Music & Champagne

A few days ago, I stood next to a tombstone which was engraved, in addition to the usual name and date, "Amo de la Musica y el Champagne." Lover of music and champagne. By my math, this Spanish speaker was 81 at the time of her death, nearly 82. Old age takes on a whole new dimension: the idea that who we are, our joy of life, continues with us into our twilight years suggests that the sun will continue to shine instead. As another bystander commented that day: "Don't you want them to say that about you, when you go?" Lover of music and champagne, indeed.

I was, of course, standing in a cemetery (the Hebrew, which translates to "House of Forevers" is such a much nicer name). I was, of course, attending a funeral.

The man who had died, a friend's father whom I first met when I was 18, had that same joy of life. He lived with gusto. When I last saw him, six weeks earlier, he looked at me, grinned, and in a booming voice audible to the entire courtyard in which we stood, proclaimed, "I LOVE YOU BECAUSE YOU REMEMBER ME WHEN I WAS YOUNG." Maybe those were not his exact words. Maybe he said "knew" instead of "remember"; maybe he said, "like" or "love seeing you," but no matter. You get the point.

I should be clear: to my eyes, he looked the same as he had when I met him. He hadn't aged, as far as I was concerned...and perhaps I didn't see him as all that young when I met him as my friend's father all those years ago. He was a "grownup," after all. But he really did look the same. I'm sure he'd slowed down a bit, but in my brief encounters with him of late, I didn't perceive it, not really. Trim beard? Check. Shiny pate? Check. Larger than life personality? Check. Love of family - and even the friends of his family? The most important Check.

In fact, I have been quoting (or misquoting) that utterance for a month, in my attempt to characterize this man, my friend's father, who demonstrated (in another original quote that doesn't pertain to this post) that he was a big fan of mine - and that he thought everyone should be. More to the point today, everyone was a big fan of his.

Let's talk about decisions. This was a man who, upon his death, could only be described as one who chose to live well. Born a Jew in the Soviet Union, he uprooted his family and brought them to America for freedom and Judaism and who knows what opportunity. His daughters embodied his kind of American dream, becoming both learned in Torah and attending the top universities in the country. And they followed their father's choice of life - but it entailed uprooting themselves and their families to settle in Israel, embodying the Jewish dream of centuries. And this man (and his wife) followed his children (ahem, grandchildren) to resettle himself in his years of retirement. Another uprooting, but by all accounts, in the end, it was done with joy.

Back in the day, when I was more of a regular in their home (how many times was a really there? Twice? Three times? It certainly felt like more...), I was amused by the family dynamic - to the extent that I dubbed the dinner table a "sitcom." The family remembers this - six weeks ago, my friend's sister (who after all these years may also be called "friend," I believe) reminded me of it, and maintained that nothing has changed. Rather, they now have spinoffs upon spinoffs (starring the grandchildren, of course).

What do I remember? I remember that this man got in the car one Sunday morning to drive his daughter to visit her boyfriend (now husband), who was working in a summer camp. The drive was approximately 3 hours. Each way. I know. I was in the car (for me, it was just a fun Sunday - to visit friends - but then, I wasn't driving).

I remember, from the stories at the table, that in his excitement to be able to keep kosher, my friend's father could not believe the vast number of products that were under rabbinic supervision. Until he discovered that the symbol of an "R" surrounded by a circle is not the same as the symbol of a "U" surrounded by a circle.

I remember that, more recently, every time I ended up at my friend's for a visit, and saw her father after shul, he greeted me with that booming excitement, apparently rather happy to see me, always asking me how I was doing, and so on. Despite many years separating my visits. As a fairly reserved person, I might have retreated from his welcome, but I never felt invaded or put on the spot. Rather, the opposite is true: he brought out my own ability to smile big. It did not surprise me (or anyone) to hear my friend say, in her eulogizing her father, that this man could not walk down the street without stopping every few blocks (yards? feet?) to shake hands with yet another acquaintance. 

Even when things were hard - even when daily circumstances shifted (different countries, different health at home) - it was that effusive personality that put everyone at ease, that approached every day with healthy perspective, that carried out every act with dedication, that I think embodied a decision to live with joy. .

I've always liked the dedication of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik's Lonely Man of Faith, to his wife, "a woman of great courage, sublime dignity, total commitment, and uncompromising truthfulness." It's a strong characterization, and I've always understood that she was an impressive, formidable woman.

But what's missing in that dedication (though perhaps not in the woman herself, a"h - I don't know) is the recognition that appreciating the fun in life makes it joyful - with music and champagne. Or a sitcom, if need be  And life is better when it can be lived with joy. An object lesson from my friend's father - on how to live from now until that house of forevers.

יהי זכרו ברוך

Bad Choices: When the Pickin's Are Slim

Often, I've discussed bad choices in the context of those I could have should have made better.

I've talked about it being bad when the choice is out of your hands.

Today's conundrum is when your options are limited to begin with. Rather, mine.

Under such circumstances, I have been rebuked for my lack of enthusiasm for an option that I am certain is not a good one for me.

Now, I make no pretense of being omniscient. It is always and certainly possible that I am wrong. Even when I'm certain that I'm right. But I'm tired of being told that just because you had an idea, I need to think it's a good idea.

Specifically, I'm talking about dating.

Here's what happened: a friend of mine knows I'm officially in the market for a serious relationship. She suggested I meet the guy she'd just met herself, whom she deemed "a nice guy, but not for her." I appreciate her estimation of him and her thinking of me. But I realized that I know who this guy is and what I know of him makes it unbelievably clear to me that he is not for me (nor I for him).

My well-intentioned friend points out that a cup of coffee is an hour of my life, what do I have to lose? I agree...except that in this case, the guy would have traveled a bit to meet me, and I don't see why I should waste more than an hour of his life, if I'm already clear that we are not going any further than that.

I've always thought that the reason people date (not the "have a good time" motive, but when intent on a real relationship) is to see if they might (eventually) want to spend the rest of their lives together, however that works for them. Thus, if I already know that I don't want to spend the rest of my life with someone, I should not be meeting him under the rubric of "dating."

My friend's response, however, was a put-down: "Good grief."

I've been dating for a while. Admittedly, not successfully in that "rest of my life" kind of way. But I've been exceedingly successful in knowing when the guy is not right for me - and not because I write him off, but because he articulates that conclusion before I have to. Yes, of course, sometimes he wants to continue when I don't, and on the rare occasion when I meet someone whom I find compatible, it has happened that I've been the one to envision more. Nearly always, however, the sense of "wrong" is clear to both of us.

I accept that I'm a challenge - not that I'm such a difficult personality (I'm pretty sure that nearly all of the time, I'm not, and I'm not just saying that because I'm me), but that I don't fit into categories and labels and so on all that easily, which makes it harder to find someone comparable. Indeed, when one of those rare compatible guys recently told me that he wanted "to find someone like you," with the clear indication "but not you," I refrained from pointing out that no one else out there fits that bill (and others agree that I'm not just saying that because I'm me).

http://www.tributemedia.com/blog/kelsey-bates/nows-time-be-unique

But just because relationships and compatibility are complicated (often, anyway) doesn't mean that I need to meet anyone you suggest just because he's available. At this stage of the game, I've earned the right to trust myself as to who is going to be wrong for me, even if I can't know yet who is going to be right for me.

"Good grief" says I'm doing something wrong in dismissing someone I know quite a bit about just because I haven't met him in person. I understand the criticism, but I find it misplaced. If I knew nothing about the guy, I would meet him on my friend's say-so. But I do know about him. So for all that "you never know," sometimes, truly, you know!

I have to trust myself, or I've got nothing. I have to trust also that if the guy is right for me and I'm being "stubborn" in my perception that he's not, then time will tell, and I'll be corrected, but not because I've been rebuked for acting as I see fit. The pool of guys who are eligible for me is not large, and the pool of those who might actually be compatible is far smaller. At the end of the day, however, it only takes one (please God). And if my options are limited, that does not tell me that I should entertain bad ideas simply because they've been suggested. As much as I have a real interest in finding the guy who is right for me, I have no interest in dating "just because."

Am I being picky? There are those who credit me with "always being open-minded." Truthfully, they're giving me too much credit, at least, these days. I'm willing to be open-minded about most things, including all kinds of difficult things (most notably, what luggage the guy is shlepping along with him), but only within the pool of guys who might actually be compatible. Let's call it beneficially selective. And if you think that makes me picky, well, consider the guy who at 45 (I think) refused to date anymore. He'd had enough, there was nobody out there for him, and there was no changing his mind. Except that an ill friend asked him to meet her friend, and he couldn't refuse that. He married that date. It's no predictor for anyone else, necessarily, but clearly opting out of the bad choices doesn't mean the good one won't find you.

...or what's a heaven for?

http://yag65.deviantart.com/art/487-352902985
If I could buy this print, I would, but so far it's only available at the above URL.

There Are Ways...And There Are Ways...

That's my final decision, and I don't want to discuss it more, or read
or hear any more about why you feel differently. It takes an emotional
toll to keep reading or hearing about it. I want it behind me.

Ironically, the above was said as a reaction against something that hadn't even been said. It's a harsh statement that suggests the context of an argument. But I hadn't been arguing. Nearly three weeks earlier, it had already been exceedingly, if unfortunately, clear to me that the decision was final. While it's true that I didn't think the decision should have been final (or made at all, for that matter), after my initial plea for a different course of action three weeks earlier, I left off agitating for what I thought to be better.

Which is not to say that I left off communicating altogether. Hindsight suggests that I should have. There's no question but that it would have been more considerate of me to have left things alone altogether. But I was experiencing my own emotional toll, and no longer had the context to warrant moving myself over to honor the preferences of the other. Maybe if I'd had hope that reticence would have produced a different result, I would have managed it. But I didn't.

Thus did I express what I found myself pressed to express.

In my own defense, I will say that I revised and edited and re-read and re-read before hitting Send (email, of course). I made sure that I wasn't lashing out. I kept from being defensive or attacking or whining. Believe me, I have greater reason in this particular circumstance to lash out. An attack from me would have been understandable, and more warranted. But instead of wanting to slash tires and the like, I was stuck in caring and gratitude and whatever shredded modicum of hope I could muster.

I tried really hard to pay attention to the impact my words would have on my reader - since I couldn't manage my reader's ideal of no words from me at all.

So what makes me find the above statement particularly harsh is that it was not couched in any niceties at all. I understand that it was coming from a place of frustration and hurt and some measure of emotional turmoil...but the same point could have been made nicely, and without the implicit attack on me. Some recognition of how that "final decision" was affecting me (not well) would have been welcome. Made the undesirable decision that was not mine more manageable.

It may not be fair for me to judge others for their decisions when I think they're wrongly made and poorly rendered, but in my unfairness, it is clear to me that the same message wasn't presented...well, better.

Good Deed of the Day

This is not a moralizing post. I'm just pleased that I decided to overcome my baser (shyer) instincts, and succeeded.

This morning, as I rode the bus to work, I saw - thought I saw - a man's hat drop from inside his hood to the floor behind him. Notice it! I thought to myself. But he didn't.

Let me explain that even in a friendly country where everyone takes your business to be their own, I have a hard time approaching strangers to comment on their well-being.

I decided I would tell the man he'd dropped his hat when he stood up to get off the bus (my stop is second-to-last). But he didn't stand up. And some woman sat in the seat behind him where his hat lay on the floor, against the wall of the bus.

You know the image of the little angel on one shoulder and the little devil on the other? Well, finally, the angel won.

I stood a moment earlier than my stop and approached the man in his seat: Sir...sir? It seems that your hat has fallen. He scrounged around, found it, and thanked me.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/vintage_advertising/pool/page91/?view=lg

We all (I hope) do some good every day, whether we think about it or not. What good did you decide to do today?

Experiencing the Sudden Blurts

I start with the mistaken premise that people make decisions in the same way.

I refine this premise when I recall that some people are more swayed by their emotions and some people are more rational - specifically with regard to how they make decisions (some of the most rational people rely on their emotions for their decisions, and emotional people certainly exercise their powers of reason when they make their choices).

I think I'd like to characterize the "rational decision-making" as "slow" and the "emotional decision-making" as "quick," even though the process for the key players may take equal amounts of time (fast or slow, depending on all of the factors that every decision may depend on).

I'm particularly struck by this difference because of some decisions I had to make myself a three months ago. I wasn't sure what I wanted, I then was pretty sure what I wanted, but I couldn't act on it until I was truly sure, and then, I was sure, and took action (not very active action - just sending an email). I made the decision knowing that I couldn't know whether the outcome I wanted would happen (more than just the receipt of the email, obviously), but I couldn't have made the decision without knowing what I hoped for.

Time, I figured, would take care of the rest.

Except the backdrop against which I'd done my thinking and acting changed. My experience of that change was a sudden denouement (how can a denouement be sudden? trust me on this - it can). Where the reflection that went into the action that precipitated the change may have been in the works for a while, but it was behind the scenes. That is, my experience was that of a conclusion brought to my attention in blurted out spurts.

I respect the honesty that underlies that approach. It has the disadvantage of not being measured in delivery. It also has the disadvantage (for me) of not including me in the process. Not that everyone always does, or even can - I realize that. I realize also that the results of my own decision a couple of months ago (that email) came as a surprise to its recipient. Perhaps an email that arrives out of the blue, even when you think you want it to, even when you feel "blessed" by virtue of my decision, and even when you've been consulted as to whether you're amenable, is experienced as a sudden blurt as well.

I know that most decisions are made instantly by means of emotion (more on this in another post). But since I'm prone to "thinking things through" - a.k.a. agonizing - it is particularly challenging to bear the brunt of the quick result.

Of course, time will still take care of the rest.

Other People's Calls

I've written several times on the impact of making a decision in the context of those made by others. It's one of the hardest aspects of hashing through your issues and arriving at your own independent conclusions. That is, no matter how much painful effort you make, you may soon discover that your investment matters not a whit. Well, maybe a whit - you wouldn't be who you are without the decisions  you make. But if the university of your choice, or the profession you desire, or the raise you deserve are not available to you, then it doesn't matter that you figured out what would be best for you.

Every so often, we have the chance to tell "others" what we think of their decisions. Especially when their decisions pertain to our own (when they are less removed than a university acceptance committee, or the like). Admittedly, this is not always a good idea. Nobody wants to be called a fool - no matter how foolish you've assessed them to be. And, of course, anyone who concludes differently from ME is surely a fool, no? To my mind, that is an exaggeration; sometimes, we have the opportunity to agree to disagree. But if your decision contradicts my hard-won conclusion, then I'm going to be hard-pressed to think you're right. You may be entitled to your position, but that doesn't mean I'm going to think it's a good one. I might even do everything I can to help you see things my way. Attempting to reverse another is not particularly respectful, of course. But despite my general interest in wanting people to think and do whatever it is that they want themselves to think and do, it's near impossible (for me, anyway) to refrain from correcting the undesirable outcome that contradicts my own conclusions - when it has impact on me, I mean.

Yes, one such conflict hit me over the head the other day. I'm not seeing stars. I'm not even sure I'm reeling. But I'm hard-pressed to relinquish my perception of what I think ought to transpire, despite the fact that the choice may well be out of my hands.

http://fantasystock.deviantart.com/art/Male-and-Female-Hands-Set-06-50386071

Misinformation

I'm not sure if it's fair to call the absence of correct information "misinformation," since the deliberate misleading factor is missing...but I will say that it is very difficult to make good decisions in the absence of accurate information.

For example, this morning.

I woke up, got out of bed...and out of the house very early. I needed two items for my day that I did not have at home, and would not be able to obtain at work. A variety of options presented themselves:

a) I could stop at the makolet (convenience store). They open at 7:00 AM, and if I rushed, I could probably even make the 7:20-ish bus. But the makolet is expensive.

b) I could stop at the slightly-further-away neighborhood supermarket. They open at 6:30 AM (I think), and if I missed the 7:20 bus, the supermarket places me on my way to other buses, so any real delay would be unlikely. But they're also expensive.

Instead, I decided to be "smart."

c) The office complex where I spend much of my working hours is across the street from a major mall. The mall has a supermarket on its ground floor. That supermarket, though by no means the cheapest in the city, was likely to have better prices than the neighborhood supermarket, and by going there, I'd certainly make my early bus...and get in to work quickly.

Indeed, I made the early bus. I sat one additional stop, getting off at the mall, crossed the street, and entered through the garage, heading to the mall supermarket. The time was 7:40...as I discovered when the security guard at the gated entrance to the supermarket told me that the store only opens at 8:00 AM.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mlrs193/6015396482/

If I'd only but known...

For a Change, New Year's Eve

I've written extensively enough about specific resolutions and the value of making resolutions that I thought I'd try something different this time.

Let's try tootling along. It's a merry way.

I'm as good as the next one - likely better - at driving myself crazy with decisions, resolutions, and re-thinking (to wit, this blog). Having recently experienced the high degree of edginess that follows in the wake of too much of all that, and having spent enough minutes, hours, days, and weeks of this past year in the deep throes of decision-making, I think it's time to relax a bit, take things in stride, and let the year come (with greatness, please!) as it may.

Quick: Speaking vs. Silence?

For the most part, I sign on to the proverbial wisdom that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. "Proverbial wisdom" in that, while I've seen this line attributed to Mark Twain, George Elliot, Abraham Lincoln, and others, the proverb that makes the point translates to, "Even a fool, when he holds his peace, is counted wise; and he that shuts his lips is esteemed as a man of understanding." For the purists among you, "גַּם אֱוִיל מַחֲרִישׁ, חָכָם יֵחָשֵׁב; אֹטֵם שְׂפָתָיו נָבוֹן" (Proverbs 17:28).

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/only-in-silence-the-word

Nonetheless, the same King Solomon who authored Proverbs points out elsewhere (Ecclesiastes 3: 7, according to the teaching that he authored this wisdom literature as well) that there are indeed times to speak: עֵת לַחֲשׁוֹת וְעֵת לְדַבֵּר.

So, the question is - when is the better part of wisdom to stick your neck out and say something, and when should you keep quiet? And...how to choose between the two, of course. Surely, we can list the scenarios when one might deliberate whether to say anything.

High on the list is rebuke - when is it appropriate to rebuke another person? What relationship must be in place for rebuke to have a chance of being effective?

As a matter of Jewish law, giving rebuke is a mitzvah - commanded (since I'm giving sources today, see Leviticus 19:17). But the legal commentators limit that requirement to only those circumstances in which one has hope of being effective. Indeed, that may depend on the relationship - parents, teachers, authority figures may have better hope of exhorting the change they wish to see. It may also depend on the manner of rebuke. The general rule is that one attracts more flies with honey than with vinegar (who wants to attract flies, honestly?), and often a sweet approach will coax another to your cause, even unto reforming him or herself. But sometimes, firm tough love is not only the best means of rehabilitating undesirable behavior, but the only means (tough on the practitioner, though).

Low on the list is unsolicited criticism - when is it appropriate to criticize another, unasked? What relationship must be in place for criticizing to be legitimate (even if it might be warranted)?

If criticism is constructive, then it does not fall into this category. I mean the kind of critique that feels gratuitous, even if the critic has a point. And for this kind of speech, two really good rules of thumb are available: "when in doubt, do without" (if you aren't sure if you should criticize, you'll probably do better keeping your mouth shut); and "if you don't have anything nice to say, say nothing." That second rule is especially useful to people who believe that any and all of their criticism is constructive - though the recipients of their instruction react otherwise. Are there any relationships where gratuitous criticism is warranted? I'll go out on a limb and say no. If you are in a position of being responsible for the welfare or improvement of another, then figure out how to turn your gratuitous criticism constructive. Or keep it to yourself.

In between (well, since I'm not suggesting the effective rebuke and egregious criticism are the extreme ends of the spectrum, these are officially "in between" too, but no matter), fall all of the comments that you want to say, but aren't sure you should and all of the comments that you know you must say, but really don't want to.

• You have lettuce between your teeth.
• I'm just not that into you.
• or alternatively, early on: You're the best thing that ever happened to me.
• The boss thought you were out of line.
• I'll do this work for free.
• You have a lot of nerve...
• No problem!

Do you want to say the unpopular thing? I bet you don't. I bet you don't want to render yourself vulnerable either. Most people avoid putting themselves at risk most of the time. Even when it behooves them to stick their neck out. Though if you really don't know what you're talking about, you'll do far better by keeping quiet.

And for the extremes...

The above deliberations do not address the obvious requirement to notify sleeping folks of fire in a burning building, or key authorities regarding caregiver abuse, or any of those other occasions when one is simply required to speak. Nor do they address the obvious requirement to refrain from slander and hate-speech. 

One final opportunity to speak or remain silent stops me in my tracks. The trickiest "in-between" cases, I believe, are when speaking will make or break the dynamic between people. When describing a situation makes it real...or when expressing an observation destroys what there was to be seen...When talking something through gets you through...or when talking about conflict highlights problems that otherwise might not truly have existed... Sometimes, words are required; sometimes, words shatter the moment.

Note that this post is not the "final word" on when to speak. We return to Proverbs (18:21) to remember that life and death are in the hands of the tongue - or, more precisely (since that figure of speech makes little sense: מָוֶת וְחַיִּים, בְּיַד-לָשׁוֹן - Death and life are in the power of the tongue. Whither speech?