2 people very close to me just passed away this month. The amazing thing is that both are the antithesis of each other.
My uncle Larry lived to work. He was one of the most selfless men I knew. He had never held just one job. He worked multiple shifts at different jobs to provide for his family, and to one day reap the benefits. It's ironic that in his efforts to provide his family of the luxuries he believed they deserved, he denied them of the one most important luxury; TIME with their father and husband. He never got around to enjoy what he worked so hard to provide. Upon approaching his retirement age, he slowly developed a mysterious, debilitating brain disease that rendered him immobile. He died thereafter, never able to enjoy the fruits of his labor.
Kay was the diametric opposite. She lived her life "in the now." This was a woman who had lived at least 3 lifetimes. She spent the money before she even made it. She enjoyed life, but never thought about the future. She didn't care because she knew she was not taking anything with her. The important thing was that she was able to enjoy the fruits of her labors as she reaped them. Many may argue that she was irresponsible, but are those people not aware of how finite and short life is?
Money seems to be the motivation that drives society and western civilization. Many people are willing to work many hours to obtain the most amount of money possible. Not as many people though are willing to fork over money to obtain more hours. Humanity seems to hold the value of MONEY higher than the value of TIME. I do not understand this mentality. Money lost can always be regained. You can work more hours, get a second job, or find other sources of income. Time lost can never be regained.
We should be striving to utilize more of our time, not money. According to Robert Kiyosaki in Rich Dad, Poor Dad, rather than focusing on being rich (acquisition of time), we should be striving to be wealthy (acquisition of time). Most people have TIME and MONEY at an inverse correlation. The working class would have to sacrifice leisure time to obtain the buying power to purchase more things or services.
The deaths of those 2 individuals have taught me a very valuable lesson. TIME is the most valuable resource of all, and I don't want to run out of it before I come to a realization that I can never get it back. I no longer hesitate in embracing my friends and family, and telling them I love them, for that is time well spent. I am now on a journey to learn how to spend TIME wisely rather than MONEY.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
My Gold Digger Test
As a single male, I understand that the women I date play a certain degree of games or administer some type of "test" to determine whether or not she deems me worthy of the next date or as a potential mate. It used to perplex me because I always thought that dating would be immensely more enjoyable if people just acted themselves. I always believed that I did.
I do understand though the motivation of such tests, having experienced the weeding out system we call dating. Bad experiences definitely is a source of these defense mechanisms.
I too, after thinking about it, realized that I started developing a set of heuristics after having gone through numerous dates, a test I call "the reach." I unknowingly devised criteria to help me determine whether the current person I'm dining with at a restaurant is a gold digger. I'm sure most men innately know this, but I've never really heard it analyzed.
As an old-school male, it is a given to me that I will ultimately pay for dinner, regardless of who asked who out. Whether or not the woman is a liberated person, I'm sure that it is still a nice gesture for someone to pay for your meal. I have no problem with this. For the most part, I oblige as long as I know that the girl is not out for a free meal. How do I know? "The reach."
Most decent women know that even though they don't expect to pay for the meal, it is a pleasant gesture for them to "fake offer" to pay at least half. Most guys have seen this move. It's the same move time and time again. As soon as the check comes, the woman reaches for her purse "in slow motion" so that I get to my wallet before she even gets to the zipper of her purse. After seeing "the reach" I know that she's not a gold digger. I acknowledge that she doesn't really intend to pay for it, but I appreciate the effort. It's my part to then to continue the song and dance and to say, "no, I got this" or "don't be silly! I'm paying." Hell, she probably doesn't even have any money in that thing. Plus, her motion toward her purse is soooo slow, that she never really intended to pay. I mean c'mon. If she really intended to pay, she'd be in that purse sooo fast. It's right next to you! I have to get up to pull my wallet out. If that was a piece of chocolate in that purse she would've had it unwrapped and taken a bite before I even got the chance to blink.
I went out with this girl after she had asked me out. This was one of my longer dates. We went to lunch, did some shopping, had drinks, went to dinner, then to a movie, then coffee after the movie, all in the span of 8 hours. Not once in any of those meals did she even give me the courtesy of "the reach", nor did she allow me the opportunity to say, "oh I got this babe."
In neon lights flashed, "gold digger!" She couldn't even "fake offer" to pay for tip, or the 3 dollar valet parking. God forbid I call her bluff and she's out 3 bucks! Geez, put a quarter in the meter for me, it's something! Tsk tsk tsk....some people...
In this instance, my little test came in handy...
I do understand though the motivation of such tests, having experienced the weeding out system we call dating. Bad experiences definitely is a source of these defense mechanisms.
I too, after thinking about it, realized that I started developing a set of heuristics after having gone through numerous dates, a test I call "the reach." I unknowingly devised criteria to help me determine whether the current person I'm dining with at a restaurant is a gold digger. I'm sure most men innately know this, but I've never really heard it analyzed.
As an old-school male, it is a given to me that I will ultimately pay for dinner, regardless of who asked who out. Whether or not the woman is a liberated person, I'm sure that it is still a nice gesture for someone to pay for your meal. I have no problem with this. For the most part, I oblige as long as I know that the girl is not out for a free meal. How do I know? "The reach."
Most decent women know that even though they don't expect to pay for the meal, it is a pleasant gesture for them to "fake offer" to pay at least half. Most guys have seen this move. It's the same move time and time again. As soon as the check comes, the woman reaches for her purse "in slow motion" so that I get to my wallet before she even gets to the zipper of her purse. After seeing "the reach" I know that she's not a gold digger. I acknowledge that she doesn't really intend to pay for it, but I appreciate the effort. It's my part to then to continue the song and dance and to say, "no, I got this" or "don't be silly! I'm paying." Hell, she probably doesn't even have any money in that thing. Plus, her motion toward her purse is soooo slow, that she never really intended to pay. I mean c'mon. If she really intended to pay, she'd be in that purse sooo fast. It's right next to you! I have to get up to pull my wallet out. If that was a piece of chocolate in that purse she would've had it unwrapped and taken a bite before I even got the chance to blink.
I went out with this girl after she had asked me out. This was one of my longer dates. We went to lunch, did some shopping, had drinks, went to dinner, then to a movie, then coffee after the movie, all in the span of 8 hours. Not once in any of those meals did she even give me the courtesy of "the reach", nor did she allow me the opportunity to say, "oh I got this babe."
In neon lights flashed, "gold digger!" She couldn't even "fake offer" to pay for tip, or the 3 dollar valet parking. God forbid I call her bluff and she's out 3 bucks! Geez, put a quarter in the meter for me, it's something! Tsk tsk tsk....some people...
In this instance, my little test came in handy...
Atomic Theory
This is a theory that i have been thinking about since junior high school.
We've all seen drawings or renderings of what an atom looks like. There's usually a central sphere, the nucleus, and smaller spheres revolving around it, namely protons and electrons. Looking at those drawings, something always looked familiar to me, like I've seen this schematic before.
Imagine this microverse expanded into a macroverse. Doesn't the atom look like an exact replica of a planet, where the nucleus is a planet, and the charged particles revolving around it being its moons? What the hell is the relevance of this?
Well, if we know that a planet like earth is inhabited with organisms, like human beings, isn't it rational to believe that a smaller version of planet may also be inhabited? Since all matter is comprised of atoms, wouldn't it be conceivable that our bodies are in fact universes? And in this universe, there are planets, which may or may not contain sentient beings...maybe even tiny little humans.
Maybe those theories of inner well-being, chi, miticlorians, etc. may actually be scientifically valid. Kinda like, if we make those little people happy inside those planets, maybe they'll take better care of the planet and thus, taking better care of us.
Now let's blow that up into a macroverse. What if our planet is just one atom that makes up the a gigantic organism? In fact, someone might be looking at our planet right now through a microscope and saying, "look at this atom!" Wouldn't that make you truly feel infinitesimal?
We've all seen drawings or renderings of what an atom looks like. There's usually a central sphere, the nucleus, and smaller spheres revolving around it, namely protons and electrons. Looking at those drawings, something always looked familiar to me, like I've seen this schematic before.
Imagine this microverse expanded into a macroverse. Doesn't the atom look like an exact replica of a planet, where the nucleus is a planet, and the charged particles revolving around it being its moons? What the hell is the relevance of this?
Well, if we know that a planet like earth is inhabited with organisms, like human beings, isn't it rational to believe that a smaller version of planet may also be inhabited? Since all matter is comprised of atoms, wouldn't it be conceivable that our bodies are in fact universes? And in this universe, there are planets, which may or may not contain sentient beings...maybe even tiny little humans.
Maybe those theories of inner well-being, chi, miticlorians, etc. may actually be scientifically valid. Kinda like, if we make those little people happy inside those planets, maybe they'll take better care of the planet and thus, taking better care of us.
Now let's blow that up into a macroverse. What if our planet is just one atom that makes up the a gigantic organism? In fact, someone might be looking at our planet right now through a microscope and saying, "look at this atom!" Wouldn't that make you truly feel infinitesimal?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
