一、Announcement
1. Male. Born in ’85. Philosophy of science and technology at Peking University. Suixuan Gucha. Born in Shanghai, settled in Beijing. I love wisdom, books, and cartoons.
2. Seeking one mm.
3. No conditions, no requirements (except those conditions that are analytically included within the ordinary understanding of the concept mm).
4. This post will remain in force until the blog entry is closed.
5. Reposting and circulation are welcome, but only this announcement section may be reposted, with the source indicated as EPR.ycool.com.
6. Aside from interested parties or people interested in introducing someone to me, I will not report related progress to any other friends.
7. Contact information can be found in Suixuan [Top 2].
8. I reserve the final right of interpretation of this announcement.
Seeking mm~
I. Announcement
1. Male. Born in ’85. Philosophy of science and technology at Peking University. Suixuan Gucha. Born in Shanghai, settled in Beijing. I love wisdom, books, and cartoons.
2. Seeking one mm.
3. No conditions, no requirements (except those conditions that are analytically included within the ordinary understanding of the concept mm).
4. This post will remain in force until the blog entry is closed.
5. Reposting and circulation are welcome, but only this announcement section may be reposted, with the source indicated as EPR.ycool.com.
6. Aside from interested parties or people interested in introducing someone to me, I will not report related progress to any other friends.
7. Contact information can be found in Suixuan [Top 2].
8. I reserve the final right of interpretation of this announcement.
II. Interpretation
After my hard drive broke down, I had thought that the article about “romance,” which had only just begun, had also been lost. Unexpectedly, when I rummaged through the materials on my old computer and looked, nothing had been lost at all. It turned out that for more than a month since the start of the term, this article that should have long since been written still had not moved a single word—although I had opened the file many times, I had simply never gone on writing.
The reason was that that article tried to make a comprehensive reckoning of my entire previous experience of romance and my conception of love, so in writing it I had, on the one hand, many misgivings, and on the other hand, too many emotions were being pulled along by it, and I simply could not sort out the thread of things; I felt I had no idea where to begin.
With the approaching of Little Light Festival, Great Light Festival, and the day before it, the related emotions began to become active again (though they have always been pretty active anyway). Better to start from scratch and, in one fell swoop, finish this abridged version first. In order to ensure that this article would no longer be postponed indefinitely, I would not try to comprehensively sort out my entire experience, emotions, and thoughts about romance; instead, I would limit myself to the simplest clarification of a small part of the concepts.
Even if one only discusses “romance” in conceptual terms, since this concept occupies a pivotal position in my entire philosophy, it is obviously impossible to finish writing it in one go in my still thoroughly immature state. So here I will only discuss one aspect, namely, starting from the “conditions for seeking mm.”
Although I am launching this search for mm in time for Great Light Festival, I actually do not expect this announcement to have an immediate effect. Moreover, although my desire is strong, it is after all under the control of reason and is far from being at the level of impatience. So I imagine that this announcement will remain valid for a long time, perhaps even for three to five years. Don’t ask me questions like: since you desire it so much, why didn’t you take the initiative earlier? Desire is one thing, and demanding that one’s desire be satisfied as quickly as possible is another. So long as desire remains under my control, I am also willing to preserve and cultivate it. Of course, since I am making this search, it shows that I am in a state of “always ready.” I do not expect girls to “throw themselves at me,” after all, men pursuing women is the natural law since antiquity~ I only hope that girls who are interested in testing the waters will first take the initiative to enter my field of vision; when the time comes to make a move, I will still take the initiative.
I don’t know why my rp has seemed especially bad lately. This article, which I started from scratch, began being written at noon today (October 29). I wrote continuously for several hours and several thousand characters, but when I opened the file in the evening I discovered that everything had disappeared! Could this be the new experience of Office 2007? Actually there had already been signs: while I was writing, I discovered that the undo function no longer worked. But I did not think much of it at the time. Toward evening, after pressing save, I closed it and went to play table tennis; there was no abnormal prompt then either. Who would have guessed that in the evening it would give me such a surprise……
Well then… well then… I refuse to believe in this nonsense!
Of course, after such a fuss, my mood for writing was greatly hit. It’s not that I couldn’t roughly rewrite, as closely as possible, the text I had only recently written; but doing so would be extremely painful, and perhaps would take even longer than before. If I were to reconstruct a copy like that, I’m afraid I would again lose the enthusiasm to finish it in one breath. There’s no helping it; better to tear it all down and start over once more. Of course, the basic idea remains unchanged, only if what follows seems too brief or too impatient, that will be a normal phenomenon.
All right, back to the main topic.
As for my romantic partner, what conditions or requirements do I have? I remember that more than three years ago, at some friend gathering before my first tg, I was once asked a similar question. My answer then was: “So long as she looks up to me, that’ll do.” It can be seen that in three years my idea has not changed because of setbacks (though I did indeed go through struggles). Of course, after three years of reflection, the answer I give now and its explanation should be more definite and stable. Here, what I mean is: “No conditions, no requirements.”
This answer will probably astonish, puzzle, or even anger and disdain quite a few people—what is this? How can you be so casual?
Indeed, when many people claim that they have no requirements for something, what they often reveal is a certain carelessness. They lack serious reflection both about themselves and about the object they will choose. So it’s not that they have no requirements, but that they do not know what they actually require, and therefore have no choice but to answer “whatever.” Later on, perhaps they will find this unsatisfactory and that unsatisfactory, becoming picky and complaining without end. Others, of course, including myself, when saying “no requirements,” often mean that it is “none of my business” or “of no importance”; that is the most usual case.
But when I say here “no conditions, no requirements,” it is not the kind of casualness meant above. First, it is the result of reflection, and is consistent with my long-standing line of thought and temperament. Second, this kind of “casualness” is not because it is unimportant; quite the contrary, it is precisely because the object of love has irreplaceable importance in my life that I insist on no conditions. Third, the so-called no conditions does not mean no conditions at all; it itself precisely implies a condition, and a very difficult one to satisfy.
Of course, as already said in the announcement, since this is “seeking mm,” and not seeking something else, some requirements that are ordinarily included in the concept “mm” should of course be satisfied. For example, first and foremost, the most important, non-negotiable thing of all: it must be female. Second, there are many relatively vague requirements, such as being of similar age, someone I can date, someone with whom the relationship will be intimate and possess a certain exclusivity, someone open to the possibility of marriage or cohabitation, and so on. These “conditions” cannot be said to be absolutely precise and necessary one by one, but certainly not none of them may be absent, either. Broadly speaking, what I am seeking is an object that can, in a basic way, convince people as fitting the concept “mm.”
More technically speaking, we can further discuss the concept of “female.” If examined closely, this concept is not so simple either. Sexual difference can be on the genetic level, the anatomical level, the psychological level, the sociological level, and so on. Here, allow me to adopt the most everyday and intuitive mode of distinction—secondary sexual characteristics. That is, to look with the eyes: it must indeed be clearly recognizable as a woman, only then will do. If from whichever angle I look it is still a muscular man, then even if you bring me a genetic certificate I still won’t acknowledge it! This should count as having some requirements regarding appearance, I suppose. On the other hand, there is not no requirement at all regarding mind: at the very least, she must be able to understand what “seeking mm” means, right! This requirement is truly not low; it excludes almost everyone outside contemporary China’s “most advanced” culture—after some consideration, I deliberately used the newest and most ambiguous term, mm, rather than concepts like girlfriend or gf, and so on. Of course, even without having entered internet culture, if one can learn this concept through inquiry and the like, that is also fine).
But in short, the most basic requirements above are not something I have added on my own; they are already implied the moment I say the three words “seeking mm.”
But the “condition of no conditions” does not refer to these. What I mean is that, besides “mm,” within this “no conditions” there is also one condition implied—that is, you must be able to tolerate it.
The so-called “condition of no conditions” does not conflict with “no conditions,” because this condition is not a restriction imposed by me. The conditions implied in the concept mm mentioned earlier are set by this everyday language system; I myself have not added anything. The so-called condition of no conditions, however, will be set by the potential applicant herself; I have also not added any restrictions. Of course, if you, like me, also do not add any conditions, then apart from fate there really are no restrictions at all—here fate means that you encounter me at the appropriate time.
But in reality, few people can possibly be so conditionless; more people simply cannot imagine how my way of thinking is possible, and that is precisely where the condition lies—I am convinced that a normal girl cannot possibly accept my “unconditional” attitude, and thus she will not dare, not wish, or not deign to come near me. As a result, she will herself set up restrictions that make it difficult for her to approach me.
Therefore, publishing this “condition of no conditions,” and posting so many verbose interpretations on the blog, may instead make it even harder for me to seek mm. This is also one of the reasons I have long been unable to make up my mind to write this piece. I very much wanted to complete my thoughts only after I had actually found a mm. Yet by then, into what sort of thing would my thoughts have evolved? Even if they remained consistent throughout, if I really dragged it out until then to write, it would surely be utterly different from what is written here now. And once I want to write something, I simply cannot help but pour it out and post it—this is why my blog is so huge. If this article were merely a means to find mm, then I fear I would still be hesitating to this day; but since “writing” as “pouring out” is in itself the purpose, there is no need to weigh anything further.
Is this “condition of no conditions” really that frightening? It truly is frightening. At least, from the perspective of the me five years ago, it would also have been utterly incomprehensible. Compared with the playboy-style “whatever,” it is probably even more frightening, because I am serious. I would not casually treat a girlfriend; rather, in the end I could respect her, love her, and live together with her.
So looking again at this “no conditions”: yes, that’s right, no conditions! That is to say—do we need compatible personalities? No. Do we need shared interests? No. Do we need aligned values? No. None of them! But if none of these can match, how is it possible to live together, how is it possible to tolerate and accept one another?
Of course, since it is no conditions, I will not require the other person to resemble me in also being someone who has no conditions for a boyfriend. You are certainly free to set your own conditions; if I happen to meet them, then thank heaven. However, what you have to accept is my attitude of no conditions.
If you still have not awakened to the frighteningness of this attitude, then, for example—would a killer, a thief, a prostitute, a cultist, a terrorist… do they satisfy my conditions? Of course they do, because there are no conditions! That is to say, can one also accept such a woman? Can one respect her? Can one love her? Can one live together with her? One can!
Of course, the “can” here means in principle. In actual life, one will of course encounter all kinds of difficulties and challenges. However, compared with those oddities above, perhaps my life together with an “ordinary” girl would encounter just as many troubles. Overcoming the conflicts and problems we encounter together is also part of life’s flavor. As for the possibility of breaking up, it is never closed off either, so of course I cannot guarantee that I will absolutely be able to coexist harmoniously with any mm. I am only saying that, in principle, becoming my mm will not be rejected for any additional reason.
This attitude is of course precisely the expression of my pluralist philosophy. No matter to what extent my philosophical views have been influenced by my temperament, one thing is certain: they have in turn, to a large extent, helped shape my present temperament. That is to say, when I declare that I respect everything and love everything, this is not merely an empty theoretical deduction; my emotions have not been severed from my theory. That is to say, I do not painfully “love my enemies,” and then, as if bearing the inner contradiction myself, imagine that this makes me very great. I am not that great; I simply, from the bottom of my heart, very willingly love my enemies. If an object cannot evoke in my heart emotions such as joy and happiness—“good” emotions—then to speak of “love” for it is entirely self-deception. Such false love is more dangerous than straightforward hatred.
Of course, I have never said that I will not feel emotions such as anger, disgust, or aversion toward anything; if I had none of these emotions, I ought to ascend to heaven already. But these emotions are all brief and trivial. Just as a most loving couple may occasionally become annoyed or displeased over petty matters, in fact a rich emotional experience is also part of life’s interest, is it not? My “no hatred” still refers to principle, that is, no person or thing is, in principle, one that “ought” to be hated. I will not deliberately cultivate any hateful emotion, and everything whatsoever ought to be loved (specific matters will be discussed later). In that way, if I am willing, I can certainly, through the guidance of reason and through planning a way of life, cultivate and stimulate beautiful feelings related to a certain thing, thereby ultimately not only saying that I “ought” to love it, but also genuinely loving it in reality. The reality of this “love” is manifested as constructing a way of life that can coexist with it for a long time and with pleasure.
Oh right, if you find the many statements before and after this to be clouded and obscure, that’s all right. I certainly do not require my mm to understand my thought either. In fact, even though I never put on airs or mystify things, if I really were able to accomplish a philosophy, then my thought would certainly not be something easily understood by others. If you insist on only daring to associate with me after making sure you understand my thought, then please be prepared for a considerable awakening—I will not tolerate anyone claiming to understand my thought. If you think so, I will certainly seize you and debate with you until you discover the points of difference between us. If no fundamental disagreement can be found, that would be a huge blow to my self-confidence! I won’t admit defeat so easily! So if you understand it only half and half, that may actually be the best state. Of course, it would be even better if, after spotting major points of objection, you could still retain quite a bit of goodwill toward me, but I do not dare expect much from girls of that temperament either.
Back to the main point: if one loves everything and abandons hatred, thereby completely rejecting the state of “clearly distinguishing love and hate,” then does “love” lose its meaning? If there is nothing to hate, how can one love? It is not easy to explain this topic clearly, after all it is not yet the theme of this article. Here I can only briefly state the conclusion: in principle—for all people, “love” is without distinction. That is to say, no person or kind of person is, in principle, more worthy of love or ought to be more loved. But in reality, a person’s actual love is differentiated, or rather, one’s love for each different person is different. This difference is not divided by any principles, but arises because each free individual is unique, thus creating real differences. And what is called real love is not merely saying “I love” or “I am willing” in words; real love is embodied by real-life relations, that is, what I said earlier: real love manifests as “a way of life that can coexist with it for a long time and with pleasure.” And the different flavors of pleasure and the different forms of coexistence determine the differences in real love. Love for one’s relatives and friends is often more special and more intense, because the way in which relatives and friends coexist with me is often the closest and most unique. And when I say that I love any stranger whatsoever, I only mean that I feel pleasure in being able to coexist with them in this world; I certainly do not mean that if any random group of strangers suddenly rushes into my home and sleeps on the floor, that would also make me happy. Such a new coexistence relation has not yet been deliberately constructed, and as a temporary emotion, I of course may become angry or depressed. But if a group of strangers staying in my home has already become a fact, then I will need consciously to plan anew my relationship with them: on the one hand readjusting and redesigning the way of life, on the other hand talking with them in order to understand and accommodate one another, until, finally, when this new relation becomes fixed in my life, the new bond of love will likewise be established accordingly.
Isn’t what is called “falling in love” precisely such a process of consciously cultivating love? Of course one can speak of so-called “love at first sight,” but in any case this initial emotion is not the final form that can endure. Those lovers who meet through so-called love at first sight—if their feelings are sustained for a long time, then the initial “feeling” is only the opportunity for a “beginning”; afterward, it still needs to be cultivated and developed in long-term, conscious shared life. If, after finding the dream lover, one feels “it’s done,” and no longer makes any effort to manage the relationship between the two sides, no longer deliberately preserves and develops it, then such a romance is doomed to be short-lived, and the trivialities of life will wear away the fairy-tale fantasy.
My so-called seeking mm is precisely seeking an object of romance, or more accurately, seeking an object with whom to “fall in love.” From this expression one can see that the more classical way of romance centers on “talking,” while the postmodern way has replaced “talking” with “doing” as its center; my own temperament is naturally more classical. In any case, romance is always a consciously managed and planned way of life, by means of which love is cultivated. Love is not a simple thing that either exists or does not exist, nor is it an instantaneous stimulation that comes and goes at a touch like an electric shock. Love, like any love between people, comes from the bonds of shared life. Therefore, when I say no conditions, I mean that I am willing to establish a “falling in love” relationship with any type of mm, and willing to strive to cultivate loving feelings.
According to what I said earlier, to love someone in a certain way means to be able to live together with him or her in that form, pleasantly. But the “pleasantly” here refers only to oneself, and has nothing to do with whether the other person is pleased or not. In other words, of course one can also say that I love someone who hates me; even if my love is something that disgusts him, I still have to love him. For example, even if a rebellious child is filled with hatred toward his mother, we would not thereby deny the mother’s love for the child, would we? Here love is selfish: it considers only one’s own feelings, and has nothing to do with the other’s feelings.
And yet, to love someone obviously means to consciously consider the other person. For love, in its most originary emotional form, is precisely an emotion of pleasure, joy, exhilaration, and the like—an emotion that is “good”; that is to say, “I love it” means “in my eyes, it is good.” And naturally, people always demand to obtain good things, so love always manifests itself as “I want.”
But do not understand this “I want” here too simply as possessiveness; the way in which “I want” is expressed ultimately depends on what I take the object to be. For example, if I face the same piece of cake and “want” it as food, then I will tend to eat it at the proper time; if I “want” it as a commodity that will increase in value, then I will tend to sell it at the proper price; if I “want” it as a gift, then I will expect the proper person, at the proper time, and in the proper way to give it to me… In any case, I’m afraid no sane person would love a piece of cake in the manner of possessing property—for instance, by locking it in a safe—and then when the cake has gone moldy, it is good for nothing.
Simply put, to love something means that I am willing to coexist with it in the way that is “as it is.” To say that a person likes cake often merely means that he likes to eat cake, not to smear cake on his face; whereas to say that a person likes cosmetics means that he likes to smear cosmetics on his face, not to eat them. For the meaning of cake as cake lies in eating, not in smearing it on the face, while the meaning of cosmetics as cosmetics lies in smearing them on the face, not in eating them. And to love something as something means to wish that its meaning as that something be fully realized.
So then, what does it mean to love a person? What is the meaning of the human being as a human being?
After all is said and done, it still comes down to the two words “freedom.” Of course, in a specific context, we may also love human beings as things, needing and relying on them; hiring workers is just such a case. The boss will, explicitly or implicitly, put forward all kinds of demands and conditions, and what he needs is the skill that can meet those conditions, not a one-of-a-kind person. If someone is required because he is competent in some condition, then when he loses that skill, or when someone else becomes more competent than he is, he will no longer be needed. Yet no skill belongs to a person’s “essence”; that is to say, when a person loses a certain skill, he has not thereby become someone other than himself. And yet the demand for that skill has been withdrawn from him. This shows that such love is not directed toward “himself,” but merely toward something external to him.
And the peculiarity of the human being is precisely this “absence of essence.” Whether in the narrow sense of bodily skills, or in the broader sense of skills—that is, including thought, knowledge, and ideas—none of these are essential to a person becoming himself. If one looks at human beings as animals, one can of course state all kinds of determinations of the human; yet once one regards human beings as human beings, once one affirms human freedom, then there are no longer any fixed and unchanging conditions. In other words, what makes the human being human does not lie in any conditions at all, but precisely in its “unconditionality.” The meaning of being human does not lie in its realizing itself for the sake of some other thing, but can only lie in its self-realization.
Therefore, to love a person— to love a person as a person—should not mean wanting to eat the other person or smear him on one’s face, and still less should it mean locking him in a safe to possess him; rather, it means wanting the other to realize himself in the way that is proper to being human, that is, to realize himself for his own sake. In other words, it means preserving, developing, and appreciating the freedom of others. In appreciating the freedom of others, one oneself also gains greater pleasure.
Although human beings are free, they are not isolated existences. In fact, “freedom” is not some abstract, absolute, static state; there is no such realm into which those who enter are free and those outside are unfree. “Freedom,” rather than being a state or realm, is a capacity: the capacity to choose, the capacity to reflect and to rebel. It is much like the fact that human beings are born with the capacity to eat. Whether one is willing or not, one is born needing to eat, and likewise is born free; but this does not mean that these capacities do not need, or cannot undergo, maintenance and cultivation. And preserving and cultivating the capacity to eat is precisely a matter of planning a proper way of life so as to coordinate the use of that capacity appropriately; preserving and cultivating the capacity for freedom is similar. An isolated way of life, cut off from the world and stripping away all connections between the individual and the outside world, is not beneficial to freedom, because in such an isolated life there is not much alien stuff to confront, nor many possibilities to choose among; in such a state, human freedom will be repressed rather than realized. It is precisely a more open way of life, one connected to and reliant upon others, that may allow human freedom to unfold more fully. The richness of the lifeworld and the personal differences of others will open up more “possibilities” to oneself; more widespread and complex, rather than more single, relations of dependence also increase room for choice and rebellion. In short, living together with others will not diminish human freedom at all; on the contrary, it is freedom’s full unfolding.
Of course, such a mode of coexistence that allows freedom to be nurtured requires mutual respect for one another’s freedom. Let me emphasize this again: it need not entail bearing anything painful. When pluralist thought has permeated my character, I can truly and sincerely feel joy at the existence of “different kinds,” and can wholeheartedly appreciate those who are different from me yet share the same essence—and that shared essence is precisely nothing. I believe that as long as one is, like me, a free being, one is necessarily appreciable and worthy of respect.
Among the people who may connect with me in all kinds of possible ways, the one most cherished and valued is probably the object of love. This person will also be the one who accompanies me most closely and for the longest time in the life that follows mine. Precisely for this reason, I must treat her in the way that most respects her freedom; I must receive her as the broadest and richest possibility, and cultivate love in a way that preserves and unfolds possibility to the greatest extent. Therefore, only by beginning from “unrestricted conditions” do we align with my conception.
Of course, placing no conditions on the other person does not mean that I am casual about myself as well. Indeed, I am very casual about many matters in life, and this has already been made explicit in the naming of “Suixuan.” But in thought, I absolutely do not make do casually. I will not change my own thought for another person; if I did, that would be a slighting of each side’s freedom. For example, the fact that I can sincerely appreciate a certain idea by no means means that it is all right for me to say it that way too. I will only think and speak in the way that I myself recognize, and will not attach myself to other people’s views. That is to say, whether you are my mm or anyone else, you absolutely must not expect me to speak “for you” by following your wishes; on this matter I am extremely stubborn. In particular, I have long ago mentioned my stubborn creed of “I take responsibility myself; I will die before admitting fault,” and that too is something I will not give up for the sake of mm or anyone like her. Aside from silence and a polite apology, I will not compromise by “admitting fault,” and this is something anyone who intends to approach me must be fully prepared to understand. Of course, if you do not want to argue, I will not crudely drag you into a debate; however, once you want to reason with me, I will certainly resist to the end. I will not, because I love a murderer, admit that murder is a good thing, because in my view, neither the act of murder nor the thought that murder is right is something essential to a person. And as to why I may love her, theoretically it is because of her free essence as a human being; in reality, it is because of some possibility of shared life that gives me pleasure. And within such shared life, there is absolutely no inclusion of my participation in murder. Therefore, it is possible to love a murderer. But if the other person believes that murder is an inseparable part of her nature, and insists that only jointly participating with her in acts of murder counts as living together with her, then this kind of shared life as she wishes it cannot be constructed, and a relationship of (talking about) love with her can of course only end in failure. “Unconditional” is only the initial principle; whether love succeeds still depends on what comes after, on chance and effort.
By writing this far I have more or less indicated the key points of my line of thought. Of course, there are still many places that are not clearly explained and many that await supplementation, but as far as this round of my writing desire is concerned, it has already been drained away more or less, so let us stop here. If there really is an mm who is interested in me, I would of course be willing to write some more introductions about personal life, hobbies, and so on, but for the moment let it end here. I state once again: applicants only need to understand the “announcement” section; the “interpretation” section, like the other articles in the blog, exists solely for the purpose of self-expression.
November 1, 2008
Supplement
2008-11-02 00:27:16
A few supplementary remarks in view of possible misunderstandings:
Someone heard that I was recruiting an mm and said that I too could no longer bear loneliness; there were even busybodies who said that I should strive to recruit one before the Great Light Festival and the like. In fact, if one had read the interpretive section, one should have realized that my purpose in writing this article was not actually to recruit an mm, but rather to express a desire to write. But given that many people would not have the interest to read the full text, I am making a separate explanation here.
If I really wanted to recruit an mm as quickly as possible, I should not have posted such a long-winded and frightening article, but rather should have written it the way ordinary friend-finding posts do, with more about my personal situation and preferences. I could also have avoided using words like conditions or requirements, and instead replaced them with concepts like preferences and assumptions, talking about my thoughts concerning mm in a way that neither violates my philosophy nor hinders the success rate of finding an mm—why not? But in the end the desire to pour out what I wanted to write overwhelmed everything, and as a result I came up with such a piece.
This interpretation has not undergone any sort of systematizing work; I wrote as thoughts came to me, which makes it perhaps even more scattered than my other articles. And given that this article involves many important ideas, it is even less suitable for reading. Perhaps, because my subconscious more wanted to scare away rather than attract mm, I did not, as usual, keep paying attention to organizing it into something more concise and fluent…
Of course, the gain from writing this article is enormous, because through writing my train of thought was led toward certain modes of development that I had not anticipated before writing.
2008-11-06 18:22:31
A further supplementary explanation regarding the announcement itself:
To be frank, when I published this announcement, I really had not thought much about someone responding very quickly; this was indeed my oversight, though of course not an error. Here I am merely making an addition about a matter I had not explained clearly, namely: if someone responds, then what?
I only said that “this blog post remains valid for a long time before it is closed,” and did not explain when this post would be closed (this was mentioned in the lost text of the first draft). On the one hand, closing the post does not necessarily mean that I have successfully found an mm, but may be because I am preparing to change strategy, or because I suddenly feel like going into seclusion and the like; on the other hand, of course, if I truly do find an mm, I will close this post, because I clearly said I was “recruiting one mm,” and if after recruiting one I continue recruiting, that would obviously be irresponsible and inconsistent.
However, this by no means means that once someone “responds,” I will close it. Although my response is said to be “unconditional,” that does not mean that any person who simply says “I’m here to respond” can automatically become my mm. I need to make certain confirmations before I can acknowledge that the response has been completed. For instance, if you are merely joking with me, or if you are just responding casually and absentmindedly, then you must also allow me to deal with you in the same absentminded and perfunctory way. In any case, human interaction should uphold the principle of treating one another equally. If you can respond to multiple friend-finding posts at the same time, then of course you should likewise allow me to face multiple respondents at the same time; if you are serious and single-minded, I will also give corresponding feedback. I have already said that my view of “what an mm actually is” is not something ready-made and fixed, but something yet to be jointly constructed, and the process of construction will include the other party’s participation. Once you indeed have sufficient resolve and determination, and your intention has been thoroughly understood by me, I will of course confirm the establishment of the bond between us, and at the same time close the friend-finding announcement.
But in any case, I do not want to hastily close off a broad field of possibilities, after all this matter is not urgent for me at all. Moreover, to solemnly pin this announcement at the top of my blog and then close it before even a single new article has sunk below it seems like something rather comical…
So, well, before you have made up your mind, don’t rush; although I am a limited-edition product and it is first come, first served, please rest assured that whether it is first or later has to do with when I confirm your intention, and has no necessary relation to when you first convey that intention to me. Calmly consider it and wait until everything is settled before sending a letter—no need to hurry!
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
A follow-up supplement and self-introduction after “Recruiting an mm”
Posted on 2008-11-20 02:23:30
An explanation of the progress of recruiting an mm
Posted on 2008-12-17 11:51:30
- unic
2010-09-29 02:11:09 Anonymous 10.8.0.2
Before reading a book, review Suixuan for a bit so you can adapt more quickly to long-form text. At the very least, for me this has long been interesting text. Though I haven’t really read this piece much.
“In simple terms, to love something means that I am willing to coexist with it in the way that is ‘as it is.’”
This sentence explains the metaphor of the “birdman” even more directly. - Gu Chi
2009-02-12 22:41:02
Oh, NO!
I think you must have already noticed that I have repeatedly said that what I value is difference, not similarity. If resonance is still needed in the end, then what I value is resonance in passion, in feeling moved, and the like; as for those itemized things that are put into words, I do not value them.
At the same time, I think I have also made my attitude clear. For example, I once said: “I will not lightly identify with ‘similarity.’ As long as you do not insist on asserting something, I will absolutely not take the initiative to argue with you. Only when you yourself raise a certain claim, and furthermore think that this matter is very important to our relationship, will I definitely have to get to the bottom of it.” If you do not say it, or do not care about those so-called similarities, that is nothing; but if you do say it, and say it as if it were quite important, then you must be prepared—more often than not, I will not accept it easily.
Here you mentioned “the prerequisite for being together,” and since that is so major, we must certainly look carefully. I only know roughly what my own outlook is, but I do not know what your outlook is like. You cannot simply repeat my words and then say you agree; even if that expresses your outlook, if you do that, it means your outlook is certainly vastly different from mine.
To be frank, although I do not expect others to understand my thought at any very deep level, some degree of mutual understanding is still, after all, a joyful thing. But what does it mean to understand me? For example, suppose apples, oranges, bananas, and the like are laid out in front of us, and before I even reach out to take one, you have already handed me the orange, because you know that among these fruits, that is the one I like best. Then I would be a little moved, and indeed very happy. This does not require your choice to be the same as mine. In the first case, you bring me the orange because you yourself like to eat oranges; in the second case, you bring me the orange because you know I like to eat oranges, so even though you prefer bananas more, you still hand me the orange. In these two situations, of course, the second one is the more moving to me. The same is true in matters of thought: for example, when you see a topic, before I even open my mouth, you already know roughly what opinion I will hold. If that is the case, I too would indeed be moved. If you express it better than I myself would have wanted to say, then you have truly encountered a kindred spirit. But this also does not require you to hold the same view. Rather, when your own thoughts are not the same as mine, yet you can still speak for me and put into words what is in my heart, that is what moves me even more.
But there is no need to cling to this. As for myself, before I say or write out my thoughts, I often cannot know for certain at all just what I am going to write. Very often, what gets written turns out to be completely different from what I first had in mind, even arriving at a judgment that is entirely opposite. And once I have spoken or written words, I will be responsible for them for life; but being responsible means being able to give them new interpretations and develop them forever. My thought is alive, it is fluid; even I cannot catch hold of it, and others are even less able to. Once you grasp it tightly, you have pinched it to death,
You say my view of love has basically taken shape. Taken literally, I can agree with that statement, but my so-called “taking shape” definitely, absolutely, surely does not mean “simply finding someone to fit into a slot.” If you think that is what I mean, then I am afraid that at the most fundamental level of attitude, you have not understood my desire. My mm can insist on her own view of love, and can even fail to understand my view of love, but if you insist on thinking that I am as you imagine me to be, then I am sorry—I think I should decisively reject you.
This year is my active year. I may leave suspense, play ambiguous games, but I will not be muddled or拖泥带水.
- 小月
2009-02-12 19:00:16 匿名 116.242.238.152
It’s better if it’s withdrawn, that way there is no longer any relationship of being pursued and pursuing between us, and we can avoid a lot of awkwardness. I know very well what kind of person you want to find, just as I know what kind of person I want to find. At our age, one’s outlook on love has basically already taken shape; it’s just a matter of finding someone to fit into the slot. As for whether it is really your shoe, there still has to be a try-on stage.
We should have a shared idea about a philosophic way of life; that is the prerequisite for being together. As for the specific philosophies each of us holds, of course they are different, and should be different too. (Maybe this is what you mean by difference on the basis of similarity; that is how I understand it.)
Actually, I understand that if one really wants to run a relationship, one must be in the same living environment, both in the ordinary sense and in the sense of thought. That is obviously still impossible this year, so if I were not holding on to confidence in the possibilities of my own future, I would not be able to do this.
Time is long; we can slowly meet.
- Gu Chi
2009-02-11 19:38:55
This really is a truly reliable application. The only problem is that my notice for seeking a mm is currently “paused.” Although it is not because I have already tg, it is still paused after all, so there is no issue right now of seeking and applying. I would be very willing to communicate with you further, but I will not make you any important commitments at this time.
- 小月
2009-02-11 19:12:20 匿名 116.242.238.96
How do you know I won’t grow, hehe.
I’m off.
- 小月
2009-02-11 19:07:06 匿名 116.242.238.96
The paragraph above was something I wrote when I had read about halfway through, but now I want to say: I’m applying!
At the beginning, reading this post only brought agreement, but little by little, as I read on, I was drawn in by the expression behind your words. Of course, many parts were still utterly baffling to me. I was moved by a kind of seriousness (of course not the kind shown by all those many words you typed). Because you take the feelings you long for too seriously, that is why you “don’t set conditions,” is that it? Anyway, that is my reason.
There was once, in chatting with a friend, when I told her that what I might like was a taciturn, secretly passionate man. I don’t need love to be all that romantic, nor do I need that guy to coax me into being very happy; as long as we both feel at ease, that is enough. I long for that kind of mutual peace of mind amid the chaotic currents of the world, even if we do nothing at all! (I am not Qiong Yao, I am not Qiong Yao…)
Sigh, I feel like I’m taking a risk. But I can’t deny the seriousness I share with you just because I feel that way. I confirm once again, and very seriously, these four words: I’m applying.
- Gu Chi
2009-02-11 19:01:04
Similarity and dissimilarity are the inside and outside of one another; wherever one can see the place where dissimilarity conflicts, within it there is always some deeper similarity hidden away. I am not rejecting similarity. My slogan is “preserve what is the same while seeking what is different”; difference is worth pursuing, and before that, sameness is also worth preserving. But the “sameness” I value leans more toward some shared platform for communication. If one speaks of “resonance,” I prefer resonance in emotion and in action, while resonance expressed through theoretical topics strikes me as the most unreliable of all. Because I have always been alive, always growing; at most, conceptual judgments can catch my past, but cannot catch my future. I will never abandon my past statements, but that is not at all because I cling to them and refuse to let go; rather, it is because I continuously grow through endless self-interpretation. So you can say that we have such and such similarities, and I can fully agree; I would also very likely feel delighted. However, I will not regard these “points of similarity” as all that important, much less make promises about them. In fact, even I may not necessarily have much resonance with the me of three years ago; or, to be precise, I can now defend what I wrote some years ago, but if we imagine the me of some years ago seeing my present articles, I think that the me at that time would absolutely not feel much resonance. More likely, I would have reacted with resistance, even with distaste. Not to mention six years ago or nine years ago, when the me of then might well have scoffed at many of what I now say… So, if you now read what I write and feel resonance, that is fine, but what about three years from now? What about six years from now? I will certainly keep growing, and if you still insist on your present resonance, then it is quite possible that you will feel resistance toward the me of the future.
- 小月
2009-02-11 18:23:14 匿名 116.242.238.96
I won’t apply for the time being. First, you said you would not look for someone very similar to you, and on that point I do not qualify (actually, my personality is outgoing, and in life I probably would not have too many similarities with you), so I can only hope that you may soften your stance; second, I still have many things to do (of course not finding a boyfriend…), things I need to face and overcome.
I’m not too worried that you’ll be snatched up first by other MMs, because there really are very few people who can understand you, agree with you, and yet also be unlike you at the same time～～ and people like me are not exactly common in life either. If I really am late, then I can only submit to fate!
Heavens! If I really do get a chance to go to your salon, I might feel a bit awkward because of the above words!
- 小月
2009-02-11 17:10:11 匿名 116.242.238.96
1. I also don’t like repeating things I’ve done before, so that’s very similar!
2. I have to say this again very strongly (I know you don’t like hearing it, haha): my conditions for seeking a partner are also “similar” to yours～～ that is, “conditions without conditions” (see your explanation for the details). But when friends ask me why I still don’t have a boyfriend, I will directly say, “Because my standards are very high.” I have always felt that a standard like “conditions without conditions” is a very high standard, so I never, like you, give explanations that make ordinary people find them utterly baffling and unfathomable. Of course, there may be two reasons for this. One is that you are treating it as a kind of philosophical expression; the other is that my philosophical expression of it has not yet reached your level…
3. There is one point in which I differ from you, namely that I do not reject the existence in this world of people similar to me; on the contrary, I’m very happy about it, because there really aren’t many!
4. You must be thinking that I seem to be stressing my similarities with you everywhere, and then assuming that I am doing this to catch your attention! The real reasons are two: first, what I say is all the truth, and your words did indeed resonate with me (90%); second, to catch your attention (10%).
You may also have seen that I am just very rebellious by nature. Most of the time, I like to be different for the sake of being different (of course not deliberately), but if someone says he is different from me, I will insist on finding the similarities! Of course, this kind of stubbornness is hidden and does not show itself openly in daily life.
(The above are my thoughts from when I had read one third of the way through. Since your post is so long, I was afraid that by the time I reached the end, some of these thoughts would have been lost, so I’ll post them first…) - Gu Chi
2008-11-20 02:59:52
Uh… it only really counts as a grand success if you actually “seek” and get one…
——————————————
New supplementary interpretation
As a follow-up annotation and self-introduction to “Seeking a mm”
Published 2008-11-20 02:23:30
See https://yilinhut.net/2008/11/20/2183.html - WangDong
2008-11-19 13:59:41 匿名 222.31.212.108
Hehe, senior, you’re really impressive—you even made seeking a mm into something so grand! Keep it up!
Blessings!
I sent senior an email on the campus network a couple of days ago; I have something I’d like to ask senior for help with. Please take a look when you have time. Thanks in advance!
May you find your “senior’s wife” soon, haha! - Gu Chi
2008-11-15 11:20:42
Indeed, the possibilities I am talking about cannot be quantified, but saying “more” is not meaningless. For example, we can say that something is “tastier,” something is “more beautiful,” something is “more fun,” and so on. Do we make such judgments only on the premise of quantification? No. When I say “richer possibilities,” I do not mean any objective quantitative judgment either; rather, like “tastier,” “more beautiful,” and “more fun,” it is a very subjective feeling.
As for that sentence, the meaning is quite simple; let me rephrase it briefly: Why do I do academic work? Or rather, why does someone choose a certain vocation? There may be several answers. The first is that perhaps what I pursue is not this vocation itself, but what I gain by engaging in it—for instance money, fame, power, and the like. In that case, of course, this is not a free vocation, nor is it a vocation that belongs to me. The meaning of that vocation for me lies in money, power, and other things. So for me this vocation is merely a link attached to a more fundamental “vocation” such as “pursuing fame and gain,” and the question then turns into: where is the meaning of “pursuing fame and gain”? Besides fame and gain, some other seemingly “noble” pursuits are similar—for example, I engage in a vocation in order to “seek the welfare of all humankind,” “build XX-ism,” “glorify God,” and so on, higher-order “vocations” of that sort. Then the question likewise shifts to: where, then, is the meaning of those vocations?
Pushing the destination of “meaning” farther and farther upward, farther and farther away, is in a sense only a way of evading or passing the question on. What can ultimately answer the question of meaning is finding a “free” vocation, whose meaning is self-sufficient; that is to say, its meaning does not need to rely on any other vocation, but is meaning itself. In the tradition, this is the so-called “ultimate concern,” which ultimately appeals to something “absolute” or supreme, for example God and eternal life, or something like abstract “justice,” “the happiness of all humankind,” and so on. This is the way traditional metaphysics answers the question of meaning. Yet in modern philosophy, including my pluralism, that distant and “absolute” thing is suspect. But I am not abolishing the question of meaning; I still want to ask: what meaning do certain vocations have for me? Or rather, “Why do I want to choose to engage in some activity?”
Besides reducing meaning to some ultimate thing, there are two other possible ways. One is to say: although this thing is not some ultimate thing, it is still meaningful in itself. This is what I have mentioned many times before—“games” (for example http://epr.ycool.com/post.3065323.html). Another is to reduce meaning to “I” itself. That is to say, “‘I’ why do ‘I’ ‘choose’ something?”—the answer is not that “something” itself is meaningful, but that the activity of “choosing” is where meaning lies. The reason why making some choice is meaningful is because “making a choice” itself is meaning. But these two answers are still somewhat not quite to the point. They do not really explain, at a fundamental level, why I should make some preferential choice. A “choice” made casually, without any thought or planning, can hardly be called a choice; human choice ought to include rational reflection, weighing, and planning, rather than relying on the fleeting feeling of the moment like an animal. So what exactly are we reflecting on when we choose? What are we planning? The question seems to fall back into a circle: do we still have to appeal to some ultimate object? Not necessarily. We discover that all questions of meaning contain the subject “I”; in fact, it is “I” that is the most fundamental concern toward which my planning truly tends.
But what is “I”? If its meaning is merely a word that functions at the level of syntactic structure (like be), then reducing things to such an empty abstraction is no different from traditional metaphysics. Yet the “I” I am talking about here is not such an abstract, empty, and distant concept. This “I” is not anything fixed and ready-made, but rather the identity of an ever-flowing, unfinished reality. When I say “I make a choice for myself,” the two “I”s are neither completely separate nor completely identical; they are the “I” unfolding in “time.” I make a choice in the present, and what I consider may be the gains of my future self, or the habits of my past self. In other words, at any given moment I am not only the self living in this instant, but also the self continuous and identical with past and future. And all my choices will unfold around this identity of mine. Nor is my identity any ready-made fixed relation; in other words, precisely through my repeated acts of choice, my past, present, and future are linked together. That is to say, the meaning of the activity of “choosing” lies precisely in the fact that through it I can shape myself, consciously establish the connections between past, present, and future, and thereby enrich, fill out, and realize the existence of “I.” Thus, the proposition “I choose for myself” is not expressing a simple personalist hedonism, because the “I” here does not refer to the desires of the present moment; at the same time, it is not a tautology, because “I” is not something already fixed and given. Through this proposition, the “question of meaning” is no longer formulated as: “What do I pursue?” “To what rules do I submit?” but rather as: “What kind of person do I want to become?” (This makes it easier to understand why I am so fond of virtue ethics, right?)
I’ve really gone way off track… In any case, for me, whether it is an academic vocation or family life, the final consideration behind my choice is a planning for “I.” I make academia become a part of my life, become a part of “I.” Only then does it have meaning for me. If one wants to push further and ask what kind of person I want to become, then one has to bring up again this pursuit of “possibility”; I won’t say more about that for now.
Actually, this question originally did not need to be answered in such a way. To put it most simply: what drives me to devote myself to the academic vocation is nothing more than a thirst for knowledge, and this desire is of course wholly and spontaneously my own.
- 耘籽
2008-11-15 09:15:19 匿名 124.205.76.152
What you say is quite right. It was my example that was not quite apt; I also did not intend to make a comparison of differences.
Of course, what I meant was to show that possibility itself cannot be quantified, so whether for men or for women, whether single or not single, the concrete form of possibility may change, but richness remains. There is no “more,” and there is no comparison of gender differences.
Of course, the sentence that interests me most is “For me, the meaning of my life does not lie in academia, but the meaning of academia lies in my life; this is what makes it truly my academic vocation, a free academic vocation.” Could you explain this sentence in more concrete terms?
- 古雴
2008-11-15 00:12:40
Haven’t you then given another kind of “comparison of gender differences”? Why is it that single women can more fully pursue a career in academia? I cannot agree with this claim, whether in an ideal sense or in a social reality sense!
From the standpoint of actual conditions, first of all, women, whether single or not, are often far more disadvantaged than men in the so-called sphere of “career and academia.” Second, I have not seen sufficient evidence to show that single women are more likely to achieve high academic success; on the contrary, many famous female scholars I have seen also have families (or at least lovers). By contrast, among the greatest male philosophers, the proportion of bachelors is extraordinarily high—does this indicate that, at least for the vocation of philosophy, remaining single offers greater possibilities for men?
Perhaps you think that women who give up being single must devote more attention to family life, and therefore their academic pursuits will be hindered. I have many reasons to offer in rebuttal.
First, you have set up a certain family/career binary, as if these were two mutually conflicting ways of life. I suppose what you are imagining is some kind of mechanical labor or a “career” similar to it, where the results of that vocation mainly depend on the time and energy invested. It is like production: invest more time and you can harvest more, whereas once distracted by something else, the corresponding achievement will suffer. For many “vocations” this is indeed the case, including many so-called “academic” fields that are also dominated by technical rationality in the modern age and have become a kind of mechanized production model. But this is not true of a more classical academic vocation. Especially in the case of philosophy. It is by no means the case that the more energy one puts in, or the more time one spends reading, the higher the achievement one will necessarily obtain. Quite the opposite is often true: excessive investment leads to fanaticism and ever more prejudices, causing scholarship to sink into concepts and become unable to extricate itself, losing vitality and insight. Family life, social activities, recreation and leisure—none of these “idle” activities will damage philosophy; on the contrary, for a scholar, they are also indispensable.
Why focus on a “career”? Why devote yourself to “academia”? Are you going to make yourself their servant? Does the meaning of your life depend on them? Is your life being lived for a career or for academia? Such a vocation is no longer a free vocation, and such scholarship is no longer living scholarship. It should be the other way around—for me, the meaning of my life does not lie in academia, but the meaning of academia lies in my life; this is what makes it truly my academic vocation, a free academic vocation.
Second, it is also dubious in reality to say that single women have the conditions to pursue their own career and academic work more fully. It is true that family life consumes a fair amount of energy. But why say that women are burdened more? Indeed, in society as a whole, the proportion of women doing housework is far greater, but considering that women who are enthusiastically pursuing academia and similar vocations are also a tiny minority in society, one cannot simply apply general statistics. It is not as if a woman can just decide to give up being single and then give it up; it also depends on whether there is a partner willing to cooperate. A man who can accept a woman with ambition in academia or in her career clearly cannot be viewed as part of the social average; I think such a man will impose less constraint on a woman. On the contrary, if two people who respect each other live together, they can surely support and rely on each other. In daily life, economically, socially, and psychologically, the support one side provides the other often far outweighs the constraints, and just the security of material life is undoubtedly something that cannot be ignored when pursuing academia in practical terms. Especially in today’s academic world or social and economic environment, the difficulty of a woman struggling to survive within it is probably relatively greater. In the face of all kinds of practical difficulties, two people supporting each other is better than one person fighting alone.
As for “why there should be a stage such as first falling in love,” perhaps I did not understand your question. But in any case, I never said that one must first date and then get married / live together, and so on. If you insist on saying, “Hey, let’s live together today and get the marriage certificate tomorrow, and slowly fall in love later,” that might also be quite interesting; I am not unable to accept such a plan either (though here I was only looking for a mm, not writing “seeking marriage”). In fact, there are plenty of cases of getting married first and falling in love later, especially in arranged marriages in ancient times, where people got married directly without even having met. I do not in the slightest doubt that the love arising in such marriages can be sincere and precious. Of course I do not recommend such a plan. This is mainly due to various practical considerations: first, it seems not very realistic; second, it may bring some thorny troubles, such as later having to explain things to my parents, unavoidable pressure from public opinion, and what if the woman later regrets it, and so on. Moreover, starting too abruptly will also lose many pleasures and experiences that can only be felt through gradual progression, and beginning with “dating” is also more in line with my personality… Beyond that, there is no grand principle saying one absolutely must go through a stage of “dating.”
- 耘籽
2008-11-14 21:36:46 匿名 124.205.76.155
“In many cases, being single has richer possibilities than being in a pair, especially for men.”
I cannot be satisfied with your making a comparison of gender differences merely by saying “in many cases.” I think that for women, being single allows them to pursue their own career and academic work more fully; men seem to be expected to put career first whether they are single or not. From the standpoint of one’s own career and academia, women giving up being single also counts as reducing the richness of possibilities, I suppose.
Also, one more question: why should there be a stage such as first falling in love, since both are forms of planning activity?
- 古雴
2008-11-12 01:24:45
The analysis above is of course very far from what I meant. Let me explain a little.
First, I do not know what you mean by “true love”; I do not know. I have unfortunately already bid farewell to fairy tales, and what I seek now is only “real love” rather than so-called “true love.” Of course, for my own part, reality is real.
Second, what exactly is the “standard” by which “the mind naturally has standards of judgment”? I do not know. The “standards” I know of all refer to rationalized, systematic principles of measurement or judgment. As for mental attitudes that are not rationalized, one cannot call them “standards.” Indeed, when some object appears before me in a certain way, I will have some feeling psychologically, and the degree and nature of that feeling differ: some objects make me feel pleased, others make me feel annoyed. But no “standard” appears here. I have already mentioned that something I detest is not necessarily something that is inherently detestable; often it is simply that I have not found the most appropriate way to coexist with it. Besides, finding a partner is certainly not merely an activity of pure feeling; after all, this is a major life matter, and one needs to rely on reason to do some planning. For example, if I have just finished exercising and am drenched in sweat, and in front of me there is a bottle of Coke and a pot of tea, I will of course pick up the Coke and drink it without hesitation. But if I want to choose one of the two as a “lifelong partner,” to coexist with in broader and more enduring circumstances, then I would of course still choose tea. That is rational planning. Such planning is not a negation of feeling; in the end it is still my feeling, my taste, that makes the choice. Yet the significance of reason lies in the fact that it can help me transcend the feelings of a single moment and connect past and future.
1. I never want to “judge” whether someone likes me. When I mentioned my statement from three years ago, it was “as long as she can look kindly on me, that will do,” whereas now it has changed to “no conditions, no requirements.” I say that my present statement is “more definite and more stable.” More definite in what way? In that I have removed even the criterion of “looking kindly on me.” What does it mean to look kindly on me? How am I supposed to judge whether she may look kindly on me? I do not know. If I put up a notice seeking friends and then someone comes to respond, does that necessarily mean she looks kindly on me? Not necessarily at all. Anyway, I no longer worry about this issue. My love seeks no return, including love itself; as long as you are willing to walk together with me and willing to accept my existence and my feelings, that is enough. Whether you like me or dislike me, as long as you are willing to be with me in the role of mm, that is enough.
2. I certainly do not deny that one is influenced by various subjective and objective factors, but if you say that the factors above have “completely” accounted for it, I definitely would not agree. Even more, I do not understand what exactly you are trying to show by making this judgment. In any case, through reading books, I may be influenced by people from hundreds or thousands of years ago.
3. This point is completely wrong. My academic work and my life are both going very well. I am by no means seeking a mm only when I encounter difficulties; rather, it is precisely when I am at my most confident and high-spirited that I think of finding a mm. You can say I am male-chauvinist; in any case, I do not need a mm to help me. My own vocation is enough for me alone, all the more so since what I do is philosophy, a vocation doomed to loneliness. Of course, a mm may in fact have a significant influence on my philosophy; but will that influence be beneficial or harmful? Hard to say. On the other hand, it is certainly true that I very much look forward to someone coming to argue and discuss with me, but do I look forward to my mm playing that role? No! Of course I do not refuse her to play that role (unconditionally, after all), but that could be rather dangerous, and I would not dare to imagine it. My philosophy is too violent; it can be admired from afar, but if one really walks in and contends with me in debate, for a mm it seems rather too brutal. I have already learned my lesson from the matter of Unic before; in the future I should still restrain myself a little with girls…
4. This one is indeed well said.
5. I of course do not reject female PhDs, but I also do not see why female PhDs are especially suitable for me
- 无名氏
2008-11-11 23:06:30 匿名 222.222.92.195
About unconditionality
I think this criterion is hard to say
mainly because if we really love someone
then we can ignore any conditions
for example, we may have a basic standard for height, appearance, education, etc.
but once we truly fall in love with someone, we won’t consider so many factors
in fact, with respect to any specific object, the blogger’s psychology naturally does have standards of judgment
I think the blogger’s seeking a MM is based on the following factors
1. To judge whether someone likes me or has some kind of favorable feeling toward me takes a lot of time and energy at least to make such a judgment takes some effort so the blogger wants to save this time (of course, I don’t mean save time in the literal sense) — better to simply publicly seek a MM
2. I think people at this age are completely driven by sexual desire, age factors, mental state, the influence of people around them, and so on, and only then would they have such an idea
3. The blogger may have reached a certain bottleneck in scholarship or life, and really needs a MM to guide him into deeper reflection and to argue with him, discuss with him, think about scholarship, think about life, think about love, marriage, and so on
4. The blogger is a person good at debate; based on the topic of seeking a MM, he can also open up some of his ideas, his writing ideas, his understanding of love, marriage, sex, and so on. These have always been eternal topics in philosophy
5. Personal suggestion: you can go look for a female PhD student; I think that would be quite suitable - 古雴
2008-11-07 12:55:03
That’s only natural, which is why I said you can’t leave out the “in many cases”~ In fact, isn’t that exactly what I’m saying — that compared with the possibilities obtained by remaining single, I would also rather end single life earlier in exchange for different possibilities?
- 耘籽
2008-11-06 23:10:14 Anonymous 124.205.78.39
“To extend the single state all the way into one’s forties: as a man, I still largely retain the possibility of finding a little MM in her twenties, and of course I also have the possibility of finding a partner close to my own age; whereas if it were a woman who had reached her forties, then the possibility of her finding a young man in his twenties is obviously much lower, and even finding a partner of similar age is relatively difficult. That’s just how it is; this is a sociological fact, and I am not attaching any value judgment to it.”
I agree with this, but I think the kind of “possibility” you mention here cannot replace the full meaning of possibility itself
. - 古雴
2008-11-06 18:22:31
Let me add some further explanation of the issue with the notice itself:
Frankly speaking, when I posted this notice, I really did not think much about the possibility that someone would respond so quickly. That was indeed my oversight, though certainly not a mistake. Here I am only adding something about a point I had not made clear, namely: if someone responds, what then?
I only said “this post remains valid for a long time before it is closed,” and did not say when this post would be closed (this was mentioned in the lost text that was deleted in vain). On the one hand, closing the post does not necessarily mean that I have successfully found a MM; it may be because I am preparing to change strategy, or on a whim want to go into retreat or something like that; on the other hand, of course, if I really do find a MM, then I will close this post, because I clearly said that I was “seeking one MM,” and if after finding one I continue seeking, that would obviously be irresponsible and logically inconsistent.
However, this by no means means that once someone “responds,” I will close it. Although my solicitation is said to be “unconditional,” that does not mean that as long as anyone says “I’m responding,” they can automatically become my MM. I need to make certain confirmations before I can acknowledge that the response has been completed. For example, if you are just joking with me, or if you are casually responding absent-mindedly, then you must also allow me to deal with it in the same absent-minded, perfunctory way. In any case, human interaction should adhere to the principle of equal treatment: if you can respond to multiple dating posts at the same time, then you should of course also allow me to face multiple responders at the same time; if you are serious and single-minded, I will also give you a corresponding response. I have already said that my view of “what exactly MM is” is not something preset and fixed, but something to be jointly constructed, and the process of construction will involve the other party’s participation. When you truly have sufficient awakening and determination, and after your intention has been clearly understood by me, I will of course confirm the establishment of the bond between us, and close the dating notice.
But in any case, I do not want to hastily close off the vast field of possibilities; after all, this matter is not at all urgent for me. And to solemnly pin this notice at the top of my blog, only to close it before even a single new post has fallen below it, seems like a rather hilarious thing……
So, well, before you are fully prepared, don’t rush. Although I am a limited-edition product, first come, first served, please rest assured: whether you come first or later has to do with when I confirm your intention, and does not necessarily have any relation to when you first conveyed that intention to me. Calmly think it through and then send a message — it won’t be too late!
2008-11-05 19:56:55
When quoting, you must not leave out my “in many cases, …”. Each person’s situation differs according to his or her own circumstances and the different plans they have made, so it cannot be generalized. Moreover, this also has to do with the corresponding context. “Especially for men” simply states a sociological fact: for example, even if I extend my single state all the way into my forties, as a man I still largely retain the possibility of finding a little MM in her twenties, and of course I also have the possibility of finding a partner close to my own age; whereas if it were a woman who had reached her forties, then the possibility of her finding a young man in his twenties is obviously much lower, and even finding a partner of similar age is relatively difficult. That’s just how it is; this is a sociological fact, and I am not attaching any value judgment to it.
What is special about MM compared with other interpersonal relationships? Of course, in my case it is very special, but I do not want to call this specialness “essential,” because this is only my personal preference, and I do not require MM to recognize this specialness as well. Moreover, how I regard MM is also negotiable: how would you like me to see you? What role would you like to play in my life? What do you expect me to bring you?…… For all these questions, I do not have fixed answers ready; although I certainly have some preferences, everything can be discussed.
In my view, so-called “MM,” “girlfriend,” “lover,” and “friend,” “mother,” “brother,” and so on are merely names. They only function as labels when presenting our relationship to outsiders; however, in my real interactions, these names are, if not entirely meaningless, at least secondary. When I face other people, what I face is not concepts one by one, but living, real people one by one. Every person is unique; every relationship is unique. Although people called “friends” may be many, in my eyes each friend is different. Apart from explaining our relationship to a third person, what other use does the word “friend” have? Would I really think like this when doing something (rather than explaining to outsiders): “Major premise: I should help friends; minor premise: Zhang San is my friend. Conclusion: therefore I should help Zhang San.”? That may be the line of thought of ethics gone in the wrong direction in modern times, but it is definitely not my line of thought. Seeing Zhang San in difficulty, I naturally help him — this should be a matter of course, requiring no logical inference. Only afterward, when explaining to outsiders why I helped Zhang San and not Li Si, does “he is my friend” become meaningful.
If you insist that I say it, then the specialness of MM lies in opening toward the relation of husband and wife or partners, and the relation of husband and wife or partners is special for me.
First is exclusivity, not only in the sense that my so-called relationships with each person are unique, but also in the sense that the name “lover” often can only occupy one object, unlike “friend” or “brother.” And compared with concepts such as father and mother, the exclusive relationship of lover has the characteristics of being acquired and equal. The relations of parents and kin are often inborn and given, not up to you to choose; whereas a lover is chosen autonomously only after a person’s thought has matured and they possess the capacity for sound free choice. But once the choice is made, the relationship thus established also has the characteristics of unconditionality and intimacy like those of “kin”……
According to the language of “possibility,” it is indeed possible to say that, compared with other relations, the lover far exceeds them in the degree of possibility, to the point of being open to the possibilities displayed by almost all other relations. But “degree of possibility” cannot simply be understood as a quantitative difference; then what is an essential difference? Is not what is called an essential difference precisely embodied in different possibilities?
2008-11-05 16:00:55 Anonymous 124.205.78.216
“Compared with the two-person state, the single state has richer possibilities, especially for men.”
Why especially for men? Could you say a bit more? At least for now I’m not convinced.
Also, the part about analyzing the reasons for being with others is well said, so in my view finding a friend would likewise have richer possibilities. You still haven’t said what is special about finding a MM to live with; is there still no essential difference in your view, just a difference in degree of possibility?
2008-11-05 00:19:52
Going further, why should a free person strive to live together with others? Even setting aside the issue that in modern society people must cooperate through mutual division of labor in order to maintain survival. If we assume that someone is sufficiently satisfied materially, they will often still hope to establish relations with others. Of course, the relations a person hopes to establish with others vary: some people have a stronger lust for power and hope that others will obey them, some would rather have others as their backing, some like to compete with others, while some prefer intimacy with others…… In short, these are all desires concerning “living with others in some way.” Then you can ask: why do people have such desires?
The answer can of course be psychological. But philosophically speaking, the reason is also very simple: people want to “realize themselves.” Human beings are not isolated and abstract symbols; the real person is his life (Marx). What I (a person) am is not given in advance (existentialism), but must be gradually constructed through people’s interactions and connections with the world — with things, with others — or, to put it differently, “I” am only “found” in relations with things and with others (humanistic psychology).
When a person is planning his relations with the world and with others, he is in fact also planning what he himself is.
2008-11-04 23:55:48
“Possibility”! Human beings pursue possibility, seek paths by which possibility can unfold more fully.
See https://yilinhut.net/2008/01/14/1761.html
In many cases, the single state has richer possibilities than the two-person state, especially for men. But not always. Life as a couple will also open up new possibilities.
What you say is right: life as two people is “much more complicated and troublesome” than life as one person, but that is precisely an advantage, because people do not always detest complication and trouble; on the contrary, the more complicated something is, the more likely it is to bring a richer and more colorful life.
Of course, on the other hand, longing for MM is after all the most ordinary of wishes for a normal young man.
2008-11-04 23:13:15 Anonymous 124.205.78.181
Thank you for your affirmation~~ You answered quite well; I look forward to seeing a fuller expression of the first paragraph in the future. But for the time being there is still one doubt, or perhaps I still haven’t grasped it coherently — since after two people are together, the way of planning the future is obviously much more complicated and troublesome than when one person is alone, why try to turn oneself from a state of being alone into a state of living together as two people?
2008-11-04 02:05:49
Your questions are all good; it seems you understand my article fairly well.
Indeed, as the text has already stated, a more complete philosophical discussion of “love” or desire, and so on, has not been greatly developed here; many deeper questions are only touched on in passing.
You ask about “desire itself.” What is desire itself? Schopenhauer’s philosophy places will (that is, desire) at the center, but in his case this desire itself is a Kantian “thing-in-itself,” unknowable and unseen. In my view there is also some affinity with Schopenhauer. If you ask what this “desire itself” is really like, where it comes from, there is no way to say. What can be said is only its “manifestation.” And “love” or “desire,” as a kind of “emotion,” manifests itself, in Heidegger’s terms, as “a state of attunement.” Where does “emotion itself” come from? It does not come from “outside” or from “inside”; it does not come from any “object.” It is simply Dasein’s way of being-in-the-world. Conversely, all “objects” must in fact be “brought out” through the stirring of emotion.
The two emotions Heidegger especially elaborates are “concern” and “anxiety.” “Concern” can “bring out” “objects,” making them “present”: in busy concern Dasein encounters things, and in concernful solicitude Dasein encounters others. “Anxiety,” on the other hand, can especially bring out “nothing,” making Dasein encounter “nothing.”
But Heidegger does not discuss emotions like “love” or “desire.” Heidegger maintains that only by facing nothingness does one attain “authenticity”; this is certainly profound. “Love” or “desire” does not have the function of revealing nothingness. Yet compared with “concern” and “anxiety,” “love” or “desire” also has its own distinctive power. Here I reverse Heidegger’s two negative emotions into positive ones. As for “making objects appear,” “desire” can produce an effect similar to “concern”; and as for facing one’s authentic self, “love” can go deeply with “anxiety,” even though the things they “bring out” are exactly opposite. If “anxiety” corresponds to “nothing,” then “love” corresponds precisely to “being.” “Anxiety before death and nothingness” is fundamentally akin to, indeed identical with, “love of life and existence.” Which is more originary? Heidegger says to be toward death and thus live, because human beings are temporal beings, and it is death’s “anticipation” that gives life meaning. Besides Heidegger, many others also like similar formulations. It sounds profound; in fact it is indeed profound. But I still want to put it differently. We can interrogate our own hearts: to say that life becomes meaningful only after we realize death—this of course is possible. Yet let us not speak in abstractions; let us look at the order of emotions themselves. The reason the event of death has meaning, is it not first of all because of our feeling toward life? The “anxiety” toward death, whether in temporal terms or in logical terms, is not the most originary. The most originary emotion is probably that most originary “will.” If one insists on naming it, one might call it the desire for life, or “the will to life,” or simply say, “I want to live.”
Of course, the order of priority among emotions is not important either. In short, in plain terms, for Heidegger the center is “I fear death,” whereas for me it becomes “I want to live”—that is the general line of thought. In Heidegger, the concrete “fear” appears as “I fear A,” “I fear B,” in short as directed toward some “object.” The most originary, objectless fear is what is called “anxiety”; in other words, “I fear death,” and Heidegger begins from there. By the same logic, the concrete, unfolded “want” appears as “I want A,” “I want B,” in short as directed toward some “object.” And the most primitive, objectless “want” can be understood as “I want to live” / “I want to exist” / “I want ‘being’”; I begin from there.
My thinking on these points is still only embryonic, and I have not yet successfully “translated” the language of Schopenhauer, Heidegger, and the others into my own formulations, so for the moment I do not want to write too much. Since someone has nudged me on it, I’ll just write this much for now—please make do with it~
As for that “extreme example,” broadly speaking, theoretically you are right. However, if you say that the moment I am unwilling I can simply abandon it under the name of “of course, in real life one encounters all kinds of difficulties and challenges,” then that rather underestimates my tolerance. It is true that, by my way of doing things, a person who is outwardly unbearably ugly may be harder to live with than one who is inwardly utterly dark, because disgust caused by concepts and ideas can be easily deconstructed by my powerful philosophical weapons, but I have not yet found any effective weapon to resolve disgust caused by direct sensory perception of the features—much like high-decibel noise, which no matter how one adapts to it probably cannot be heard as beautiful; the only way to live with it is to stuff one’s ears. But I believe that compared with ordinary people, my capacity for acceptance is still quite high. Especially as pluralist philosophy has taken shape, my character has also become more and more open. Whether it is eating, listening to music, looking at people, and so on, I have a fairly strong range of adaptability.
To put it even more extremely, if there really were a woman who was unbearably ugly and had no sexual ability at all (as I mentioned in the text, at the very least one analytical condition must be met: she must possess the secondary sexual characteristics of a woman, so that one can “tell she is a woman”; if she simply has no “sex” at all, that won’t do), and she came to me, what would I do? First, I would have to confirm that her application was out of her own will. If so, then she too should make some effort and work with me to plan possible ways of living together. Broadly speaking, the ways of common life are: first, work or professional life, which in my case means philosophy and scholarship; second, family life, caring for one another in food and daily living; third, leisure and entertainment; fourth, social activities participated in together; fifth, sex in the broad sense. If she is unbearably ugly and has no sexual ability, then I’m afraid the last two kinds of activity would be hard for her to take part in, and the third would also have to be discounted. Then we would have to think about putting more effort into the earlier kinds of life. If we could find deep harmony in one or two of them, I think that could make up for the deficiencies in the rest of life. As for some desires of mine that could not be satisfied, of course I could also resolve them by other means on my own. I have never expected anyone to find shared enjoyment with me in every aspect of my life. In fact, modern married couples often have very little common space beyond television and the bed—and they still manage to live, don’t they? If there is no way to be happy in bed, then one should strengthen other aspects; if truly not a bit of common ground can be created, then there is nothing to be done.
More precisely, compared with the issue of appearance, the defect of “having no sexual ability” seems more subtle: does it mean having no sex drive at all? If so, then the one who would be tested more severely ought to be her, not me. Come to think of it, if it were an ugly woman, perhaps her lack of sexual ability would be good news for me… If she were attractive, then even if she had no sex drive, she could still help satisfy my sex drive. In any case, nothing is an absolute defect; perhaps an ugly woman plus a shrew will make me into Socrates?
2008-11-03 23:23:44 Anonymous 124.205.78.119
I wonder whether you have set up a “model” of romance, and in theoretical terms any girl can enter this model and become an object of your acceptance. Of course you yourself also admit that “of course, in real life one encounters all kinds of difficulties and challenges.” I want to ask: taking an extreme example, someone extremely ugly, or someone without sexual ability, can also be accepted in your model, but because of the difficulties of real life it cannot continue—would you say that is the case?
I remember you said before that the need for love stems from dissatisfaction, but I feel that this layer of meaning has not been developed here.
In the text you say that how “I want” manifests itself depends on what I take the object to be. Here the “I want” has already been refined into an unfolded form; it seems different from the meaning of the original “I want” as I understand it now (and it is not simply possessiveness, but desire itself). Is that what you mean here?
2008-11-02 19:00:35
In other words, the reason my reason can “guide” feeling is precisely that my reason does not “control” feeling; through reflective self-restraint, reason reduces its domination over feeling. Only thus can reason guide feeling—when a certain concept arouses a feeling of disgust, I intensify reason’s self-reflection, deconstruct that concept, and leave the feeling of disgust with nowhere to attach itself; and when a concept can arouse gentle, less extreme beautiful emotions, I slow down the deconstruction and, following the wholeness of my thinking, strive to construct and nurture it. In this way, through self-limitation, reason can guide beautiful emotions to be nurtured and disgust to fade.
2008-11-02 18:42:00
The commenter above has hit the key point. Indeed, the “certain” that I speak of here is not a solid inference, but only a belief, because there is no general way to adapt to all objects, so I cannot ensure once and for all that the so-called planning can all succeed.
However, feeling is indeed very easy to guide by reason. The joys, sorrows, anger, and delight aroused by a brilliant novel are often richer and more active than some real-life experiences, and what is a novel? From beginning to end it is concepts—things that can only be reached through reason.
Indeed, not everything disgusting can be adapted to through “habit”; however, the ways reason can devise are varied, and the ways in which a thing can move people’s feelings are also varied.
For example, cake should be eaten, cosmetics should be applied, and oil paintings should be hung up for appreciation. If you have not found a suitable way to coexist, and instead always want to eat cosmetics and smear your face with cake, then you will probably never achieve “beautiful feeling” no matter what. The things that feel beautiful are not absolute; it is not the case that they can make one feel beautiful no matter what relation one is in with them. The things that feel disgusting are not absolute either. With changes in the way one treats them and the relation one has to them, what is pleasant can become disgusting, and what is disgusting can become pleasant.
Some behaviors I may simply never be able to stand; some things I may simply never be able to tolerate. But do not get stuck in a rut and say that I can certainly plan out some way to make me get used to what I cannot stand. If looking at it is unpleasant, why must I look at it? Can I not avoid it a bit? Or look at it from another angle? For example, you love smoking while I detest the smell of smoke—that does not necessarily mean I must be able to cultivate an adaptation to cigarette smoke. Through negotiation and planning, when you smoke I avoid it as much as possible, and isn’t that enough? Clearly smoking will not be the whole of your life; we can still have plenty of time to interact. Is it possible that someone’s entire life is made up of actions that are unbearable to me? That seems rather unlikely… Some people are governed by reason, and then it may be possible for them to find certain people unbearable. For example, they feel disgust toward “smoking” (one could replace it with “killing,” “stealing,” and so on), and reason governs their emotions, so that not only the act of smoking itself but even the word “smoking” becomes unbearable. Thus the “smoker” too becomes disgusting. So as soon as a person is labeled a “smoker,” even if he is not smoking at this very moment, he appears disgusting in the eyes of this person governed by reason. But I would not be like that. I govern reason, not reason me. So even if I dislike “smoking,” that would not make me disgusted by “smokers.” The act of smoking is distressing to me, but the concept “smoking” will not arouse feelings of disgust in me. Therefore, as long as you do not take “XX” as your nature, as the whole of your life, then even if I cannot feel favorably toward “XX,” I can still establish a beautiful connection with you.
2008-11-02 17:34:30 Anonymous 124.205.76.231
—If I am willing, I can certainly, through the guidance of reason and through planning a way of life, cultivate and stimulate beautiful feelings related to a certain thing, and thus in the end not only say that I “ought” to love it, but in reality truly love it; the reality of this “love” is manifested in the construction of a way of life that can coexist with it for a long time and with delight.
Feelings are very hard to submit to the guidance of reason, or perhaps in your case planning is more crucial, but the gap between planning and beautiful feeling still has not been made clear, has it?
2008-11-02 00:50:50 Anonymous 211.71.55.17
So long, so long~
2008-11-02 00:27:16
A brief supplement in view of possible misunderstandings:
Someone heard that I was putting out a call for mm and said that I could no longer bear loneliness; and there were even busybodies saying I should try to get one before the Grand Light Festival and the like. In fact, if one had read the interpretive section, one should realize that the purpose of this article is not actually to get mm, but rather the desire for expression. But in view of the fact that many people would not be interested in reading the whole text, I explained it separately here.
If I really wanted to get mm as quickly as possible, I should not have posted such a long-winded and frightening article; instead, I would have done better to write like an ordinary personal-ad post, saying more about myself and my preferences. I could also have avoided words like conditions or requirements, and instead used concepts like preferences and imaginings, talking about my ideas for mm. That would not violate my philosophy, and it would also increase the success rate of finding mm—why not? But in the end, the desire to pour out what I wanted to write overwhelmed everything, and as a result I produced this kind of piece.
This interpretation did not undergo any process of organization; I wrote as thoughts came, which makes it perhaps even more scattered than my other articles. Moreover, since this article involves many important notions, it is even less suitable for reading. Perhaps subconsciously I more wanted to scare mm away rather than attract mm, which is why I did not, as usual, constantly pay attention to making it more clear and fluent…
Of course, the gain from writing this article was enormous, because through writing my thinking was led toward certain modes of unfolding that I had not anticipated before writing.
2008-11-02 00:09:50 Anonymous 124.205.77.155
Because I have a heavy paper load, I still haven’t been able to read your great work in full, but I have read most of it. I’m still completely lost in the clouds; it was originally just curiosity, so I came in to take a look, and yet no one has replied. It seems that the higher one goes the lonelier it gets. Bless….
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply