Why a Woman Should Never Let a Man Look into Her Purse

From the window of my bus, I see women passing by, all carrying their purse. A woman's purse is so entwined with whom she is that in a way it becomes part of her nature - at least her public persona. Back in shamanistic times, people used to believe that part of their self - or their very soul - was kept outside of their bodies, in an object such as a treasure chest. Look no further than Pirates of the Caribbean - Dead Man's Chest, where evil Davy Jones keeps his heart in a locker. We may not believe this stuff anymore, but women still carry their public identity along with them in the mysterious handbag.

Ask any man, and they instinctively know that a woman's handbag is off-limits, that they can't touch it. It is her female mystery, the darkness all males are drawn to like moth to a flame. Getting into a woman's bag is a hidden desire which has definite sexual connotations. A good friend of mine told me how she went to a shrink once, and the second or third time they met the shrink asked if he may see what is inside her bag. She thought nothing of it at the time, but as it later turned out, the psychologist was a womanizer who tried to hit on her too. So, a word of advice, girls: do not let a man look into your bag (unless of course he is an airport attendant!)

The End of the West

Back in the 1900s, a landmark book was published by Oswald Spengler, called the "Decline of the West". This book was something of a best seller in the era, a shocker and an eye-opener, so to speak.

But the West did not die as he predicted. Spengler, a German, had seen the First World War and the disaster it brought. Yet he did not see the rise of the USA as the standard-bearer of Western values. Old Europe was aging out, and losing its creative stream, but the US was ready to make the West live on. After World War II, it emerged as the quintessential Western power, representing Western values throughout the world.

In 2000, there were 1000 years since the West began its growing global domination. In 1100, the newly consolidated Western states launched their first expansionary war in the East: the Crusades. The unsuccessful Crusades were later followed by a more methodical conquest of the Americas, the Indies and Africa by the rising Western nations. It was first the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Dutech, and then the English and the French. In the process, the Westerners destroyed or transformed the empires of the Aztec, the Indies or the Japanese. They irremediably changed the cultures and lives of billions of people.

Yet an unexpected - unnoticeable thing - happened after the West established its colonies around the world. The colonies began to alter the West as well. Like it or not, we live in the shadow of the 1800s colonization. We see it today everywhere - the rise of the East - Japan, China and India, the growing immigration from outside Europe, the alteration of American and European demographics, the unrest in the Arab countries etc.

This may sound a bit, you know, "geopolitical", but it affects our everyday lives. We know now that economical problems in China can affect the West. We know that communities are becoming increasingly ethnically and racially diverse. We see it in the movies, on TV, in popular culture, how being white European does not automatically mean exclusivity to fame, power or fortune anymore.

Of course, the election of Barack Obama as President of the USA has been one of the starkest images of how the West is receding in influence. Here he is, the son of a Kenyan black man, the President of the most powerful nation on Earth that used to embody the quintessential West. Just by seeing this charismatic half-black, half-white man speaking for the entire U.S. is an amazing and telling sight. The West is slowly, but surely disappearing. In its stead, there is a growing mixed, "mutt" culture that is moving from the outskirts of the cities toward its exclusive center.

Should we mourn the West's passing? Back in the 1900s, Spengler's book sounded like doomsday was coming near: the end of the West was the end of all. But the death of the West is not a bang, but a whimper: a slow transformation into something else. The West is disappearing, but perhaps this is not a disaster. Surely, the West has brought a lot of good things, but I'm afraid a lot of bad things as well - the polarization of the world, antagonism and war. Perhaps in the future, there will be no West or East, but one diverse planet.

The Virtues of Change: A Simple Exercise

Just once in a while, sit on your back and stare at the ceiling, or stand on your head. I'm not going to extoll here the therapeutic virtues of doing this - a yoga course might explain it for you. I just want to talk about the impact of sitting the wrong side up and of inverting your perspective on things.

Does this sound like a bad or dangerous thing to do? Perhaps it is, because as with all such things, it is unsettling. You may see, for instance, that what we call up or down is a matter of opinion, not absolute. You may see the ceiling is much larger, and more important than it seems every day. You may see that we don't always need to sit on a bed or on a sofa - the carpet is a place to be just as well.

What is the point of such an exercise? I should say that on one level there is no point at all, and doing pointless things is the privilege of being human. On another level, it may let you recall that nothing is as solid as it seems - not even in the comfort of your room. You may reply - why put myself in a position where I may remember that nothing really stays? I'd say, because change is not that bad. Without change, we'd never meet someone, never promote on our job, never take a pleasant trip. Without change, we would not be living.

Sitting on your back is far from a shattering life-changing experience. All the better. Change usually comes in subtle ways, and switching your perspective for one minute a day may turn you into something better. There's no telling - that's the magic of change.

Have You Started on Your New Year Resolutions Yet?

Well, I have and it is the first time in a long time that I am actually thinking about them beyond the end of the year and the occasional 'midyear' crisis.

One reason for my new approach is the way I decided to formulate them this time around. I have decided to make a three-tiered resolution scheme divided based on "Attainability". The first tier represents the "most attainable" goals. For instance, I could put "I will eat more spicy food this year" or "I will save more energy by shutting off the lights when I don't use them". These resolutions are not so difficult to attain, but require constant remembering. I thus make mental "sticknotes" that when I see light on I will close it, or when I'm eating I will add some Tabasco or extra pepper in my plate. Attaining these initial resolutions are a small 'victory' that give me enough courage to approach the second tier of goals.

The second tier is more complicated, less tangible goals, like "I will be less stressed this year" or "I will smile more". These are longer term, and may require some breakdown. For instance, how could I be less stressed this year? Perhaps I could get fresh air more, walk in the park; pick up a hobby, go to the pool more. The idea is to get more first-tier (attainable) activities that would contribute toward the overall goal. I plan to go into the second tier when I have mastered the discipline of the initial goals.

Finally, there's the third tier. Here things are more complicated, because these are long-term goals that may actually exceed one year to obtain. These are loftier ideals of the type: "I want to be someone that I can admire" or "I want to become rich" (really). Ideally, these ideas would build on some of the lower first and second tier goals, and require further planning and breakdown. I won't be disheartened if I don't obtain these in my first year of planning them. They may require quite a lot of time, but it is important to make steps toward achieving them.

So, if you haven't applied your resolutions yet, perhaps you can try breaking them down as I have suggested. Give them a bit of time: sometimes resolutions are expressions of your innermost desires. And from time to time, it's worth remembering yourself.

Quick Judgments: People are More than Their "Labels"

Today I saw a documentary on the life and death of Anna Nicole Smith. Remember the spunky Playboy girl whose life fell apart after the death of her son? Funny how things go, from that whole documentary what impressed on me the most was someone's casual commentary at the end that Anna Nicole's life reads like a morality story. Does it really? In the context of her personal tragedy, this remark sounded just awful. I could hear some preacher say how being so sexually overt or "slutty" was the reason of her downfall. It just made me remember of those supposedly bygone times when women were stoned to death for being sexually promiscuous. We are not really all that far from those times. If you don't believe me, check out a horror movie. The most sexually active person always gets killed.

What worries me the most in all this is the easy, casual way society passes judgments on people's lives. Anna Nicole was a "slut" - she deserved to die. Is it really so simple to pass pronouncements on other people? Do we really know what goes on in other people's lives? Do we capture any of a person's essence by placing a label on him or her? Is a person simply "black" or "Mexican" or "Arab"? Is he/she simply a "doctor" or a "Harvard graduate"? I don't know. It just seems so much simpler and less time consuming to quickly "weigh" a person and not bother with subtlety.

I admit that there is no time to get to know all the people we meet. At the same time, we should perhaps recognize that this is more our fault - our choice than theirs. Consequently, we should maybe refrain from saddling people with epithets they did not deserve. Give other people a little more chance.

Between Extreme Skepticism and Extreme Faith

Whatever you say, the internet can breed all sorts of amazing claims. Yesterday I ran across site where people claimed they discovered immortality. Today, someone affirmed they found the secret of happiness. In a world characterized by uncertainty and skepticism, such self-assurance is quite disconcerting.

I'm not going to say they are whacks. Why would I? That would imply I also hold the key to some absolute truth, and I don't. In fact, I am quite bewildered and a bit envious. I have been looking for some miracle, or a revelation, my whole life. I wish I could wake up one morning knowing the secret to happiness. For goodness' sake, I'd be content to know what happiness is.

Truth is, Descartes ruined it for all of us when he said we must question everything. He helped plant the cursed seed of rational skepticism within us all. Yet even Descartes knew that, if one questioned everything, there'd nothing left. So he put forth his own statement of faith: "I think, therefore I am". That was not a logical argument, but a cry of existential despair. If we carry too far along complete skepticism we find ourselves, often unconsciously, in desperate need to believing in some kind of absolute truth. We suddenly swing from extreme doubt to extreme faith.

So then, in the existential uncertainty of today's world, are we to accept some bloggers' claim to knowledge of happiness or immortality? I am afraid we are inclined to. We can't wait to be mesmerized, awed and convinced. Until we are, we just play skeptic.

Snow, or the Fertilizing Rays of the Sky

It's snowing like crazy, something that hasn't happened here in London since the 1990s. It's beautiful just to sit at the window and hear the flakes falling. It may look like chaos, but in reality I know that each flake has its pre-established role in the order of things, their own path to follow. They dance their way through the music of the spheres, which dictate each flake the chord they play.

Back in Late Antiquity, the poet Lucretius depicted the universe as a snow-like fall of atoms, each of which follow a parallel trajectory. I always found this image compelling - the relentless fall of atom-flakes.

Did you notice how, when it snows, the earth and the sky become alike, white, united by the falling snow? It's hard not to think that the sky itself is coming to earth in bite-size pieces. This is what 16th century alchemists thought. They imagined that, through snow flakes, the sky was sending its fertilizing rays to feed the earth and bring forth plants. There were occult virtues in those little flakes, encapsulated grains of divinity that would renew the earth.

It may sound like poetry, not science, but back in the day, there was no real difference betwen the two. Science, knowledge, philosophy were born out of a poetic fascination with nature and the world. That is why poets like Goethe and Shelley saw themselves as scientists as well. Today, it has all come apart. The poets have moved to the sky, and the scientists have burrowed into earth, and there is no snow in between to unite the two worlds.