My own fatal flaw, or the contradiction that goes with my freedom


I can remember an online essay on the site for the WB show “Everwood” by prodigy Ephram Brown (Gregory Smith), Ephram’s Fatal Law”, where Ephram said, “my fatal flaw is in inability to change”.


So it is with me.  Is it inability or unwillingness.  To change would be to be reborn as someone else.

Yes, I can play Pharisee (as the last story in my DADT III book begins).  I like to get recognition for finding holes in people’s “partisan” demands or victim-playing.  I like the “distance” of playing journalist and “keeping them honest”.  Maybe I haven’t paid my dues (I haven’t been to conflict zones, and I don’t need to take a self-defense course before going to one of this summer’s political conventions.)

I also would like to get recognition by getting some of my own composed classical music performed.  I think it has some merit.


And I get something out of relationships where there is “upward affiliation” involved (the most relevant post on that issue here seems to be June 15, 2014).   I cease that affiliation and capacity for emotion if the person “loses it“, even because of aggression from someone else (even politically motivated, or as in war or terror) or from disease.  I nurtured the notion that some people are logically better than others, who do “low work” for them according to some notion of deserved (as opposed to merely “assigned”) station in life. And I get some mileage out of euscociality, like in following some hometown big league sports teams.

But I don’t get enough out of taking care of other people, or meeting their “real needs”, or letting relations with people with “needs” mean something.  Maybe it’s a chicken-and-egg problem. I may have “pruned” my brain too early, to make room for my individualized talents, at the expense of “social graces” and group or family risk sharing (and “unit cohesion”).

This relates to selling to other people (including authored books).  Selling is supposed to relate to meeting needs (even if that means “being entertained”).  Someone’s ability to pay is supposed to relate to meeting needs.  Of course, it’s easy to run from that, by noting all the “easy money” people try to make with spam, porn, underwater financing, and so on.  Yet the other side of the coin is, if we resist responding to sales calls, we’re becoming insular, and too caught up in “not needing others” except on our own terms.


The implication is disturbing.  Others perceive me as simply cherry picking and not “caring enough” to want to matter to “average Joes” with “fatal flaws” (worse than Ephram’s, of at least more visible).  Particularly unsettling is the coercion I get sometimes to become more responsive to people whom I would not normally “choose” by my own value set,  especially when a spectator in discos.  I look to ratify my own idea of “virtue” in what I see.  If this is OK, then politicians will eventually take advantage of it.  No wonder you get presidential candidates like Donald Trump, who hate “losers”.  If too many people get away with this kind of attitude personally, you invited fascism down the road, once not everyone matters anymore.  That is a kind of paradox of my own freedom.

(Published: Thursday, July 7, 2016, at 11 PM EDT)

One thought on “My own fatal flaw, or the contradiction that goes with my freedom”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *