of those limited choices, I would choose to be the lover. It probably incorporates parts of all the others, anyway. The athletic bit goes without saying, right? Businessperson because, in love as in all other human interaction, it's at least somewhat ruled by negotiation and compromise. As for cook, that's the application of creativity to the best things we can do. Finally, the moralist. I think it's possible to be a fine lover and a moralist at the same time, because a moralist is not without sin - it's "one who follows a system of moral principles." Moral principles are not incompatible with sex; it just requires flexibility and finesse.
a CEO. Athletes make me uncomfortable. Chefs work terrible hours. Sex therapist... nope. Just no. And, a minister? Not at all likely to be interested in me.
Besides, it would be novel to date someone in charge of something, both capable of and comfortable with making decisions.
Would you send your child to an expensive school if you knew that they would become a truck driver anyway?
I'd rather be a truck driver than have nothing better to say for myself than "I went to an expensive school." The world needs truck drivers! Being a truck driver - or having any other practical job - is not a let down; far from it. It can be rewarding, lucrative, interesting and fun, and greatly appeals to people with certain attributes, like self-sufficiency, time- and stress-management, reliability, and good communication. Hmm, that sounds like most managers I've known.
Would you rather live in a society in which everyone gets the same education or one in which select people receive a great one? 
arguably I do live in each of these societies at once, depending upon who you ask. (I'm addressing only K-12 here, by the way. Higher education is its own minefield and can be handled elsewhere.) Some people believe that education standards have resulted in "everyone getting the same education", while others believe that it might provide equality only, leaving 2/3 of students with a view of a wall rather than a game (see image at right).
I believe that education is not as much what's given to you, but what you do with what you're given. Each of us learns in slightly different ways, though. I benefit from time to work on my own, while some people learn more from interacting with others. Some by watching, some by doing. In that way, we ought not to give "the same" education to everyone.
But, should anyone - any select people - receive a great education, to the detriment of others? No. That's just not cricket.
yes, if I had the luxury of choice. I worked for a company that, while not rising to the point of "questionable ethics" is definitely not as clean as they pretend to be, or even as clean as they think they are. There's probably nothing willfully illegal going on there, but, negligent...? Yeah. And I wouldn't work for them again, because that stuff leaves a stain.
ayep, both. Some things happen to a person, you know? You can be walking down a sidewalk, minding your own business, and stumble upon a hundred dollar bill blowing in the wind. That would make me happy, for sure, and I've done nothing to "deserve" it except to hear a crinkle under my foot.
True enough, it's more likely to make happiness. Go out looking for pretty flowers, spend time in congenial company, eat delicious food. Read good books (maybe even more than once). Watch movies that YOU like, rather than the ones that other people think you should. Take a long shower. Sleep in. Get a massage, rather than spending that money on something you "should" pay for. Reach out for it, instead of waiting for joy to fly through the sky and land on your arm.
Would you say that the more power you have to control life, the richer it is?
not at all! Control doesn't please me. Power doesn't, either. In fact, I think that the less power & control I have, the richer my life really is.
[from Would You?: Questions to Challenge Your Beliefs; the title quotation is by Ralph Ellison, from Invisible Man]
No comments:
Post a Comment