While there are many private schools of every description in Canada and elsewhere, when I attended St. Andrew’s College, Aurora, Ontario in 1963 we flattered ourselves to be among a select group called the “Little Big Four” which applied to St. Andrew’s College, Upper Canada College (Toronto), Bishop Ridley College (St. Catharines) and Trinity College School (Port Hope). We had occasional reciprocal football games with Pickering College (Newmarket) and Lakefield College or “The Grove” (Lakefield) but they were considered outside the normal orbit.

All the buildings on campus had the settled appearance of brick and stone. Each of the residences was three storeys.  The oldest residence was MacDonald House (named after the first Housemaster) which then housed the boys of the Lower School.  The rooms in MacDonald House were dormitories of many beds in a large room. The four Upper School residences were housed in one long building overlooking the “Quad”, a large park-like area where the annual Cadet Inspection and Prize Day were held.  The rooms there housed two or four students.  Some of the rooms of Fourth House had been renovated to remove the old veneer and replace it with the a new modern though sterile look.  There still remained however a room with a working fireplace (which room I was fortunate to have as a House Captain in Lower Sixth Form).  In both the Upper School and Lower School residences there were rooms reserved for the Prefects who had the luxury of their own room. The House Captains in the Lower School shared a room. In each of the Houses was an apartment for the House Master and his family.  The Head Master and his family had a separate house at one end of the Quad.  The other Masters and their families lived in small brick houses surrounding the campus.

It was clear from the outset that students were expected to work hard at what they were doing, whether academics, athletics, drama, debating or whatever.  At every turn there was no tolerance for slacking.  To ensure the motivation was there, there were constant rewards.  Everything had a trophy of one sort or another.  Even just belonging to one of the four “Clans” (which was mandatory for everyone in the school) entitled you to a piece of identifying cloth to sew onto your school sweater coat.  Membership at every level was accommodated.  The “New Boys” were required to wear a bland blue tie which was by design shortly replaced with the striped school tie.  As other achievements were achieved different ties were awarded to identify position or accomplishment.  The so-called “Number One Dress” was grey flannels and blue blazer (with the school crest on the breast pocket).  This could be exchanged for the kilt (Gordon tartan) and blue blazer.

The Masters imposed strict terms of reference.  They were always addressed as “Sir”.  The Masters addressed the boys only by their family name.  If there were more than one Smith, then it was Smith I (pronounced “Smith Primus”), Smith II (“Smith Secundus”), Smith III (“Smith Tertius”), Smith IV (“Smith Quartus”) and so on (though I can’t recall a fifth denomination).  Among themselves the boys normally used first names except when referring to someone outside their Form.  Fourth Form for example was the equivalent of Grade X in the provincial school system.  Fifth Form was Grade XI; Lower Sixth was Grade XII and Upper Sixth was Grade XIII.

Athletics adopted a similar system of priority, the senior teams of any sport being First Team.  First Team members were entitled to wear a white sweater coat with red trim.  The standard school sweater coat was red with white trim. Apart from the usual sports of tennis, football, hockey and swimming there was a very active cricket group. Those boys wore white ducks, buck shoes and white cable-knit sleeveless sweaters.

Debating was popular at each of the Little Big Four schools.  This extracurricular activity blended nicely with the equal affection for Stratford theatre.  It was all about performance. In later years the debating platform was expanded to include competition between schools from all over the world.  The debates held with other schools of the Little Big Four attracted celebrated personalities (politicians and industrialists) as Judges.

During the school year the highlights were the football games with competing schools of the Little Big Four; the Christmas Carol Service in the Chapel; and the Cadet Parade through Rosedale in Toronto.  Each of these instances provided an opportunity for family and friends to entertain the students at local restaurants and golf clubs.  The only other time the boys were permitted to be absent from the school was for Sunday evening dinner which was almost guaranteed to be roast beef, Yorkshire pudding and mashed potatoes with gravy.  If the boys were senior enough (and the parents were lavish enough) they could also count on having a beer or a glass of sherry before dinner.

All students were required to attend Chapel every morning (Matins) and twice on Sundays (Matins and Vespers).  No one ever enforced prayer but everybody had to sing.  The flavour of each service was decidedly Anglican (Church of England) and such hymns as later popularized by the movie “Chariots of Fire” were among the favourites.

Everyone in the school participated in the Highland Cadet corps.  Some were part of the pipes and drums band.  In addition to having to keep one’s shoes polished there was the added aggravation of having to polish the brass buttons on one’s red tunic.    If you were a Prefect or House Captain you were entitled to punish misdemeanours by having the younger student polish your gear.  The hierarchy of cadets included Private, Corporal, Sergeant, Captain, Regimental Sergeant Major, Second-in-Command and Commanding Officer.

“Prize Day” at the end of the year was the crown for the year’s work.  Parents and friends were invited to enjoy the display of accomplishment for the boys. There was of course always a lecture given by some visiting personality; occasionally the lecture was directed to the boys alone and actually contained some entertaining material (usually as the expense of some of the current Masters).

While events at the school were unquestionably predictable, from time to time there were disruptions and misfortune.  A boy might be expelled for having gone off campus and returned drunk.  A boy who had enormous promise was abruptly removed from the school when his parents divorced.  A boy died in a field while walking in the winter from the Toronto airport to the school. There was once innuendo about promiscuity between an older boy (nicknamed “Horse”) and boys in the Lower School; sometimes the innuendo extended to the Masters but only to the extent of mockery.

There were two annual dances, one of a semi-formal nature, the other the Highland Cadet Ball.  For the younger boys who were often from other parts of the world, the “dates” were pre-arranged.  The girls arrived from one of the Toronto girls schools such as Branksome Hall or Havergal College and were effectively paired with one of the boys.  The Cadet Ball typically involved closer alliances.  Plans for that occasion included such extravagances as breakfast parties held afterwards.  The participants were chauffeured to the party which in some instances took place in nearby private residences or in a downtown Toronto Hotel. Once the party was in a private car of a train to Kingston, Ontario and back.

Years ago a dear friend of mine postulated there are four topics of conversation: sex, gossip, bodily functions and shopping.  When I questioned him about sex being a sub-set of bodily functions he dismissed it out of hand. He insisted upon the preservation of the two.  It shouldn’t have surprised me. He was notoriously licentious and derived huge comic gratification from rude noises.  Likewise he refined the etiquette of gossip (which he had elevated to the rank of Zena Cherry in the society pages of the Globe & Mail) to exclude the strictly functional purpose of shopping.  The four topics nicely captured the natural and fervent inclinations of my friend.

While there is admittedly something compelling about the reduction of human conversation to those four subjects, one mustn’t overlook the obvious limitation. They all have a decidedly visceral tone to them.  As clever as he was, my friend’s intellectual capacities were invariably overshadowed by his affection for the less cerebral elements of life.  And there is no doubt that he was hopelessly dedicated to pleasure.  The unfortunate corollary of such hopeless dedication is the risk of trivializing whatever else transpires. Hedonism tends by extension to preclude anything that interferes with it.  It also sanctions whatever it takes to get it.

I think my friend would have been disappointed to learn that in spite of the amused tolerance which others had of his focus in life, he wasn’t considered someone of much personal depth.  In fact everything about him was superficial.  After he had had enough to drink (which was regularly) he adopted an almost stage-like appearance albeit an entertaining one.  This however did little to promote his more intellectual side.  Normally this transparency was unimportant as the highly social environment contributed to the general levity of communication.  But if you were by chance separated from the herd with him alone, the conversation rapidly deteriorated;  as always, it was a matter of sex, gossip, bodily functions or shopping.

In the examination of social conventions one must of necessity dwell upon abstract concepts.  It isn’t after all the detail of personalities which is on the table; rather the broad strokes of human conduct.  The context therefore mandates a degree of removal from the personal elements of communication. Mastering theoretical discourse of sex, gossip, bodily functions and shopping is as such a talent worth possessing.  There was for example no question that my friend was a prime candidate for almost any social convention.  He was guaranteed to contribute to the proceedings and not sit on a chair in the corner for the entire evening.  This naturally leads me to conclude that the motivations of my friend were not to be diminished.  He may even have reasonably suffered a degree of shyness and introversion which he sought to compensate by such overtly brash behaviour.

There is generally enough about life that is serious without having to add purposively to its weight.  Here my friend unquestionably excelled.  By restricting the conversation to his chosen subjects he ensured the maintenance of what may be categorized as a level playing field for all involved.  There are after all very few people who, when they ask “How are you?”, really want to know.  It is both less mucky and far more assured of buoyancy to keep the conversation to sex, gossip, bodily functions and shopping.  If one insists upon going deep down into life and pulling everyone with you into the abyss, there are likely more appropriate venues for doing so such as your analyst’s office.

Things have lately become uncommonly heated on the pages of our local electronic newspaper The Millstone News.  This technologically advanced publication with its capacity to provide almost instant reporting and communication between its contributors and readers is now the established forum for daily vitriolic exchanges between our Mayor and those opposed to a proposed renovation of an existing hydro-electric plant on the Mississippi River in the centre of Town.  I have to say I admire the Mayor for the way he is handling the heat he is taking.  He is unwaveringly firm in his opinion that the project is well conceived and based upon sound planning, economic, heritage, engineering and environmental principles.  In fairness he has the support of an extensive body of bureaucratic mandarins whose education has presumably fitted them for analysis of this very type.  By contrast those in opposition to the project have regularly characterized the reports of the governmental bodies as mere pandering to the social elite and the interest of business generally.  The Mayor is naturally being painted with the same brush of favouritism and commercialism (all accordingly to the opponents at the expense of the “public interest” which the Mayor in turn has categorized as a “special interest group”).

There is seemingly only one person active in the daily debate whose infectious voice is comparatively down the middle.  That person has ostensibly come out in favour of the Mayor but only because that person is asking the opponents to do more than merely object to the project and to put forward factual reasons for their objection. Coincidentally I requested two people who are actively involved in the denouncement of the project to share with me their reasons. The first person began by inviting me to review the historical reports contained in The Millstone News to collate the many reasons for objection, adding that there were so many people who had objected as evidenced by an on-line survey and that there were examples of other government sponsored projects being quashed by organized public activity.  The second person, before turning the question onto me and asking what I thought, reluctantly stated that she was against the project though she hadn’t fully reviewed the reasons why.  When I pressed her for a reason, she said that she was afraid of what would become of the River.

Neither of these correspondents did much to satisfy either my curiosity about the merits of the project or my comfort level with the mechanism of objection.  I am also disturbed that much of the argument by the opponents is founded strictly upon the assertion of partisanship or inactivity by the Mayor and his Council, allegations which invariably fall short of conjunction with misguided or inaccurate decisions by the local politicians. There is certainly no concession whatever by the opponents that the evolution of inquiry into the project has brought to the forefront matters which reasonably were not previously considered by Council especially as the adjudication upon the merits of the project was by legislation reserved to the provincial government. The present ability of the opponents to see with purported 20-20 vision is not entirely deserved in my opinion. Nonetheless the Councillors are being roundly abused for apparent lack of foresight. It is no small coincidence the ad hominem nature of the debate is unquestionably fuelled by a brewing battle for the position of Mayor, the line of decision being drawn between him who supports the project and him who does not.  At this point it is safe to assume that all other issues germane to the management of the Town will take a back seat to this particular issue and that the fortunes of each of the prospective Councillors and Mayor in the upcoming municipal election will likely turn upon this issue alone.

While I can imagine that many of the opponents of the project would be flabbergasted to hear me say so, there is undeniably a sense emerging from this on-going debate that the majority of the opponents are new arrivals to the Town or even from “away” and that the silent majority (who are afraid to be tarred and feathered by these vocal opponents) are the native members of the community (which may also include traditionalists who haven’t a penchant for on-line surveys).  It doesn’t hinder the perpetuation of this demographic division that activist Maude Barlow and folk singer Bruce Cockburn have been enlisted as supporters of the opponents.  Inevitably when such lines are drawn the division further deteriorates into a schism between the savvy imports and the hay-seed locals which of course does nothing but add to the perceived animosity between the camps.

Politics being the blood-sport that it is, it is guaranteed that the substantive facts of this project will be lost in the unfolding of the more entertaining tangle between the parties.  Although there has been brief mention of the principal of the developer, he has until very recently perhaps wisely chosen to remove himself from the fray from the outset and has only lately succumbed to the taunts of the opponents to get into the ring.  Aside from the developer’s insipid response to the objections, it is my guess that the developer, relying upon the persuasive reports of the government and his legal entitlement to do so (perhaps along with the threat of Mandamus to force the hand of the government to act as it should in accordance with settled law) will get what he wants in the end.  There may however be delay precipitated by the recent decision of Council to freeze development of any nature in this area (“Heritage District“) for a year but this too may be the subject of legal attack on the theory that one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly.  My only caveat to this conjecture of outcome is that the laws of equity may yet be invoked to trounce the so-called letter of the law in favour of a more egalitarian or democratic result, a thesis in which the newly elected provincial government may decide it has a particular interest (or self-interest).  Whatever the result, things are heating up!

If you are reading this you are touching upon my latest web site, what was once my springboard to the upcoming municipal election but which has by virtue of my precipitous detour from that singular purpose subsequently degenerated to yet another personal blog on the world wide web.  All the serious and focused election stuff and anything else resembling academic orientation on the web site been summarily removed and proudly replaced by a catalogue of my own abstract waffling and codswallop.  Judging by the emails I have received in rapid succession this morning it appears that I am a literary hit.  Problem is, my popularity is seemingly based in China whence the associated email addresses emanate.  And based upon the text of the emails the correspondents have considerable difficulty with the English language.  All in all, not a glowing recommendation!  Naturally I am suspicious of the nefarious purpose of my admirers though with some effort I can extract a favourable word in the mix of computer-generated gibberish.

I don’t mind telling you that this is a hit but not in the good way.  I had for example modestly sought to generate flattering commentary about my blog from my friends by having discretely included my new web site address in the contact information of my email “signature”.  Either the inclusion was so discrete as to be unnoticeable or no one was moved to say anything in particular if indeed they even read what I wrote. A comment along the lines of the Chinese devotees would have been something.

Although this may illustrate a general marketing flaw I suspect the more relevant question is what keeps a failed writer going in the face of such obvious disregard?  The scope of the enquiry broadens swiftly as I extrapolate to a more general examination of what has kept me going for the past forty years.  Suddenly confronted with the lack of statistical support in this hitherto committed enterprise the possibility of prolonged self-deception on a wider plane takes on new vitality.  In retrospect I can appreciate the dearth of invitations to Government House and the complete absence of promotions of my candidacy to the Senate or the Supreme Court.

Nonetheless I persist.  It is perhaps a temperament of arrogance which allows me to do so; or it may simply be devil-be-damned!  Either way I am not about to throw either myself or my occupations overboard.  As far as I am concerned I’ve made it to the finish line and that alone is reward enough.  Getting through school and a career of law was a combined undertaking of no small import to my thinking.  Bloody work!  Every inch of it!  I cushion the weight of my defeat by recalling the successes of the nincompoops who have gone before me; I wouldn’t change places with any one of them!

There are so many measures of success that it defies any attempt to settle irrevocably upon one or the other.  Instead adoption of the generic, all-inclusive prescription is decidedly easier:  Does it work for you?  If it does, you’re a winner!  If it doesn’t, who cares!  I have never been one to accept mediocrity yet in this I am quite comfortable. It is rather like relinquishing the need to exert myself when bicycling.  Enough already!  All my life it was push, push, push.  I’m done with pushing!

Given the passion people have for distraction, it makes me wonder why we haven’t more to occupy us without all the fuss.  Is it so plainly insufficient to watch the world go by?  Are we such dullards that we haven’t the resource for personal satisfaction?  Can we not at least combine the two undertakings of occupation and observation as was formerly done in Peacock Alley at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City?  Fashion, intrigue, curiosity and public display all rolled into one!  Granted there are substantial limitations upon that particular option as there are with any other.  A night at the opera or an afternoon at the museum have in spite of their improving qualities a shelf-life.  Eventually divertissement is exhausted and one has to get down to the sustained business of facing life on its own unadulterated terms.  You can’t expect to be endlessly entertained. Besides surely there are limits to the value and necessity of external stimulation.  Is the enjoyment of life otherwise a vacuum?  Are we afraid to confront life without the fluff, the salad without the dressing?

It has long been recognized by even the most blithe intellectual that doing nothing is one of the most difficult things.  This no doubt explains the overwhelming mania for diversion.  I rather doubt that those stricken by idleness take the time to work through the philosophical distress of it. Boredom would be the more likely default and that hardly qualifies as investigative thought.  It’s just that I have  remarked how rewarding it is to take notice of what is staring you in the face, all that free stuff out there just begging to be appreciated, the real country fields not the gallery renditions. Yet learning to enjoy life without the aid of organized outings is an acquired talent, possibly I admit an attraction more for old people than the young. Meanwhile, until that intoxicating debate is resolved, it is considered easier to capitulate and look around for something to do.

A stock response to this unflatteringly conundrum is that one needs a hobby. This amounts to nothing more than tactical recreation.  It is but another hurdle in the sprint towards understanding life (assuming as I do that to understand life is to enjoy it).  If on the other hand you believe that life is so vapid that it requires additives then I am defeated.  There is the alternative propounded by Samuel Beckett and his crowd of absurdists who make a mockery of life as nothing more than waiting for something to happen (with their assurance that nothing will). As I am notoriously impatient I am not about to wait for something to happen.  Nor am I satisfied to dizzy myself with manufactured obligations which artificially consume my life. Unfortunately even in this conviction one is struggling against inertia. We are rather like an old spring which has been wound in one direction for its entire life; to unwind that spring will require sustained modification.  The risk of rebounding to its initial state is considerable.  Yet this highlights the urgency of preparing for the task.  Frequently that means learning to enjoy life as an observer rather than front and centre.  Both qualify as participatory with the obvious shift of the lime light. Admittedly this is not a selling point for those who wholeheartedly embrace the philosophy, “Moi, je suis le centre du monde!“

Bear in mind that whatever the tactic or logic enjoying life is the sole object. Even if everything that is served up isn’t to one’s satisfaction, it is helpful to recall that it may be the last supper.  Holding out for something better is a chance I’m not willing to take.  As such the enjoyment of life becomes not so much a delectation as a disposition; that is, one must be perpetually poised to absorb whatever flavour is imparted.  It oddly reminds me of a particularly licentious friend of mine who counselled making numerous advances on the gamble that one of them would eventually pay off.  Like it or not we’re virtually tossed about upon the tide of fortune.  It is both a fiction and an hypocrisy to imagine otherwise.  What however intrigues me about the process is the ability to reflect upon it as we submerge and surface in the life which flows upon us.

You can bet the Ivy League crowd won’t tolerate more jewellery on a man than a watch and a signet ring.  Men and jewellery are considered incongruous in the more traditional circles. Yet within prescribed limits men’s jewellery portrays powerful status symbols. The signet ring for example with its engraved escutcheon is the upper middle class translation of what was once the reserve of a feudal lord to authenticate legal documents.  The feudal lord being primarily an agrarian had far too robust a character to admit to literacy (an effeminate trait peculiar to the clergy and lawyers).  Even the deportment of the jewellery was significant.  The signet ring was normally worn upon the left pinky on the theory that the right hand was dedicated to the manly business of unencumbered hand shaking.  Pocket watches (often adorned with expensive gold fobs) enjoyed the same blazing pronouncement as the bejewelled sgian-dubh of Scottish Highland dress.

In the minds of some people jewellery on men says as much about them as tattoos which is often a small compliment.  The more vulgar display of large and expensive jewellery is frequently associated with disadvantaged people who have nonetheless acquired the trappings of wealth through suspected nefarious means.  Even if the cost of the items inspires secret admiration, its prominent exhibition is viewed as lower class.  This distortion has undergone main-stream modification at the hands of celebrities who often sport exceedingly large and preposterous watches.

The diamond ring is normally associated with the engagement of women for marriage; however it has come to be an important feature of men’s jewellery symbolizing success and wealth.  In such conventional but hedonistic venues as the Empress Hotel, Victoria it is nothing to see a parade of usually elderly men sporting a diamond pinky ring.  The once refined and utilitarian signet ring has made its mercantile jump to static symbolism.

As office attire has relaxed so too has the jewellery standard for men.  The most common articles of fashion for men are now necklaces and bracelets. When gold was still affordable most jewellery was made of it; however, it is not uncommon to see the same pieces made of silver and even leather or other base metals which are embellished with gaudy stones or synthetic crystals.  Wearing more than one necklace or bracelet at the same time has become both routine and fashionable, a habit cultivated in particular by popular musicians.

For the serious man wrist watches remain the domain of important and exclusive jewellery.  Here a man can indulge in virtually limitless expense while maintaining the deceit of modesty.  Additionally the complicated watches satisfy the aficionado’s appetite for mechanical intrigue not to mention the consumption spin-offs of engraving, automatic watch winders and jewellery boxes.

There is a set of men who get an honest thrill from metallic substances.  For those with trained sensibilities the feel of different metals can be very appealing.  Items made of platinum for example provide the indisputable reward of weight and inherent durability.  The luscious appearance of 24K gold is equally moving.  The buttery feel of .925 silver is likewise appealing. And because jewellery is always an accent, one mustn’t discount the combined effect of the colour of different jewellery against the skin of the wearer. Platinum though generally less sparkly than silver imparts a very rich flavour when worn against the darker skin of a Latino.  The import of a clear diamond against the milky skin of a Protestant octogenarian is an indisputable statement.

While most men’s jewellery is worn about the fingers, neck or wrist there is an evolving realm of jewellery worn about the waist.  The incremental return of clothes resembling the zoot suit has brought with it the featured watch chain dangling from the belt to the knee or below, then back to a side pocket.  Until the complete absorption of that fashion, some men are hanging from a belt loop an expensive and highly artistic key chain manufactured for example by Mont Blanc.

Men’s jewellery formerly associated with evening dress (shirt studs and cuff links) has taken a hit because of the downgrading of formal wear generally.  Meanwhile there is a culture of jewellery for men of every class and station.  Inevitably there are gross distortions of what were once subtle adornments.  Sometimes the evolution is clever such as the large battery-powered watches which synthesize the sweep hand of a manual automatic watch.  It is hard to argue with the ingenuity of such jewellery which has a stand-alone attraction apart from its affordable price.

As with almost everything else the purchase of men’s jewellery has undergone significant change as the result of internet on-line retailing.  The whimsical appeal of jewellery is quickly satisfied with a mere click.  The web-based merchants have tapped into the resources of off-shore manufacturers who drastically lower the price of even once prohibitively expensive items.  Niche marketing to men is common (for example the appeal of skull and bones jewellery for bikers).

Whatever the choice or cost of jewellery the fact remains that men and jewellery are all about appearances.  And I think the imputation of an underlying psychological function is also warranted.  The symbol portrayed by individual choices is as unique as the person who wears the jewellery.

“We never-ever argue, we never calculate
The currency we’ve spent
I love you, you pay my rent”

“Rent” – Pet Shop Boys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhhRabpOrNA

Within the limitless array of personal relationships there are nonetheless conspicuous patterns. Some of the more provocative are those embracing a seeming disparity between the two persons, everything from a mere inconsistency, imbalance or variance to egregious divergence, dissimilarity and contrast. Take for example the consortium of a retiring intellect with a convivial bombshell, never an impossible union but one which traditionally inspires an uplifting of the brow and less than seemly innuendo about hidden talent. Then there are the differences promoted solely by physical dissimilarities, say along the lines of the English nursery rhyme of Jack Spratt and his morbidly obese wife. Others constitute mere gaps of age. Equally common is the gulf that exists between people of distinct social backgrounds, George Bernard Shaw’s 1912 play Pygmalion being a popular example (involving phonetics Professor Henry Higgins and the bedraggled Cockney flower girl Eliza Doolittle).

Whatever the contrast between the parties and howsoever wide the apparent chasm between them there is invariably an underlying theme which is more than unconcealed love. I won’t go so far as to suggest the inspiration is calculating but at least pragmatic and symbiotic. As quick as we are to condemn certain cultures for their conventions of arranged marriages, the reality is that many of our own personal alliances are founded on a good deal of planning or “mutuality” typically to the advantage of both. There is however an even larger and more prevalent realm of relationships which, while practical from a working point of view, has nothing whatever to do with vulgar pecuniary matters. Instead the operative word is complementary; namely, combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize the qualities of each. Inevitably the scheme comprehends not only harmony but also reciprocity. It is also important that the parties are interdependent much to the disappointment of those wound up by the modern rage to remain one’s own island. Certainly there is a selfish element to the arrangement; specifically that people seek others with characteristics that are different from and complement their own. On a higher philosophical level, it is the Yin and Yang concept. The important derivation is this:

“Yin contains the seed of Yang and vice versa. They constantly transform into each other.”

This heady intellectualism however is soon jettisoned when the bond enters the sphere of what is disparagingly called “gold digging”. Then the boxing gloves come off and there usually follows some pretty round conversation. Before being quick to judge I have to ask whether the arrangement was worth the price of admission; and further who it is that is getting the better deal? As popular as it is to observe that whoever marries for money will earn every cent of it, this overlooks the more complicated aspect of the confederacy wrought by the exercise of economic power and the need of the exponent to satisfy the urge.

No matter how one characterizes or explains the foundation of a personal relationship in the end the relationships which persist for longer than a weekend are more likely than not driven by elemental components having the primitive and inescapable force of nature. As with any puzzle the pieces must fit and this can entail some fairly distorted combinations. There is for good or bad room for experimentation. Clearly things do not always work out as one had hoped. As we reassess our own needs the formulation of the perfect partner can assume unusual and unintended results but whatever the repercussion it is assured that the model is complementary. Making music is not about discord but harmony. If a relationship is to be a continuous narrative it must at least be parallel if not perfect. While the need to rationalize the relationship is more apparent when the parties are seemingly incongruous, this does not mean that any relationship is less complex and more easily defined than another. To work, the relationship must be complementary.

Tampering with the evidence is not good strategy.  Facts should be allowed to speak for themselves.  Manipulation by any other name is corruption.

Yet every day we see it, a common example being the tactic of aging people to change the colour of their hair.  While this perfidy may be easily tolerated as a harmless deceit, we are less forgiving of people who have nose jobs, Botox injections or amplifications of body parts.  At a certain juncture the deliberate attempt to alter one’s appearance is considered by many a distortion of the truth.  The stock retort to the accusation is that nature is simply being helped along, that there is no need to suffer the indignity of what is reversible and that besides it’s nobody’s business if someone wants to improve themselves. While the latter objection is at least philosophically compelling and may indeed sustain the entire argument, my interest rather is in the less tautological thesis that nature may be improved.

Certainly both the physical and intellectual qualities of a human being are the better for their exercise and educated development.  Eventually however the condition of a person is fairly unalterable; we can only be a work in progress for so long. Eventually we’re there.  And when we’re there, I suggest it is time accept it.  Granted change is perpetual but after a point the change is incremental only.  Then it is time to get down to the business of being you.

It discombobulates some people to have alternatives.  After all it is often the luckiest who have the privilege of choice and it is that very feature which incapacitates them. This conundrum arises from a misunderstanding of the limits of life.  As broad as it may appear life is nonetheless circumscribed.  In plain terms you can’t do everything; you have to make a choice.

I am a great believer in instinct, the intuitive response to things.  This doesn’t mean that you must reduce the abstract elements of your being to questions of appetite; it means you follow your nose.  Eventually we have saturated our experience sufficiently to know what we prefer and to whom we relate.  What more could one ask for a compatible relationship?  If we convey those preferences to people who care we have the makings of good communication. By the same token there will be cast-offs, people to whom we neither appeal nor relate.  If you’re struggling to be heard in a noisy world, it doesn’t help to raise your voice.  People will listen if they know it’s you.  Your unique timber and take on things is what makes you different and interesting.  If you make an attempt at anything else, who are you kidding!