingly about women's positions in such times and situations -- "Shirley" isn't her best book, but i recommend it wholeheartedly.
Then there are the poisonous stories that so many find romantic, like "Wuthering Heights".... Heathcliff and Cathy were a pair of unevolved, selfish asshats who SHOULD have ended up with one another -- so as not to ruin anyone else's lives! "Gone With the Wind" is not much better. I (and some other friends -- hello, Jules!) absolutely DEPLORE whoever first wrote about the glorification of the "bad boy" and all the STUPID women who want to "fix" them. This moronic trend got a new lease on its bad life in 1950s films.
Even in comedy.... We just re-watched "Shrek" the other night -- entertaining fantasy for adults as well as children! -- but it wasn't the movie itself that i'm referring to. Oh, NO, it's a cartoon, for heaven's sake -- one isn't supposed to find it a rational guide to life. It's that brain-dead song, "I Need a Hero." :-P THINK ABOUT IT! In modern society, the qualities which make a great classic HERO (warrior) are not going to result in anything but trouble. "Heroes" in this sense make appalling husbands and fathers. And yet, silly young girls still want their knight.... BAD CHOICE!!! Short of the zombie apocalypse, he'll be a millstone rather than a benefit -- and there IS no zombie apocalypse, kids -- that's FICTION!!!
<sigh>
Everyone wants love, but the kind that's promoted in this season is a phantom seducer. It's exciting in theory, but it has a bitter aftertaste and it can't last. The more people go hunting for it, the more it will elude them, because a truly desirable partner isn't needy in that fashion -- needy partners can be a nightmare! The best thing everyone can do is cultivate self-esteem and universal benevolence, love your TRUE FRIENDS, appreciate the ones who care for you, and practice tough-love on the ones who would take advantage of your good nature without reciprocating in kind.
Loving oneself is NOT selfish; looking out for oneself is a serious responsibility.
p.s. -- for the record, i have a husband who IS a friend and a blessing, affectionate, responsible and mostly considerate. ;-) he only drives me crazy some of the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)