Things I Hate, Part MMMCCCXLVI
By Mitch Berg
While the “Linguistic Hit List” is a regular feature on this blog, it’s time for me to widen my focus. To creep my scope.
To take on things above and beyond language, wrestle them to the ground, mark them for execution, try and convict and sentence them, and strap ’em into Ol’ Sparky.
Today’s docket: Aphorisms that must die:
“Live Without Regrets!” – If you have no regrets, then you really didn’t risk all that terribly much, now, did you? Either that, or you don’t care about the slopover.
To “Live without regret” either implies that one has won every one of life’s battles (impossible) or that the consequences of the losses (rare as they may have been) were so utterly bearable that not a single peep of remorse, “what-if” or blurp of retrospective anger has ever crossed one’s mind, that the consequences really didn’t matter that much, and that they didn’t affect anyone else in any way.
Let me be clear – this is different than accepting and forgiving oneself for the failures, mis-steps and regrets, and making any amends needed to anyone else affected, of course – but in my humble experience, most of the people who claim to “live without regrets” either haven’t thought about it all that hard, or are solopsistic to the point that they don’t recognize the effects their failures, mis-steps and mistakes have on themselves or others, no matter what they might have been.
“Live Like Every Day Is Your Last” – Well, every day can indeed be just that – and one day, one of them will be, for all of us. But there are a couple of problems with this aphorism. Isn’t it just as narrow, self-defeating and self-limiting to focus ones’ life on permanently “living on the edge” as it is to live every day fearing the end?
Doesn’t this injunction to “suck the marrow from every day” tend not only to leave one without any remaining marrow on the next day of the thousands that bless most lives, but also lend a kind of frantic, treadmill-y-ness to daily life? Like, if you go bungee-jumping on the day that (one can have no way of knowing is) 12,448 days before one actually ends up dying, don’t you have to come up with something even edgier on Checkout Minus 12,447? And so on, and so forth (assuming that the edginess doesn’t itself kill you, perhaps in a fit of XtRe3m cordless bungeeing)? Doesn’t that lead one, necessarily (and providing one doesn’t actually die terribly soon) to become jaded with the whole notion of “living every day like it’s your last”, which indeed contradicts the original sentiment?
And is a life of inherently less value, less “lived”, if one spends the the day before one checks out blogging, working the job one work to pay for ones’ kids’ food and house, watching Scrubs with ones’ daughter, and talking with a high school pal on the phone than if one climbed the IDS Tower freehand?
And why?
“I’m Spiritual, But I’m Not Religious” – I’m trying to figure out what would have happened back in college if I’d said “I believe in learning, but I don’t believe in study groups, the library or reading books at all”, as if being with a group of like-minded people actually, in and of itself, detracts from ones’ search for spiritual enlightenment.
No, I know – there are churches, clergy and congregations that don’t help much, that can even interfere with one’s search for God or Truth or Satori or whatever it is you’re looking for, but those are usually individual, situational things. So what is it, supposedly, about the act of meeting other people who have chosen freely to seek their enlightenment roughly the same way as you are seeking the same that, in and of itself, hinders that search?
More as my memory warrants.





August 24th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Y’know what? Forget it. I don’t want your apology, and after a year of putting up with your snide BS, I don’t want you on my blog.
NOBODY calls me a liar.
It is, itself, an utter lie. If you don’t have the balls OR the brains to prove it, then never, ever say it.
I can take all the argument you can throw at me. I can even take the snarking; RickDFL and Angryclown and plenty of other commenters who disagree are always happily welcomed, because they’re not stupid enough to make personal insults.
But you couldn’t even manage that “so-easy-a-lobomized-Barbara-Boxer-could-do-it” standard, could you?
Like I said, pollute someone else’s blog. You’re not welcome here anymore.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:57 am
One more thing. Remember the “election judge” bit?
You mis-stated something; an innocent flub, the way you described it, and I was more or less inclined to believe you. People jumped all over you for it (and because you’re such a pompous windbag, your explanation got no sympathy), and called you a liar…
…but it wasn’t true, was it?
Of course not.
So, Doug the Drama Queen – why is it that you’re the only one that deserves to be treated with such ethical kid gloves?
I know you can’t answer in the comment section. Just saying.
Think about it. If, indeed, self-analysis isn’t
beyond“beneath” you.August 24th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Not to beat a dead horse, but I definitely remember somebody going on about their horrible Catholic upbringing. Whether or not it was Doug, if we look at things the way he and his fellow Christian-bashers do, couldn’t we just assume it’s him, because don’t they all think and act alike? If Jimmy Swaggart cheats, that must mean ALL Christians are rotten hypocrites. So I figure, if one of the liberal guys who post on this had a rotten Catholic childhood, I don’t see why we can’t just assume it was Doug. And in this forum, it’s not like the liberals are the majority posters…we’d have a pretty good chance of being right. Someone (this year) DID recount what Mitch remembers.