Why Need A Reason To Be Good And Nice?

I was discussing the father / landlord character in the Hindi serial Mere Dad Ki Dulhan with a friend of mine. The dad, a widower with a daughter, is depicted as an egoistic, sarcastic, introverted person who can't stand social interactions. (The story in the serial seems just a bit like the movie You've Got Mail).

Of late, the dad has started getting close to a lady in a dating app, who incidentally is his own tenant, a lady who lives upstairs. Neither the lady nor the gentleman realizes who their dating app partner is in real life, that they are actually neighbors. As neighbors they detest each other.

The man recently had been behaving extremely crankily even by his own standards and has ended up messing up his own daughter's career.

The daughter who loves her father is pained by his behavior and tells him that she has lost respect for him and that she is sick and tired of the mess that he, her father, has been creating in her life. 

This is the background. And no, I haven't watched this serial. My friend told me that the father is so like me. And hence my interest in the serial. My friend updates me about the events after each episode. The daughter's anguish at her father was in yesterday's episode of the serial.

Now let's come to the crux of the matter.

Let's now assume that a doctor told the daughter TODAY that her father actually had Parkinson's or that his brain has tumor that caused his behavior to be weird. And that there is no cure.

What would the daughter think of her father TODAY (= meaning after hearing doctor's diagnosis)? How would her behavior or response towards her father be TODAY?

Most daughters (even sons!) would show a lot more compassion towards their father NOW after they understand their father's medical condition. 

Now here is my question: 

WHY should our (=daughter's) behavior depend on knowing the medical explanation? Why should we be nicer towards our father just because we have now learnt that he has an incurable disease that causes him to behave in a very unacceptable way? Why can't we, even when we don't know of any extenuating reason, accept someone's unacceptable behavior? Why do we need to know some good reason to be just human and nice? 

I explained to my friend - it took me an hour to explain this question in the previous para to my friend.

The human mind has a set quota for accepting unacceptable behavior. This quota is like management quota for college admission seats.

Very limited quota is available and the quota is released against (= in response to) a good reason such as mgmt quota or doctor's diagnosis of my father.

In such exceptional cases the daughter (or I) would make an exception and accept our father's unacceptable behavior and be more kind to him. 

It is not humanly possible to be kind to every dickhead. We need a reason to be kind to such a person. Sad, isn't it? And this is why we all give reasons. In the hope that MY reason will be good enough for you to be nice and tolerant towards MY unacceptable behavior. 

Social interactions expect us to accept such reasons and make exceptions and be kind while ALSO behave in an unacceptable manner ourselves and give reasons.


The winner is the person who comes up with such reasons more frequently and gets away with it.

Overcoming Loss

A friend asked me if it was possible to overcome loss. I replied that with time the loss becomes a distant memory and the pain less. And that to overcome any problem, you just needed a bigger problem to focus on. I was glad to extend my help and create a big problem for her.

She declined my offer and said that it was good to remember past things. She didn't want to get distracted by new problems.

It struck me. When we feel we can't overcome a loss, we may be also enjoying the memory. And the sweetness of the memory may surpass the pain of the loss. Hence we choose to remember the loss (and hence the sweetness too).

It's nice too to enjoy the memories while grieving for the loss at the same time - double emotional orgasm.

That leads me to another friend who talked about another friend of hers. (Read background: https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2020/01/divorce-yet-no-separation.html.)
The latter after her divorce insisted on staying with her ex. The latter told my friend a. That she loved her ex-husband (strength) and would stay with him because he wanted her to and b. That she couldn't live alone (a weakness). 

Of course, don't we all portray our weaknesses as our strength or our pleasure as our pain. 

A 3rd friend who teaches in a school told me that her principal enquired about two ex-teachers X (a lady) and Y (a gentlemen). My friend keeps in touch with both X and Y, hence the principal's enquiry. My friend told me the principal would never take the lady X back while she would welcome Y with a red carpet. I thought this was discrimination. Both X and Y had earlier resigned from the school in non-amicable circumstances. Why then would one of them be welcome and the other not?
My friend patiently explained to me.
X quit and joined a competitor. That's DROHAM (=treachery). That's ugly and unacceptable

Y quit to cook and serve his elderly father. That's 😇. So very much acceptable.


It's emotions that run our lives.
Nothing changes!

Lagniappe:
The movie 6 days and 7 Nights seems to take a lot from Gods Must Be Crazy II

Existing Or Living

A friend asked me a question: Are we really living our lives or just existing?

Well, I came up with a formula or definition to decide whether you or I or anyone for that matter is living or existing.

I tried different definitions:

A. A person who is just doing things mechanically or routinely without any emotions vis-a-vis someone doing stuff that makes them happy. The former may be only existing while the latter will be living. My friend thought that this may be a good definition. I applied this definition to 2 people in her life - both males - one of whom who lived only for himself and generally undependable and irresponsible would then be found to be living and the other one who was the opposite, as per the definition, only existing. My friend thought about it and said "Next" (meaning asked me to come up with another definition, the current one didn't seem right to her).

Next definition:

B. Would a person rather be doing (substantially) something else in their life rather than what they are currently doing? If yes they are existing, else they are living.

Another definition:

C. Being useful to others vs not being useful. This definition can be redirected towards either A (doing things with and without emotion) or B (would a person be rather doing something else or not). 

An interesting point out here is: should the question of existing or living be decided based on how the person makes a difference in the world or by how they feel internally.

Definition C uses an external mechanism while A and B use an internal mechanism.

At this point in time, we had to reflect and decide the route we want to take. Is it going to be external or internal? 

We decided that it was internal. My friend said that a person who is happy and enjoying everyday of their life is living. I said that a person who has a purpose, whatever that may be, and working everyday towards that purpose is living. And I felt that it didn't matter in either case (whether it's being happy or having a purpose) whether the purpose was self centered or doing good for others.

And just as my friend and I had different views on what was living, other people could have some other definition of living.

The bottom line was that the definition could vary from one person to another. Each of us has a different yardstick with which we measure ourselves and everyone else.

Pendulum From Arrogance To Depression

Often while talking to people who seem depressed or lacking in self esteem we tell them to place more emphasis on how they look at themselves and less on how others look at them. "We shouldn't look for approval from others. It's what we think about ourselves that matter, we should feel good about what and who we are."

Somewhere along the line we also tell people to do unto others what you would like them to do to you, to think of how others feel, to empathize and put yourself in their shoes.

The obvious question that arises in a thinking mind is whether empathy and self esteem can at all coexist. Whether it's possible to put yourself in someone else's position while simultaneously thinking "I don't need your approval or even your happiness, my happiness or what I think matters much more".

For the person who believes in a balance between extremes it may seem that what we should do and what we are would be like a pendulum.

Imagine a pendulum that moves from arrogant to depressed. When we are at the arrogant end, we ought to display more empathy and when we are at the depressed end we should display more self esteem. 

It's intuitive that humans would do exactly the opposite - showing self esteem while arrogant and while trying to be nice to others and being constantly empathetic we end up being depressed.

The pendulum metaphor essentially expects human beings to do the opposite of what comes naturally to them. Because both arrogance and depression are non-normal states needing a behavior that upsets the state of equilibrium.

Being Honorable

Being honorable is about:

1. Meeting one's commitments and paying back debts (monetary and non monetary), regardless of discomfort.
2. To not want to gain at someone else's expense, to not take what is not due

90 + 10

The sum of 90 and 10 is 100. So is the sum of 10 and 90.

When someone gets a 90, we wish they had got the 10 also, so that they would get a total 100. But when someone gets a 10, we don't cheer them to get another 90 so their total becomes a 100.

The reason is simple. In the 1st case only 10 is needed to get the 100. In the latter case, 90 is needed to get a 100. We don't roundoff a 10 to a 100.

Often we think ourselves to be at 90 and that we need only 10 more to get a century. We don't realize that people rate us at only a 10.

It's very painful when we realize for the 1st time that we were at 10 throughout the time we thought ourselves to be 90.

Courage - Differing Perceptions

We see courage in the character played by Akshay Kumar in the movie Airlift.

We see courage in the character played by Sonam Kapoor in the movie Neerja.

Both are real life stories.

And we are told that Priyanka Chopra showed courage in wearing a particular dress. https://www.news18.com/news/lifestyle/hina-khan-defends-priyanka-chopras-grammy-2020-outfit-says-you-need-courage-to-wear-it-2487169.html

Well, in some strange way that I dont comprehend, Priyanka's act can be seen to also be courageous. The same word is used to describe all 3 acts. 

Feelings And Actions

Ever person has three things.

His (or her) thoughts and feelings, his words (what he says) and his actions.

His thoughts and feelings are legitimate and true. Meaning, he does feel those. He isn't faking.

His actions, whatever he does, are also true. What he does is not fake (even if his intentions may be questionable.)

Between these thoughts and feelings and his actions are his words. These are the ones that are used to fake and mislead.  Verbal communication is like an advertisement or makeup whose primary purpose is to create the impression we want, an impression that cannot be created as well without the words (or the advertisement).

I think about the time human beings learned verbal communication and the power and potential it has. And the time when he first learned to use it to say the things which he didn't mean, yet more useful than his action.

What a feeling that would have been. And then over millennia, we have learned to improve and use words with great effect.

The right use of words is more productive than action and certainly cheaper, requiring far less resources. The ROI (return on investment) is much higher.

How many of us consciously understand or appreciate this?

Many thousand years ago Thiruvalluvar said this:

Iniya ulavaadu innadu kooral

Kani iruppa kaai kavarn dhatru.

"Saying harsh things instead of sweet things is like eating raw fruit when a ripe sweet one is available."

Good communication is like a beautiful appointed living room. It then doesn't matter how your kitchen and toilet are maintained. Conversely if you have a dirty living room, it doesn't matter how clean your kitchen and toilet are!

What Kind I Don't Like

A kind that cannot stand pain, that constantly seeks comfort, that constantly dwells in emotions, that thinks intentions and desire count more than action, that doesn't have pride and honor. And the kind that holds possession to be equal to the ability to produce.

Human Instinct And Freewill

Human Instinct by Kenneth R Miller: https://www.amazon.com/Human-Instinct-Evolved-Reason-Consciousness/dp/1476790264

This is a very nice book with interesting excerpts from other relevant sources. Some content in this book and the references mentioned below resonate with my thoughts.

Additional reading:

1. Freewill by Sam Harris
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District