dictionary part II December 30, 2001
Note: the following is a continuation of the dictionary case. It begins with a response from my client.
i thought it would be interesting to continue the now established dialogue. similar to watching a olivier gruner movie showcasing his european ground fighting techniques. well, maybe not, but let's pretend for a moment.
first, the "car crash mystery" implication was a little weak. it seemed a little too superficial and simple. yawn.
next, my current "problem". aside from the fact that quoted words are lame, i have a resentment for social attachments. specifically the complacency of friendships. as a society, we tend to take the bounds and limitations of friendships as a given. a socially binding contract. why not accept it for the transitive nature that it truly is?
god bless america.
ps more analysis. less fluff. no offense.
Dear merry II,
Oy. Can you throw me a bone? As you know, my job is to entertain the masses while delivering advice that isn't completely useless.
First, I sense a lack of trust. Despite the limitations of this forum, I ask that you trust your Doctor Max. You have nothing to lose by momentarily shedding your psychic armor. You may have it back when we're done. (That always gets a laugh in group!)
Your criticisms are, of course, valid. I assume your reference to "quoted words" abuse is directed at me. Ouch.
I have trouble understanding the body of your message, though. No offense, but, to be blunt, I suspect you may not have been sober when you wrote it. If I'm wrong, forgive me. Perhaps you were under some sort of emotional stress.
With the caveat that I'm having trouble understanding, this is how I read your message: You resent social attachments, which you define as those friendships that have ceased to be mutually fulfilling. You believe these attachments exist to service a naïve social idea that friendships are forever, contrary to your position that friendships are naturally transitive.
I wonder if you really mean transient (passing with time) rather than transitive (characterized by or involving transition). Either way, I gather that you resent social attachments. And though I may be reaching, I read that at some point (before they transition) your friendships are true -- mutually fulfilling. I'll work under these assumptions, as the alternative, that you are a rock and an island, is much too bleak.
Hollywood both idealizes and trivializes friendships. One of its recurring themes is: your friends are your family. I'd like to someday investigate what cultural neurosis spawned that meme. Your family is your family. Your friends are your friends. You don't need one to be the other any more than you need your elbows to be your... knees.
I, like Gordon Gecko, believe Time is the ultimate commodity. Why do you resent social attachments? Simply, they use up time you would rather spend elsewhere. Now, maybe you resent social attachments all out of proportion to the actual amount of time you devote to them. Maybe the reason for that is that you yourself aren't spending time on the things that matter to you, social attachments notwithstanding.
My advice is to spend more time doing the things that matter to you (the Romantic me would say spend more time with your loved ones). Do that and I bet you'll naturally de-prioritize your attachments and resent them much less.
And for the sake of this website, please make the next message you send contain sordid details about your sex-life, bowel movements, or pornographic proclivities. I'd really like it if someone came out to Dr. Max. Therapeutically, I'm still a have-a-patient-come-out-to-me virgin.
- Dr. Max
Previous: Little Trouble in Big D
Next: Going the Distance
Go to: Dr. Max Home