aspiration

it seems we always want a car or house or wedding or other such material thing or experience that is just beyond our reach, and settle for something less - a compromise between desire and reality (and budget).

i suppose when it comes to aspiration, the human being is unlikely to hanker after something he can already attain - its desirability is intimately connected with its elevation. however, too high, and we don't lust after in any real sense, since it crosses over into fantasy or imagination.

the toyota man dreams realistically (a real oxymoron) of a beemer, not a ferrari.

addictiveness as morality

the postmodern sentiment of self as centre discards the moral notion of harm to self, so long as the self is gratified, and by extrapolation, harm to others. after all, in a closed system, self and other are negotiated in terms of win-lose.

when morality is thus subjectively defined, only addictiveness qualifies as a compass, since it diminishes one's further capacity for satisfaction (the more addicted, the less pleasure one derives from the same quantum). paradoxially, one does oneself wrong when self-serving addiction prevents the very gratification one seeks.

harm and addictiveness

moral compunction as regards harm is age old, whether the buddhist or christian variety ("do/don't do unto others .." et al). this can be transferred to measure self-harm as well, even after conceding the personal right to do what one wills to oneself, since pampering oneself with a bubble bath or with two tabs of ice can be valued differently.

addictiveness arguably can also be compared in terms of degree - how difficult to shake one's craving for the thing or to do without it completely, and how frequently and intensely needful and desirous that thing is to one's gratification.

yet.

addiction

moral evaluations of addictive substances and activities seem to be based on the often undifferentiated factors of potential harm (to user and society), and addictiveness. this lack of delineation works because a scale that places caffeine at one and crack at the other needs no elucidation, except for pernickety conservatives trying to decide whether to draw the line approving caffeine but not alcohol, or whether irresponsible behaviour begins from nicotine and upwards.

here’s a list of compulsions to consider and complicate: shopping, online-gaming, gambling, masturbation, food.

(and no, the difference isn't simply between the nature of objects versus actions (hence the last item))

arguments 2

in other words, arguments measure how much stake one has in the relationship via a process of accusation and blood-letting. with a smaller stake, one can respond more acrimoniously, more savagely, with the perverse assurance that the other party will hurt more than one will.

how much one’s point is worth defending, therefore, doesn’t depend upon the objective value or merit of the point of view since one always values one’s own point maximally and the other’s, inconsequentially. one defends one’s continual right to a dominant position.

when we observe that some arguments have no winners, we describe a situation where, because both parties have stake, any argument undermines one party’s standing with the other, with no consequent gain in position, but resultantly hampered in the ability to impose one’s self-perogative. only loss and losers left.

arguments

not convinced they're worth having. two (or more) parties enter believing they are in the right. seldom (if ever) do they end with one side acknowledging the error of their viewpoint (is there even such a thing as a point of view error?) more likely than not the process gets burdened by ad hominems and tu quoques and other fallacious sidetracks. the winner (again, if is there such a thing) is the one who displays more power to control, bully, blackmail and ignore, regardless of right and wrong.

the party with more to lose will always lose an argument.

charity

a colleague is about to run 30 hours non-stop to raise funds for charity, in the same inspired vein as overwrought charity shows no doubt. kind of like those 'keep-one's-hand-on-a-car-for-the-longest-to-win-it' competitions, but altruistic, as opposed to self-serving.

why anyone thinks these supposed self-sacrifical stunts beget a charitable response is a mystery. are we paying for their performance, thus demeaning the act itself? are their acts of excess supposed to prompt an excessive generosity on our part - in heartfelt tandem?

the irony of such self-glorification is glaring.