Stoikiy Muzhik

Colonel Abel and James Donovan in Bridge of Spies

Ever since I heard the phrase in Bridge of Spies, I have been captivated by it. In the movie, Colonel Abel used it to describe the quality he observed in his lawyer, James Donovan. He said the words after watching how resilient Donovan was in defending him. Stoikiy Muzhik, or standing man, the man who keeps standing back even though everyone tries to put him down, ignites something in me. What can be more mesmerizing than the thought of a man who just won’t back down? And the funny thing is, it is not his resoluteness I admire. It is not the strength, nor the conviction. The thing that captivates me the most is the reason. The why. Why does he keep standing? What enables him to go beyond his supposed self?

There is nothing new in my question. It has been brought up numerous times in books and movies. Just like in The Matrix Revolutions when Neo constantly gets back up. Agent Smith asks him why he keeps standing. Is it freedom, truth, peace, love? Neo finally replies because he chooses so. It is an exceptional answer. It is an answer that emphasizes the greatness of a subject that is man, the ability to choose. But it is not the kind of answer that I currently want to write. Right now, I want to write about something that in the perspective of spiritual enlightenment, goes a bit lower. I want to write about the reason that comes not from the inside, like the ability to choose, but starts from outside the person, something that deeply mesmerises him to go beyond his usual strength, something like an ancient overplayed concept, something like a simple love.

I have a friend that I haven’t seen in a while. There are many things about him, but one thing that stands out is his experience with a girl he loved. He once loved this girl so much that he kept chasing her for more that twelve years. Mind you, I never thought of him as a standing man. I would think that the reason that drove a standing man would have to be something greater than mere infatuation. It would have to be humanity, or peace, or something similar. It couldn’t be love.

John Keating in Dead Poets Society

However, my recent experiences has put another perspective on the matter. Why can’t it be love? Isn’t it a grand thing? In the movie Dead Poets Society, John Keating says to his students, “Medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.” They are what make life, well... life. They are the reasons we fight so hard to survive. They give meaning to our survival. I have also heard someone said, “Loving is like having a song in your heart.” I know what it's like to be depressed, and I know what it’s like to be so happy that you want to sing. I imagine someone who has a song in his heart, whose heart is constantly singing, to be nothing less than jubilant. Isn’t it the drive of countless great people? Love is a good enough reason to sustain someone beyond his self. Love is more than enough.

Still I think, the rough patches he must have gone through. Twelve years must not have come easy. Happiness in love comes and goes. It can’t be the only thing that sustains him. Then I think that perhaps he managed to go through because for him, the whole deal was who he was. There are things that have put me in pain and distress, and one of those things is having to do something that contradicts my honest being. Maybe it was harder for him denying his heart than going through the twelve years. Maybe at least when he’s with her, he is at peace within his own self, and everything makes sense. It is something that I can only suspect, remembering that when he’s with her he was the most vibrant and giving person I know.

Poetry, beauty, romance, love are what we stay alive for. For the Stoikiy Muzhik in my life, it's what kept him standing. It is what matters. I imagine if I had asked him to pick between living pain free without love or having the chance to pursue a great love, I would have known the answer.

My choice would have been the same.

Most Happiest

Today I had lunch with a friend. She was telling me about her love life when she said something about how she picked a significant other. She only picked someone whom she thought would make a good companion. She wasn’t bothered much about his status or wealth. A good companion... That was her criterion.

There’s nothing revolutionary about the above paragraph. However, like most old, overused ideas, its sense of weight only grows larger as I grow older. I too, can’t agree more. A good companion... That is also what I’m looking for.

When I wrote Encounters, I was talking about how although it doesn’t seem likely, people do meet and connect. It is this kind of bond that I crave, a relationship where you truly see and be seen. I remember when Patrick Jane, the protagonist of the series The Mentalist, spent his days in seclusion somewhere in Central America, he had no one to talk to. Everyone was speaking Spanish, a language he’s still adopting. One day, he met a woman at the beach. She was an American. Patrick Jane eagerly tried to start a conversation with her, anything he could think of. It had been a long time since he talked in English and he missed it. “Being understood is an underrated pleasure,” he said in a reflective tone.

Being understood is a great pleasure for me too. And also of course, if I may add, understanding someone. Perhaps it’s because secretly, I’m afraid of loneliness. Perhaps it’s because like the thinking behind The Celestine Prophecy, I’m an incomplete person, looking for completeness in the soul of others, making it some kind of a defect that I have.

I don’t know.

Although, sometimes I think it’s simply because deep down, I believe that happiness doesn’t mean a thing unless it is shared.

I don’t like people in general, so that is an odd thing for me to say. I’m a quiet extrovert though, so it kinda makes sense. And although I’ve often times said that I hated people, it amazes me that almost all my fondest memories always involve someone. May it be a moment with friends or lovers, I’m happiest when I’m with someone. It’s funny.

When the film Into the Wild was released, my friend warned me not to watch it. I had always shown a tendency of doing things alone that he was afraid it would make me worse. I think he was dead wrong. The film was about a young man who was disgusted by people and the social structure and so lived his life in the wild in isolation. It didn’t work out for him. His supplies ran out and he was forced to eat plants, accidentally eating the poisonous one. In the last moment of his life, he wrote his realization in his book, “Happiness only real when shared.”

I guess the theme resonates in a lot of hearts, because a lot of films seem to adopt it. After having a great success without the presence of his wife, Jerry Maguire said, “Our little company had a good night tonight. A really big night. But it wasn't complete, it wasn't nearly close to being in the same vicinity as complete, because I couldn't share it with you. I couldn't hear your voice, or laugh about it with you.” Even Barney Stinson of How I Met Your Mother said, “Whatever you do in this life, it’s not legendary unless your friends are there to see it.”

I’ve always wanted someone. I guess I’m one of those miserable people who were born to share. There’s hardly anything grander for me than a true and honest connection. It's a must have for me. We may come into this world alone and leave it alone, but I think... it doesn't always have to be that way.

"To be loved is great, but to love is great too...!"

- Ifir

And why not?
It involves the action and actualization of me, arguably the most important person we have to deal with in our lives.

Love Me Hardly

In the light of Fifty Shades of Grey movie coming out, I had a talk about sadomasochism with a girl-friend. She had a thing with sadomasochism videos and I wanted to know what the practice truly meant, at least for her. The only thing I knew at the time was that it meant a love for inflicting/receiving pain in a sexual activity. However, what she revealed next got me thinking.

The Third Thing

Once there was a guy who had had enough with women who kept saying, “Men love women because of their physical appearance. The prettier the women are, the more love the men give.”

The guy happened to have a beautiful girlfriend whom he loved very much.

So when on a dinner a female acquaintance mentioned the same thing, he just couldn't take it anymore and stood up.

“There are three things that I want you to remember!" he shouted.

"First, those who can choose physical appearance because they are secured and independent are definitely not worse than those who cannot because all they ever care about is to be loved, no matter where it comes from!

Second, most women fall into a trap of thinking they can only be picked! The reason the idea stands is only because it comforts and assures them that they will all eventually be picked!”

“And third,” he slowed down as he pointed his finger at the beautiful girlfriend.

“The reason I love her and why she stands out so much...
is because she's among the few who doesn’t give a damn about the first two things.”

I always think that a great woman is carefree. She’s larger than life, and definitely larger than insecurities or cheap dramatic ideas served only for comfort.

So yeah, I’m not telling the story because I’m a misogynist.

I’m telling it because I’m a feminist.

Encounters

Jean-Paul Sartre, the French philosopher, didn't believe that we could truly meet someone.





Sometimes I believe him.



Afterall, we are independent beings cut off from the world. What we know for sure is only our very own existence. I cannot tell with the same confidence other people's thoughts and feelings, and I never will.

And again, how could we?

Everytime I meet someone, I don't truly meet him. All I meet is what I assume of him in my mind, and so does he. We may both meet in flesh, but we never truly face each other. All we ever face is our own assumptions.

We never perceive through anything but our own existence. We are private beings, dettached from each other. There's no one in our hearts to talk to, only our voice. Other people, no matter how close they are, remain objects to us. We spend our lives by ourselves. We are truly alone.





Sartre was right.
Truly meeting someone is impossible.








There are other times when I don't believe that, though.


One is when I watch this TV commercial.



Contrary to what I wrote above, stories of encounter, just like the ad, interest me. I guess in part it's because they remind me how at times I do feel in sync with someone, even when I realize that the other part is my own wish of not wanting to believe in Sartre's words.

Either way, people do meet.

Sometimes, they may even take a higher level, just like the commercial. Its characters violently contradict Sartre's words. Not only is the male shown not knowing who he is, he also only succeeds in doing so after looking at himself through the female's eyes.


He finds himself through the eyes of someone else.


Ain't that grand?


A simpler, yet richer encounter can also be found in the film Before Sunrise (yep, that movie again). The characters Jesse and Celine blatantly mention it when they talk about losing oneself.

Jesse & Celine at the Park

Jesse: Oh, yeah. Yeah. I know what you mean about wishing somebody wasn't there, though. Its just usually its myself that I wish I could get away from. Seriously, think about this. I have never been anywhere that I haven't been. I've never had a kiss when I wasn't one of the kissers. Y'know, I've never, um, gone to the movies, when I wasn't there in the audience. I've never been out bowling, if I wasn't there, y'know making some stupid joke. I think that's why so many people hate themselves. Seriously, its just they are sick to death of being around themselves. Lets say that you and I were together all the time, then you'd start to hate a lot of my mannerisms. The way, uh, the way every time we would have people over, uh, I'd be insecure, and I'd get a little too drunk. Or, uh, the way I'd tell the same stupid pseudo-intellectual story again, and again. Y'see, I've heard all those stories. So of course I'm sick of myself. But being with you, uh, it made me feel like I'm somebody else. Y'know the only other way to lose yourself like that is, um, y'know, dancing, or alcohol, or drugs, and stuff like that.

And again in numerous ways in the film Before Sunset, one of which is this powerful scene.

Jesse & Celine Embrace

So,
can people truly meet?


I certainly hope so.


Although ironically, and also obviously, it seems we are only able to do that exactly when we lose ourselves and stop being subjects anyway.


Well, as long as we get the chance of experiencing and remembering it, you won't have the slightest objection from me.

All Lovey Dovey in Hastily Speedily

A week ago, I was having a discussion with some friends about the act of marriage when two questions came up.

What is your take in love (as in the romantic one)?
and
Does it exist?

This is what I came up.

Years ago, I believed everything about it, even its divine attribute, like ‘your soul mate is set in the heavens’.

Some time after that, I didn’t believe anything about it anymore. To me, it is no more than our biological tendency as sexual beings that because of our developed minds receives new values, such as friendship, devotion, monogamy, or even an unconditional state (just having the words biological and unconditional in one sentence alone does feel a bit odd, doesn’t it?).
That’s why I think love is almost impossible to define, because for the most part it’s filled with make-beliefs that are, of course, subjects of subjectivity.
So, does love exist objectively? Of course not.

But lately, I’ve begun to warm up to it again. My understanding hasn’t changed (I still believe that it’s a hyped up biological tendency), but my reaction towards it is not as harsh and more hopeful.
Does it exist, objectively? My answer is still no.
But does the fact that it exists mostly subjectively mean nothing at all? My answer is definitely hell no.
Now I say, if you believe in it, it exists, and if you don’t, it doesn’t.
The make-beliefs that I didn’t put into consideration before are now playing an important role.
Because if I believe in something, don't my views, my actions, and my whole entirety change according to it?
And if the effects are real, is it still easy to say that what I believe in doesn’t exist?
Perhaps that's the whole point about love. Its reality lies in the way we live the idea.

So consequently:

• I don’t think there’s a universal truth about this kind of love. No rules and no guidelines, like ‘if he does this then he doesn’t love you unconditionally’, or other mumbo jumbos.
• Love is much much more personal than I thought, and that’s why I think it is important to find someone who has the same belief about what it is.
• The thought shows me how our ability to create our own reality is amazingly vast, which is also the subject of some schools of thought, such as idealism and Buddhism.

And on a more personal note, well, now I get to love again.

Reality

Infinity times infinity.
No words suffice.

A BRAND NEW Reflection on Relationships

I once wrote that a true relationship can only be reached when there is a common ground. The closer the common ground is to our hearts (beliefs, perspectives, what we love), the better it becomes.

In a way, I still believe that.

However, yesterday I found out an interesting take on a SIMILAR subject in a work.
In the work, the writer wanted to determine what really constituted a FRIENDSHIP.
He tried to do this by observing the ones around him.
From his observation, he noticed that people of different nature had good friendships. So, he concluded that differences between the persons involved were the ones that constituted a friendship.
In other words, differences make a relationship work.
Besides, differences give people a chance to complement each other, right?

However, as time went by, he found that people with more things in common also had good friendships, and even at occasions, better than some who didn’t.
This finding put the previous answer in shaky grounds.
Do differences really constitute a friendship? Or do things in common that really do the job?

He gave it another thought,
and finally he was able to reach a conclusion.

**V*

You asked me if I did.








Yes Doll, I do.














I can't find better words.

You Are What You Love: A Reflection on Relationships

This was meant to be included in the previous post (it’s best if you read it first), but since I felt it was talking about a different thing, I decided to make it a separate post.

Anyway,

“You are what you love.”

- Donald Kauffman in Adaptation

The quote has got me thinking about relationships, and I was finally left with a conclusion.

Your relationship can only work (as in having reached an interpersonal level, and not just basic functional level) if your partner loves what you love.

The Great Darn Thing

Three days ago my father had this seminar about marriage in church. He had told me to come because I asked a question earlier, and he was interested to hear the answer. I didn’t go, but that’s not what I’m about to talk about.

This question is.

“Why the hell does the Church have to have anything to do with marriage?”

A Pampering and Some Breasts

A quick one.
I’m still doing my study don’t worry.

This is merely an observation. I’m not saying it’s good or bad.

There are two major aspects I find in a love relationship, INSECURITY and IDEALIZATION.

Okay, here’s when the rotten eggs get thrown at me.

Insecurity is mostly women’s problem and idealization is mostly men’s.




By insecurity I mean, one’s inability to love and believe in oneself that one must seek them from a spouse.
You may have heard a story from DeMello. The story goes like this.

Mother: "What does your girlfriend like in you?"
"She thinks I'm handsome, talented, clever, and a good dancer."
"And what do you like about her?"
"She thinks I'm handsome, talented, clever, and a good dancer."

You may find this absurd, but tell me how many times have you heard a woman who was asked about why she chose her current lover in the first place, answered, “Because he loves and cares for me…”?
In other words of course, I love you because you can give me anything I want, pamper me, protect me, tell me I’m pretty, etc, and hardly because of who you really are. Just imagine the level of insecurity.

Well, what about men?
Men have their own problem that is called idealization.
Idealization clouds men’s view, impedes them the ability to see the truth.
It transforms a perfectly normal girl who defecates at least once a day and farts in a regular basis to be a digestive-tract-less Heidi Klum.
They fail to see the true beauty and insert their own ideas of beauty.

So it’s no wonder in declining relationships to hear this sentence from women,

“Don’t you love me anymore?”

Or simply from men,

“Meh.”

(as in you’re not as pretty, smart, sophisticated, etc as I thought)

What they say actually represents what they expect most from a relationship;

a knight in the shining armor who’s always up for pampering for women

OR

a 36B goddess for men.

I wonder if a relationship based on mutual adoration between two secured, honest persons even exists. I hope it does; here, not in Shangri-La.

A Long and Dull Explanation about My Most Hated Subject

It’s love.
Okay, move along.
You can still get out from this before I start.

For the ones who are still with me…
I’ve warned you.

Love (by this I mean the man-woman love)…
The subject I hate the most because mostly people talk about it in a cheesy way.

Being a mostly nihilistic person, I have deconstructed most of the ideals I took for granted.
I have unmasked them, shown them to be nothing at all.
I have seen that they have no values of their own, other than the values that we give.
One of them is, of course, MAN-WOMAN LOVE.

How do I define it?
I define it, simply, as friendship with the benefit of sex.
Sometimes it's even worse. It is a DEAL for treating each other nicely.
There’s all there is to it.
The rest is pure idealization.

All you have to do is simple.

• Find a person you like to be with
• Make sure that the person’s physical attributes are acceptable by your (sexual) standards
• Sign a DEAL with her/him to be each other’s exclusive friend

That’s it.
After that, you just have to idealize the person, put some romantic projections on her/him; and remember to put her/him in a significant place in your life, so that you will become dependent on her/his constant presence.
Just make a memory, drama, or anything.

Voila, you just find yourself an attachment.


NOW, what I really want to say.

• I still find it to be a great sensation.
• I still appreciate it.
• I still see a lot of good things coming out of it.
• I still cherish it.
• I still want it.

But as you can see from my explanation above, I will not accept overrated beliefs about it.

• I don’t believe in love at first sight.

AND

• I don’t believe in unconditional man-woman love.

OR

• other kinds of similar exaggerations.

I know it sounds bad, but let me try to explain by case examples.

Case A
Mr. Bond loves his girl so much. But he can’t be with her because if he does, she won’t live. His enemies will go after her.
So he leaves her. His love for her is much greater than his desire to be with her. He sacrifices himself in order to save her. He feels pain, but it is fine for him.

Is his love unconditional love? After all, he expects nothing in return.

The answer is NO.
He doesn’t have ANY choice. If things were different, he certainly would be with her. His love is no different than anyone’s. He STILL hopes for something in return. It’s just his circumstances won’t allow it.

Case B
Mr. Ogre is ugly. He loves a girl, but the girl doesn’t love him back.
So he just wants happiness for the girl; even when she is in other’s arms.

Is his love unconditional love?

The answer is NO.
The reason is the same. He’s got NO choice. And maybe, he also gains pleasure from the pain it brings.

Case C
Mr. Drama loves a woman. But he leaves her because he thinks she’s better off without him. He always complains about the pain he has, but he trusts it’s for the better.

Is his love unconditional love?

Same answer.
Same reason, especially the ‘seeking pain for pleasure’ part.

Case D
Ms. Soft loves his husband. She gives him a lot but expects a lot in return. The husband only gives a little and expects a little also.

Is Ms. Soft’s love worse than her husband’s?

NO.
It’s just different. She was raised in a family that gives and receives a lot, while her husband wasn’t. Her love isn’t worse. She just has a different way of handling it.

Some people would claim it to be worse. They would say that she had no unconditional love, because she expected something in return.

I say, what do you expect? Isn’t it normal to expect something? Isn’t it man-woman love is all about?
Man-woman love is all reciprocal, back and forth. It’s about wanting and being wanted, giving and being given, desiring and being desired. It’s so sexual.

Unconditional love is just IRRELEVANT in man-woman love. It may be a Godly love, friendly love, or anything; but it certainly isn’t a man-woman love. It’s always been a DEAL, remember? A TWO-WAY thing.

And one other thing,
I don’t believe there are rules in man-woman love. There isn’t any guide about what can be done and what can’t.
Any guide found is simply taken from friendship guide or business guide.
A few examples:

• A cheater isn’t guilty of love; he/she is guilty of manipulation, backstabbing, deliberately hurting, breaking a deal, or something like that.
• And so do people who forget anniversaries. Their guilt is not against love; their guilt is simply because they break the deal (if pampering your partner is included in it, like most do).

Don’t get me wrong. I still think the whole man-woman love as a GREAT thing.
But, I don’t think it needs to be exaggerated.
It’s all these exaggerations and idealizations that produce so many problems around it.

PS: damn it, it's so hard to write about this non-ending frustrating subject. I hope I've made myself clear.

UPDATE
Since so many people have got me wrong, I will say this.
Contrary to popular belief, I think man-woman love IS great! In fact, it is so great, it doesn't have to be unconditional to be considered great.
The greatness doesn't lie in its unconditional property (which is non-existent by the way), but in its sexuality (two people wanting each other completely - please don't get me wrong again).
There. I've made my point.

Pretty Women

I had this friend once, and she could be considered as pretty. We used to go out together to eat and talk.
I had no feelings for her whatsoever though; I just liked her company and stories.
Anyway, at one time another friend of mine asked why I hadn't gone for her. And I said because I had this suspicion on pretty women. By suspicion, I meant more like paranoia. And I still do.

Why? Well, by experience, I find that most of them have two things in common.

The first, they are more prone to hypocrisy.

You see, this friend of mine was very popular. Everybody just loved her. Everywhere I went, people would say good things about her.
Now, being liked by most people may say that you're a nice person. But being liked by everyone?
There's just something wrong with it. I believe that if you go as yourself, how nice and kind it may be, there will still be someone who doesn't like you.
Their being liked by literally everyone means that they always try to please everybody. Maybe because they get so used to the amount of attention they receive for being pretty since childhood that they always crave for more. By pleasing everyone, they have a chance to be praised a lot more.
It doesn't always work you know. More often than not, they always end up hurting someone because of these pleasing errands. And it's usually the one that is closest to them. Somebody has got to pay the price, right?

The second is that they are barely ever single.

I know that relationships help you grow. But I think so does being single. Being single lets you learn about yourself, who you really are, what you really want; teaches you to be strong and mature, and gives you a chance to love yourself more. In the end you become a better person to love and be loved. The fact that they are barely single makes me wonder if they ever reflect at all; if they ever see themselves as a person in this world, and not just someone’s girlfriend. You know, a person with private hopes, private dreams, private goals that cannot be compromised by others’ take on her life; a full person.

Not all of them are like that. But most of pretty women in my life are.

Now, if I could just find someone who’s pretty but doesn’t know she is, or at least doesn’t really care… that would be very nice.