The Whippet #136: Please don't explain to me what a metasurface is
thewhippet.substack.com
The world’s deadliest shark is not the one you think it is, muppets are left-handed, secular parables, a brave elephant, and that's it, I'm done, I can't take in any more information in 2021
I think it's interesting that no one has suggested that the woman should have let go of the friendship when it was clear he no longer wanted the relationship to continue.
I have always been somewhat mystified by people's need for clear dualistic answers. I mean, the guy is absolutely intitled to be unforgiving and still he can be a jerk about it. It DOES matter if a parable is true, but the moral can be correct and a good lesson even if it is not. Though I suppose, thinking about it, I do long for clear simple answers sometimes, so I guess I mystify myself.
Thank you for another exelent news letter, enjoy your holiday break!
I’ve had The Satanic Verses sitting unread on my shelf for at least three years. I bought thinking “this is something I should probably read,” but I could never find a compelling reason to actually do so. I think I assumed, as you mention, that it would be a rough and dense slog. This except has freed me from that misconception. I think it might be time to actually read it. Thank you.
Great Rushdie excerpt about the vase. I don't know how one can "agree" with one of the characters, though. It would have been better for all for the man to forgive the friend, yet the man could not bring himself to forgive her - I'm not sure if there's room for agreement with someone in such a situation (and I'm also unsure about the concept that a perpetrator doesn't "get" to decide stuff - anybody can decide anything).
We could ask "ought he have forgiven" - and of course it would be wonderful for a rift to be healed and friendship to resume - but one's heart must do work to arrive at a point of forgiveness. The heart's work had not been done, for whatever reason, and so forgiveness was impossible! I guess in a certain interpretation of the phrase "getting" to decide it is the heart of the wronged person whose decision forgiveness must rest on. Anyway that's how I see it!
The comment on religion is the most sensible I have ever heard. This atheist will be repeating it in all my confrontational conversations down here in good, old (boy) Florida.😎
I'm with Pamela in the Unforgivable Story. Not that everything can be explained away, but I feel like it stands to reason that he valued the vase so much Because of the memories of he and his friend that it stood for. And in the end, he was willing to forfeit creating any new wonderful memories with her because she broke the Symbol of their early friendship, their past friendship. The early memories still remain, but he was throwing away a future for a symbol of the past. So anyway, I think he was wrong to not forgive her. You don't throw away a person for an object.
I have never read "The Satanic Verses". I might give a try. As for religion, I try to remind people with whom I talk about it (not at all anymore really) that the etymology of the word is to link back to or reconnect with our origins .
2nd, I thought the guy was valuing his idea of her friendship over the actual friendship, the thing over the person, which leads to the notion that he should forgive her & value her more than a thing.
3rd, I cycled back to not forgiving. Here’s why. Whether or not the object was valuable in itself, it was of value to him. When he did or said something, she deliberately & irrevocably destroyed the thing that represented their relationship. It shows him that she doesn’t value him, their relationship, or what matters to him, and is willing to destroy something he loves when he doesn’t agree with her. That’s a relationship ender. He saw when she revealed who she was, and how she felt about him, and believed her actions.
PSA: if an adult deliberately destroys something you love, that a red flag for abuse. (If a child does it it’s more likely that they don’t know how to express their frustration and hurt in words.) You can, after one incident, be justified in cutting contact. You can also give them a 2nd chance, but you might then always be on guard around them, because a 2nd incident is game over. Get out before they hurt more than your things. (In this case, the person he valued & thought he knew wouldn’t break his things to hurt him, so she wasn’t who he thought she was, and who she turned out to be is not someone he wanted to keep in his life.)
I think it's interesting that no one has suggested that the woman should have let go of the friendship when it was clear he no longer wanted the relationship to continue.
I'm not saying either side is right.
I have always been somewhat mystified by people's need for clear dualistic answers. I mean, the guy is absolutely intitled to be unforgiving and still he can be a jerk about it. It DOES matter if a parable is true, but the moral can be correct and a good lesson even if it is not. Though I suppose, thinking about it, I do long for clear simple answers sometimes, so I guess I mystify myself.
Thank you for another exelent news letter, enjoy your holiday break!
Now I desperately want to read the mystery children's book but know I probably never will be able to.
I think when he said "she never knew how much I valued what she broke.” - He wasn't talking about the vase...
I’ve had The Satanic Verses sitting unread on my shelf for at least three years. I bought thinking “this is something I should probably read,” but I could never find a compelling reason to actually do so. I think I assumed, as you mention, that it would be a rough and dense slog. This except has freed me from that misconception. I think it might be time to actually read it. Thank you.
Great Rushdie excerpt about the vase. I don't know how one can "agree" with one of the characters, though. It would have been better for all for the man to forgive the friend, yet the man could not bring himself to forgive her - I'm not sure if there's room for agreement with someone in such a situation (and I'm also unsure about the concept that a perpetrator doesn't "get" to decide stuff - anybody can decide anything).
We could ask "ought he have forgiven" - and of course it would be wonderful for a rift to be healed and friendship to resume - but one's heart must do work to arrive at a point of forgiveness. The heart's work had not been done, for whatever reason, and so forgiveness was impossible! I guess in a certain interpretation of the phrase "getting" to decide it is the heart of the wronged person whose decision forgiveness must rest on. Anyway that's how I see it!
The comment on religion is the most sensible I have ever heard. This atheist will be repeating it in all my confrontational conversations down here in good, old (boy) Florida.😎
I'm with Pamela in the Unforgivable Story. Not that everything can be explained away, but I feel like it stands to reason that he valued the vase so much Because of the memories of he and his friend that it stood for. And in the end, he was willing to forfeit creating any new wonderful memories with her because she broke the Symbol of their early friendship, their past friendship. The early memories still remain, but he was throwing away a future for a symbol of the past. So anyway, I think he was wrong to not forgive her. You don't throw away a person for an object.
I have never read "The Satanic Verses". I might give a try. As for religion, I try to remind people with whom I talk about it (not at all anymore really) that the etymology of the word is to link back to or reconnect with our origins .
WRT the vase, initially I thought
WTF? You don’t break someone else’s things!?!
2nd, I thought the guy was valuing his idea of her friendship over the actual friendship, the thing over the person, which leads to the notion that he should forgive her & value her more than a thing.
3rd, I cycled back to not forgiving. Here’s why. Whether or not the object was valuable in itself, it was of value to him. When he did or said something, she deliberately & irrevocably destroyed the thing that represented their relationship. It shows him that she doesn’t value him, their relationship, or what matters to him, and is willing to destroy something he loves when he doesn’t agree with her. That’s a relationship ender. He saw when she revealed who she was, and how she felt about him, and believed her actions.
PSA: if an adult deliberately destroys something you love, that a red flag for abuse. (If a child does it it’s more likely that they don’t know how to express their frustration and hurt in words.) You can, after one incident, be justified in cutting contact. You can also give them a 2nd chance, but you might then always be on guard around them, because a 2nd incident is game over. Get out before they hurt more than your things. (In this case, the person he valued & thought he knew wouldn’t break his things to hurt him, so she wasn’t who he thought she was, and who she turned out to be is not someone he wanted to keep in his life.)