Bad Choices: Negligence

Can I post about negligence when I still haven't fulfilled the responsibility that I'd neglected? (Suffice it to say that a deadline passed on the calendar, and despite the fact that I'd been aware of it the week before, I missed it, and was rather mortified, and surprised to discover that. Now, once missed, it seems easy to continue to defer.)

Negligence is often rooted in apathy. Sometimes, inadvertent apathy, as in my case, where I had every expectation of meeting my deadline. But the week in which it appeared was somehow fraught, and the responsibility at hand received insufficient attention. Hence, apathy. Leading to negligence.

How can negligence be a matter of choice? That is, unless there is a conscious, active decision to ignore a responsibility. Negligence is rarely a matter of choice. But therein lies the "bad choice." The bad choice of not paying attention.

Bad choices began in Eden. And while the snake acted out of spite (he's called "tricky," or "subtle," or "crafty," depending on your translation), and Eve responded to temptation (she suddenly saw that the fruit looked quite appealing: "good to eat, and pleasing to the eye"), Adam was guilty of negligence. He simply stopped paying attention. That is, Eve gave Adam the fruit, and he ate it. Done. He ate it. What, did he forget?!? God had given him very explicit instructions about not eating that particular fruit. To think that he didn't realize what he was doing...well, anyone can make that kind of mistake. Just wasn't paying attention. We've all made errors like that... But his absence of awareness was rather costly.

I'm hoping my own negligence yields no more lasting ramifications than my own mortification. Which, if I didn't mention it here, you wouldn't even know about. Though perhaps, if nothing else, by articulating our inattentions, we bring them to our attention, and combat the lazy inclination to be distracted from tasks that await our gaze.

The Big Ones

One might argue that every choice we make changes our lives. One would be right, but that doesn't make every choice count as a "life-changing decision." The big ones are the ones for which I would like that window to the future. In the continued absence of reliable prophecy in my life, however, I'd like to recognize that not all "big decisions" are made in the same way, even by the same people.

Some decisions are weighed carefully, pros and cons, ad nauseum.
Some decisions are transferred to experts, for their valued opinions.
Some decisions are deferred until the default becomes the decision.
Some decisions are made impulsively - yes, even the big ones. Sometimes, especially them.
Some decisions are so difficult to make that they aren't decided; just carried out.
Some decisions aren't made - they are simply that obvious a course of action. No thinking required.

Personally, I most often weigh my decisions carefully, ad nauseum. In the process, I tend to search out the opinions of others, sometimes because I value their input, and sometimes because I know I will "know my own mind" by means of my reaction to their views.  I have, on occasion, made big decisions without thinking - perhaps being impulsive (alternatively, "going with my gut").  Rarely, if ever, am I willing to ignore the fact that decision remains to be made, and let the status quo reign (unless I've consciously decided to go with the status quo, of course).

The advantage of being an "active decision-maker," is that I'm rarely caught unawares.  Thinking through every angle of an option removes a lot of the surprises that might result otherwise. The disadvantage is that I remain aware of the pros and cons of my choice.  For most of my life, I have rarely had reason to rethink myself (after all that deliberation). I am generally left with the power of my own convictions.  But I wonder if I'm ever as "gung-ho" about anything as those who don't examine all the angles are able to be.  Moreover, of late, I find that I can blame this personality of mine for (sometimes) bequeathing me with decisions that I know I have made well, yet somehow remain ambivalent about.  This is new.  Moreover, I may (perhaps) be hampered in my ability to be as enamored of the things I have chosen -- despite the care that informs my choice.

Big decisions are just that -- BIG.  People get cold feet before their weddings. Moving house is traumatic.  When my sister was asked when she and her husband were going to start a family, she answered that they'd be getting a dog first (for the record, that didn't happen, but kids are most definitely a life-changing big "decision," even when the desire to have them is a given).  Making life-changes, even when you know what you want, and want it desperately, often takes time.  Still, when the desire to live out your dreams is burning, then the choices along the way to the dream can be rendered incidental.  When you have many dreams, however, and the ability to live them is not entirely under your control (it never is), the desire is inherently more complicated, and the choices are anything but incidental.  Then, the big decisions must be made - consciously, deliberately, and often with ambivalence. Thus, we grab the proverbial bull by its proverbial horns, and await the results and consequences of our choices.  It doesn't nullify ambivalence.  But, actually, it's not a bad way to live with confidence.

Quick: Car or Public Transportation?

Let's say that money is no object. It always is, of course, but if financial constraints were to win the day, then very few people would be driving personal cars.

Would you rather drive yourself? Or would you rather join the hoi polloi on the bus or the train? Note that "public transportation" in this choice does not include bicycles or unicycles or skateboards or feet. The question is a narrow one: when you need to travel to a place that is far enough that the "green" modes of transportation are not viable, what is your preference?

In your own car, you're (largely) in control. You set climate and entertainment (not to mention the angle of your seat) in accord with your own comfort. You "own the road." You're also traveling on your own schedule. Of course, in your own car, you also have to be alert (please, please no texting!!). No ability do anything last minute "on the way." You have to have gas in the tank, and cash for tolls (or an E-Z Pass).  And let's not forget directions (or GPS) to get you where you're going.

The bus/train option may have inconvenient departure and arrival times, but gives you the wonderful (sometimes) opportunity to sit back and enjoy the ride. Your level of responsibility for your transportation is minimal. And if you enjoy making new friends and influencing people, you may just have the chance to do so while sitting amongst your fellow travelers. Of course, once you consider inter-city buses and subways, the experience may take a turn for the worse. Unless you enjoy ever closer proximity with your fellow travelers (and on occasion, their stench).

I like driving.  Not traffic.  Really not traffic.  But I like getting myself where I want to be.  I like the independence.  I don't even mind getting lost (though it is more than a little nerve-wracking when there are time constraints, and I need to draw upon the generous assistance of friends to navigate for me via the computer map and cell phone).  But the open road with a view - I just can't complain.

How about you?

Love Verdicts (2)

Since we're talking about love and we're talking about decisions -- what do you do when you see that a relationship is more difficult than most people think relationships should be? Do you tell yourself - "I'm in love, and love conquers all"? Or do you say - "Enough is enough is enough"?

Sometimes, the different approaches may be ascribed to personality. Are you the kind of person who quits while you're ahead? Or never until you're far behind? Other times, reacting to a relationship is due to the relationship itself. I know, for example, that I am prone to toughing out the tough times in a relationship until I'm far far far behind....but I also know that I don't do that for "just anyone." He'd have to worth my trying that hard to begin with.

What happens when there are external factors making the relationship difficult? Family members...mental illness (or condition, anyway)...job responsibilities...children and/or exes.... At what point do you say, "this person is worth all the travail, all the garbage, all the toil, and therefore nothing will ever push me to leave"? At what point do you say, "I love THIS person, but not all the baggage he or she brings to the relationship, and therefore I must move on"?

What happens when you sacrifice yourself for the sake of your significant other? That is, when you abandon critical parts of yourself to accommodate the needs (or even only preferences) of him or her. On the one hand, that sounds like a travesty. It's so ingrained that we must be true to ourselves. But doesn't every relationship inherently demand self-sacrifice, and even self-effacement, on occasion? And if it's just a matter of degree, when does one put the needs of the other first to such dire effect that he or she has crossed the line into "travesty"?

Often, the most obvious decision with regard to love is whether to continue pursuing it. Except that for those in love, it's rarely a decision. For years, I have been hearing about how brain scans of a person falling in love light up in the same places that cocaine addicts' brains light up (that is, romantic love is fundamentally a "reward" like food and drink and drugs to an addict). But a more recent study (2010) indicates that the process of falling in love may take no more than one-fifth of a second (for the newspaper account, see here; for the scholarship, see here). No matter what you believe about free will, a fifth of a second does not leave much window for deliberative conclusions. And then, you're addicted. No hope at all of deciding that a given dynamic might be bad for you. Too late. You're hooked.

The very worst might be when you know - you know! - that you ought to be loving him (or her). You have so much in common. You connect beautifully. You "tick" compatibly. You communicate effectively together.  And yet, for whatever reason, the "chemistry" isn't there. Oh, I take it back. Worse than that is when all of that is in place, but the chemistry is indeed there for you, but not for him (or her). Dashed hope - the worst! You have a glimmer of the best that could be (for you). That powerful, addictive profound love that lights up our brains like cocaine seems within reach. His (or her) verdict against that is particularly painful. Especially because you don't share it. But also, simply, because the good you see seems not to be.

In light of all of these decisions of love, however, I'm reminded by a friend's point: the same way you can't outrun ill-fortune, the good will find you too. Perhaps it's fatalistic or perhaps it's faith, but the notion of "meant-to-be" (more another time) is very helpful. For if it is meant to be, it will be. The good will find you. Eventually. We hope.

DISCLAIMER: Significant readers (like my mother) like to infer that anything I write here is a direct commentary on my life. Au contraire. Often, something I encounter will trigger a formulation or provoke my desire for further investigation. To that extent, my reality is indeed represented here. But if I had any interest in a personal expose blog, I would not be writing "Choices."

Bad Choices: Beverages

(Lots of links - click throughout for full effect)

Coca-cola is not as bad for you as it once was. The myth that Coke once contained cocaine is not a myth. But even without the cocaine, Coca-cola is no health-beverage. Between the sugar and the colorings and the caffeine....But those same complaints can be made about virtually every soft-drink available (well, some have no caffeine, and others have strong sweeteners that are not sugar, and some have no artificial color, but you get the idea, anyway).

At the opposite end of the health-drink spectrum, we find green tea, which is the new panacea for all ills. Or so the media would have us believe. And maybe they're right. Similarly, all kinds of concocted smoothies (some holding far more appeal than others) are purported to solve all ills. (For the record, I haven't sampled any of the recipes in the links, so I'm not endorsing some and panning others - I'm just talking about the initial impression of tastiness or lack thereof).

Some accuse soft-drinks of causing the American epidemic of obesity (though others - rather dramatically, and perhaps unrealistically - disagree). But even if soda isn't the devil incarnate, it's not the best choice, regardless.

I am lucky, perhaps. I don't like soda. I don't like the taste of cola and I don't like the fizz of anything else (well, except champagne). My beverage of choice is nearly always water. That would be water at room temperature, to the dismay of my friends from Memphis (in particular), who believe water should come with ice cubes. I've been teaching myself to drink herbal tea too, and I don't think that's a poor choice.

But every so often, I indulge....I have discovered an apple juice that claims to be cider...though if it's cider, it's certainly not any New England cider that I know. But it's also not a regular apple juice. It has a very clear taste...very smooth. It's from Moshav Keshet, in the north of Israel, and it reminds me of the cloudy apple juice from my grandparents' house, when I was a kid (which I thought was kind of strange, at the time). In the weeks (months?) since I've discovered it, nostalgia has only overcome me a couple of times.... Cloudy apple juice with the smoothest, coolest, most refreshing taste. As for nutrition - well, it's hard to know. Some apple juices have loads of vitamin C, among other nutrients. Others are not much more than sugar water. This is organic and fresh, so I have to assume it has some nutritional value.  But the plain old water is clearly much better for me....and for the most part, I'll stick with it.

Love Verdicts (1)

"To Love or Not To Love" only introduces the topic of love in the context of dilemma. I would wager, actually, that for most people alive, their hardest decisions are rooted in issues of love. Yet, love sometimes renders decision-making utterly beside the point. Let's consider....

The most famous love verdict in the history of the world (gotta love the hyperbole) is surely that found in Kings 1, chapter 3. In my own words....

Two prostitutes (yes) brought their case before King Solomon who had just been granted his wish of wisdom (instead of long life, riches, etc.). The first woman told the story that the two women lived in the same house, and had been pregnant together. The first woman delivered three days before her house-mate, and claimed that the second woman had smothered her child in the middle of the night (accidentally, by lying on it, which we might call negligence, and not merely an accident). She maintained that the second woman then switched the babies, so that the first woman woke up to a dead babe in her arms. The second woman contradicted this claim (of course), maintaining that the dead child was indeed the other woman's, and the living child her own. To put an end to the squabbling in the throne room (and to settle the dispute justly, of course), King Solomon called for a sword to split the baby in two, so that the women could each have her half a child. A wise solution in that the maternal love refused this damage to her child. Though one woman agreed to the king's plan, the other said, no, give the child to the other woman. Better the child should survive, though she lose the case.

In the Book of Kings, the story introduces the clever wisdom of Solomon to his realm. For the rest of us, the story is a profound testimony to a mother's love -- not merely because she relinquishes her side of the debate, but because the king could rely on the fact that she would. His assumption is presented as fact: a mother wants her child to live, no matter what. Perversely, I wonder if it's really a commentary on motherhood: regardless of who birthed the child, none who could agree to cutting the baby in half could ever be a true mother -- even if she physically bears children. Ironically, and I don't recall noticing it before today, the text does not indicate which of the two women protested the sword. My assumption has always been that the first women, the one who tells the tale, is bearing false witness (well, kind of). I'm no longer sure why....it seemed to be the flow of the narrative, but I have seen commentary (and there is virtually none on this particular question) that says the claimant (i.e., our first woman) is the mother who jumps in to say - "I take it back. Give the baby to the other woman." Which, as I consider it, makes more sense -- that the woman who brings the case to court has the true grievance. Yet, we know that people bring all kinds of lying grievances to court...which returns us to the text itself. It doesn't specify, and in teaching us of a mother's profound love (and of Solomon's profound wisdom), it does not need to.

I once heard a wise friend thank her eldest son for teaching her the meaning of love. As yet, I suppose I cannot relate, but I have no doubt that the love of parents for their children is surely sui generis (one-of-a-kind, if your Latin is rusty). It is more generous than the love those same children for their parents (with legal ramifications when allegations are made that a parent harmed a child (vs. a child harming a parent)). And it is selfless and unconditional in a way that romantic love cannot be. Rather, a child is an extension of self, to a great degree, and loving a child is not contingent on anything. There is nothing for this mother to decide. Her child should live.

Yes, I am aware that there are all kinds of counter-examples, including parents who are separated from their children at birth (sometimes), and people who are unwell....but as verdicts go, a parent's love requires no convincing arguments. The true mother in King Solomon's court does not take a moment to consider - she jumps in to save her baby from the sword. I am sure that you would do the same. Indeed, the hard decision here is not the mother's...but the king's. No wonder it is the paradigm to teach of his wisdom.