Dear James~,
What an interesting parody and perhaps a counter-argument to my 3
"laws". Perhaps, it is interesting to note that the difference in
paradigm seen in people of today vs the people perhaps not far, but
in our parents time. Let me first made clear that the three "laws"
are not laws, but merely a set of guidelines which I choose to
follow. I am sure that you have your set of guidelines. As I have
said earlier, rules are meant to be broken, and one must not look
at this set of "laws" of mine as some form of dogma, because when
something becomes dogmatic, one forgets the meaning on why it is
there for the first place.
More or less, I think that only the counter-proposal to the first
law seems justified. Because the 2nd and 3rd law are more like
observations than making really it look like laws. The 2nd law is
merely a corollary saying that in this world, there exist a woman
with both beauty and brains and the 3rd law, the action-reaction is
not equal and opposite. So, there is no contention for that either.
Hence I viewed your attempts to counter the 2nd and 3rd law were
pathetic, because the statements are invariably clear as
descriptive observations about things around us.
Let me take a step back and go back to the first law again. There
is a different reason on why people chose to do it or not to do it.
I am very clear why I adopted it, because I don't want to let
someone suffer what I have been thru. For one thing, I think that
it is not a matter of morality, but a matter of karma and
retribution. One could approach the first law in a version that
goes like this. Since u can snatch a woman away from a man like
this, it is also likely that someday she will run away with another
man in the same light to u. I am sure that you are going to say
that it's not going to happen to me, or advocate a seemingly cruel
world out there. However, when we are subject to the situation, are
we really ready to accept the reality. Some people say yes and some
people say no.
Recently, I have a very interesting discussion with my friend on
this first "law", since I am reviewing a possible hypothetical
scenairo of a couple breaking up because of difference in education
level, and the third party is possibly more suitable for the gal,
and the gal in the scenairo knew it as well. An immediate
consequence of the law, for me, is that I would not break a couple
up, as the Cantonese have a saying which goes like "I would rather
teach a father to beat his son in order to educate the son, than to
break up a couple" or "Ning Jiao Ren Da Zi, Mo Jiao Ren Fen
Ci".
Well, the lucky thing is that I am the observer, so my friend posed
the question to me : are u going to facilitate the breakup and
would do anything to allow it to happen at the price that it has
violated your first law? Then I realized what he is trying to say,
because when a law becomes too dogmatic, a person forgets why he
started believing in it in the first place. More or less, it led me
to re-evaluate my own principles and come to a conclusion. In my
own capacity, I would not ask my friend to break up with her bf,
even though I feel that she is not compatible with him (and note
that I may be wrong in making that value-judgement). I would say
that to stay or not to stay is her choice, even if I know what is
best for her. That is the point, we cannot stop people from making
their choices on what kind of life which they want to live.
It is like saying something like this, let me construct an
hypothetical case. Suppose I am interested in this girl, for
example, our dearest Daddy's Little Girl, since she has a horde of
suitors going after her, and finally I met her in real life and
unfortunately she was attached, because I was at the wrong time in
the wrong place, I did not manage to win her heart. I could choose
to use all kinds of dirty tricks to win her heart and break her up
with the other guy. But the problem is when we are finally
together, and when she sees that I am not really the person whom
she wanted, it would be hurting to her.
To breakup a couple is very simple, but to be with the person u
love then and truthfully is difficult. If people really believe in
true love, why do people have to resort to such tricks to win a
person's heart? It is no longer because I love her, it is more
likely because I want to possess her, and take her as a plaything.
Using Colette's most powerful flaming argument known as the
archivist technique, I recalled that u also said something about
woman not being a plaything in your thread about "The Art of
Pursue". Honestly, if I have to resort to win a r/s like this, I
would rather stay single, at least, I am accountable to myself and
my conscience is clear. I may feel bad about why I never did it,
and envy the couples walking in the street, kissing and doing
whatever they pleased. Nevertheless, it is better the sorrow of
doing something wrong vs the long and impatient wait. That is the
spirit of true love, because u love her, you choose to let
go.
I can bitch or whine to you about the terrible situation which I
was in when someone did this to me, but I learned to see it in a
different way as I spent the year going thru a recovery period.
Sometimes, I do ask myself the same question, perhaps, she has lost
the love for me, and after all the chain reaction happened and
caused irreversible damages, I realized that now, if I am still
going to say I did love her at that moment of time and perhaps now
keeping her a part of memory of me, I think I should let her go as
well, because in the same way, letting go also meant that I let
myself go and not dwelling in the past. Perhaps, I might be an
unlucky guy to have it happening to me again, and I don't know how
I would react to it again, but at least, I know one thing, I never
did anyone any wrong and I can still live my life without being
fearful to my own sins. But using your Machievellian or Nietzsche
reasoning, can you? I don't think so.
yours,
Prodigal
