. . . that think, a tragedy to those who feel.
- Horace Walpole

keep Walpole’s thought in mind while checking out
the video below

it features a young and cerebral Woody Allen, who
tells us about his second most powerful obsession -
comedy

as Allen discusses his tendency to see the comedic
possibilities in just about any situation, ponder about
the source of his humor -

does his comedy stem chiefly from thinking, as the
quotation by Walpole suggests?

or does it seem to flow from other sources as well;
sources such as underlying feeling state?

perhaps the relationship between comedy/tragedy
on the one hand and thinking/feeling on the other is
too complex to be expressed in a sentence or two

by the way, Allen’s first and most powerful
obsession is the subject of this second video

photo credit www.astr.ua.edu

Andrea Dworkin, author, activist and one of the
founders of the feminist movement has said,

All personal, psychological, social, and institution-
alized domination on this earth can be traced back
to its source: the phallic identities of men.

she has also said,

In this society, the norm of masculinity is phallic aggression. Male sexuality is, by definition, intensely and rigidly phallic. A man’s identity is located in his conception of himself as the possessor of a phallus; a man’s worth is located in his pride in phallic identity.

“Sexism is the foundation on which all tyranny is built. Every social form of hierarchy and abuse is modeled on male-over-female domination.”

these statements are intentionally provocative; and
are dismissed by many on this basis alone

others dismiss Dworkin’s remarks as “radical feminist
propaganda”

but, if viewed as psychological rather than political
statements, are they really so easy to quickly and
totally dismiss?

What would Freud have to say about Dwarkin’s
contentions?

What would he say about Dwarkin herself?

What would you say?

Sigmund Freud considered Love and Work to be the
two pillars of sanity

by Love, he meant deep and satisfying connections
with others

Work referred to engagement in tasks that we
regard as meaningful, and that bring us a sense of
fulfillment

Freud’s notions about the importance of what we do
and how well we are connected are worth pondering
about when we feel out of it, down in the dumps or
just plain lost

Love is an attempt to penetrate another being,
but it can only succeed if the surrender is mutual.

the above line was written by Nobel Prize winning
poet Octavio Paz

when i first read it, it seemed to strike a chord;
it seemed to make sense; but i soon realized that
i wasn’t really sure what it meant

there was something very interesting in Paz’s words;
but what was it?

i had something to PonderAbout

first, it was obvious that the key concept is surrender;
and not in the sense of surrendering in competition,
politics or war

that kind of surrender is clearly not a good thing;
it is - giving up, acquiescing, crying uncle . . .

Paz is not writing about that; he’s writing about
surrender as something positive, something that
pertains to love - not war

after some Googling and pondering , my
understanding of this kind of surrender was
starting to take shape

this surrender seemed to entail things like:

relaxing one’s guard
letting go of the need to be in control
trusting
being yourself
opening to another
overcoming selfishness and egocentricity
merging

surrender seemed to be a necessary step if one
is to move from an initial attraction to intimacy

surrender also seemed to be opportunity for
personal growth; a chance to achieve a kind of
developmental milestone, or else fail to achieve it,
and remain, at least temporarily, stunted

after thinking about these things for a while,
questions started to come to mind -

once surrender is “achieved”, is it a permanent
attainment; or only a temporary state, one that
fades as old habits reassert themselves?

do men find it more difficult than women to
understand and practice surrender?

what kind of life experiences interfere with
or facilitate surrender?

how often is mutual surrender, the surrender of both
lovers, actually achieved?

and what are the implications for a relationship if it
lacks mutual surrender?

all of the above issues and questions arising from
one simple sentence,

Love is an attempt to penetrate another being,
but it can only succeed if the surrender is mutual.
-Octavio Paz

the cellphone, to borrow a phrase from Mark Twain,
is a “modern inconvenience”

granted, it’s a pretty handy thing to have, but it
comes with a price - the loss of solitude and freedom

before the advent of the cellphone, there were many
times when a person was, by necessity, unreachable
and on his own - as when driving

then he could crank up the volume on the car radio,
press a little harder on the accelerator, take off and
begin to fly

today, it’s a little different -

one’s sense of freedom, one’s fortress of solitude
can come crashing down at any moment, with just
a little - ring . . . ring