IGNORANT – something we all are (but it's not really as bad as it sounds and I will explain)

Do you actually know what ignorant or ignorance means, the true meaning of these two nasty sounding words? I think most of us are a bit ignorant about it, but that is not holding us back from spitting them out whenever we feel it’s warranted; and that includes me as well. So I wanted to find out what I have been calling people all these years, for the most part behind their backs as I’m not that ignorant. 

I did some light research and heavy thinking and quickly found that if we continue to use the term ignorant, it’s always advisable to be a bit careful about it or you could be called a true ignoramus, big time; and that is not a nice thing to be called, because it's such an ugly word.

Ignorant or ignorance means state of being un-informed, that’s all. Translated, it pretty much covers not knowing – not having learned – unaware, etc. Some, not you of course, might use the cheaper version stupid, but that is not nice either, as it is one of several terms used to describe a condition of certain mentally challenged persons (Stupid = due to absence of mental capacity), as with idiot and the ilk. But that has never held us back using those words as markers for persons we find truly deserve to be called those names… and most of them are obviously driving around in cars all over the place - if you know what I mean. But again, we must be careful and respectful by negating this kind of name-calling.

We can only be filled with extreme awe considering how much stuff we actually know, the seemingly infinite, or dare I say ‘endless’ bunch of knowledge and information we have between our ears. At times I wonder how long it would take to write all that information down, record every bit we know, pertinent or not – squeeze out every tiny morsel. You see, we forget to remind ourselves how knowledgeable we actually are, no matter what kind of education, life or experiences we have been through – the quantity of knowledge will still be so mindbogglingly huge, like in ‘a real big lot’ – and perhaps even more than that.

But even with this massive foundation of all this knowledge, there are so much more that we do not know – yes, however puzzling, that goes for me as well... As when I tried to kiss Ulla on the lips when we were both 9, I did not know she would say ‘NO’, and I most certainly didn’t know that she would slap my face at the same time – and really hard (still a bit reddish)… I simply didn’t know. But I learned and never tried again – kissing Ulla, that is. I had no knowledge of where Einstein was going with his Theory of Relativity, so I studied and studied and studied some more – and I still didn’t get what Albert was trying to tell me; but at least I got to know that much. 

So now you are reminded that we know a lot and that there are so many trillions (which is also mind-blowing) things and pieces of information that we do not know anything about and for the most part, will never get to know anything about and in most cases we couldn’t care less if we got to know anything about.

So my point is, that when we look at ignorant meaning the lack of knowledge, calling somebody ignorant is pretty much spot on and rather normal, because we all know a lot less compared to what we do not know. So doesn’t that take a bit of the bite out of the name-calling intent? I mean, it would be like calling somebody: “You are so lack of knowledge”, which is so true, but sounds a bit clumsy compared to ignorant. I like ignorant better as it’s a lot faster to say – saving a lot of time…

Considering the above, we are all ignorant because there is a lot more we do not know than we do know - so when somebody calls me ignorant, shouldn't I just say: "Yeah, I know - thank you for noticing..." and then smile, while the other person no doubt will roll his or her eyes - a lot? It'll work for me...

I don’t like name-calling or inappropriate labeling. Don’t get me wrong, I am not living under a halo – at all. Admittedly I do cringe every time I resort to (blurt out) anger and frustration-filled improprieties, as it makes me feel weak and ‘yes’ ignorant, as I at that very moment cannot grab on to a more diplomatic reaction or do one better, by simply keeping my opinions as well as my mouth tightly shut.

But at times we do unfortunately vent these darker attitudes about people around us, like we are so bloody perfect ourselves – at that very moment, at least. We feel that we are right, no matter how wrong we are. And adding it all up, name-calling is based on our own insecurities, attitude of self-righteousness, mixed with any amount of anxieties – for the most part. Yes, it’s easier to move the blame (frustrations) unto somebody else, but most of the time, we probably use it very inappropriately as well as being totally unfair – all considered.

So, I would be okay with you calling me ignorant because by doing that, you acknowledge me as a normal fellow human being and at times that is nice to have confirmed. But please, don’t ever call me an ignoramus (an ignorant person), just because I think that is one of the ugliest words popping out of the dictionary; sounds too much like one of those Roman big-wheels, like Romulus, Pontifex Maximus, Augustus, Glutimus Maximus, Tiberius, Ignoramusus and the rest of them; beside the silly ones, they all dressed up in loose fitting togas, which I’m all for; so very airy, comfortable and rather easy to wash.

I think that when we keep our frustrations under control, do some deep breathing before belching inappropriate names at anybody, we will all be happier. I try to remember that we actually do not make mistakes willingly, voluntarily or on purpose, so shouldn’t we be nicer in our responses? At least I do know that much, but in my reality I'm still ignorant - and proud of it, because it's rather normal - all considered.

Thought of the Day:

We were driving on a wine-country road the other day, and I saw a sign that said:

FRESH STRAWBERRIES – PICKED DAILY

Then I thought it would be fun (debatable) to put up a sign that said:

FRESH NOSES – PICKED DAILY

(I did mention debatable didn’t I?)

I DO – but do I really?

We do ‘I do’ a lot, especially when getting married. It’s the solemn promise we make, agreeing to live by defined rules within Holy Matrimony (not to be confused with the more popular Holy Macaroni – which in many cases might be a wiser choice). Not only are we blurting out this serious acceptance in front of the person we hope we will be able to stand ‘till death do us part’; it’s also in front of a clergy (aka: the main witness) and a flock of guests pretending to be interested, while more so thinking of the reception’s free chicken and freer flowing booze. That Uncle Ernie is accepting cash in the back-row pew, giving bad odds bets concerning the length of your marriage, just adds a bit of reality. 

We say ‘I do’ like we know what we are doing, but I am sure that for the most part we don’t know half of it. The thing is that it’s a promise concerning future behavior within accepted rules that comes with any marriage or partnership; so I have a hard time understanding why we still blurt out ‘I do’ so freely. As a reality check before any I do’s shouldn’t we at least mumble this reminder: “it’s easy to predict, except about the future”? Made you think, huh?

I know the romance involved (aka: euphoric confusion) concerning this public announcement we make in front of anybody who cares, that from now on it’s you and me, babe. I invented the term being in love dims the light of common sense as a fair warning (but did you listen?) and though I might sound a tad cynical, I am all for the matrimonial thing – for anybody who wants to; but that is of course not the whole point.

The marriage vow is yet another promise we make to each other during a wedding ceremony and in front of those same hungry and thirsty witnesses. The ‘I do’ is the confirmation of these vows and thereby fully agreeing with the rules of matrimony. But isn’t it a lot like clicking “agree” to Apple’s new 15 screen-pages of added user-terms without reading a single word? 

In the early Roman Empire, the lower classes had ‘free’ marriages. Dad would pretty much deliver the daughter to the groom - deal done. Kind of a shot-gun wedding before the shot-gun was invented. Maybe they used those long spiky things instead. The two ‘chosen’ agreed to keep the vows of marriage by mutual consent; piece of Roman cupcake… 

Wealthy Romans would sign documents listing property rights to publicly declare that their union was legalized and not just by common law; this started the official recording of marriages and the invention of pre-nuptials. Thanks a lot, Caesar. 

When you look at the wedding vows from way back, you go ‘WOW’ – seriously. The Medieval Church of England had the ‘Book of common Prayers’, from around 1549 (I was barely 6) where you were ‘offered’ a couple of choices. Remember back in the days, the church pretty much told you what to do and when, so in this case it was only either, as in ‘no other options’ – at all.

The ‘lucky’ couple could ‘promise’ each other to ‘love and cherish’. A lovely promise as both ‘love’ and ‘cherish’ are good things in any relationship; so far, so good. Then the groom was ‘offered’ an addition, and could ‘vow’ his bride with ‘to love, cherish and worship’. Now, we would have a real bang-up job to find any bride woman person who would not like to be ‘worshipped’; up on the pedestal she goes. I have heard that the male Vikings so totally worshipped the females in their society (still do), and that was just how it was – very naturally (and very smart).

The bride was ‘offered’ the vow addition: ‘to love, cherish and obey’ (Yuk). If I’m not totally wrong, a few of Henry VIII’s wives did not fully understand the meaning of obey (or how to run away really fast…) Remember that the ‘obey’ thing is still popping up in front of unsuspecting brides even today – so watch out (or learn to run really fast…)

The Roman Catholics pledge to each other: I (Joe Soprano) take you (Angelina Struttelmeyer (not her real name)) to be my wife. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life; sounded like Joe was in a hurry?

Other pledges go: I (Joe Soprano) take you (Angelina Struttelmeyer (still not her real name)) to be my lawfully wedded wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part; still a daring promise, but a tad more romantic; way to go, Joe.

Then the clergy-person might say the following to round it all up: You have declared your consent before the church (and Uncle Ernie in the back row). May the Lord in his goodness strengthen your consent and fill you both with his blessings. What God has joined, men must not divide – Amen. (But can women divide it, huh?) As a side-note, have you noticed how some ceremonies end with: I hereby (something invested in me) declare you MAN and wife…? I have always found that to be utterly male-chauvinistic. It should always be: husband and wife, but more so from my book of ethics: wife and husband…it’s a chivalry thing; so old-school I am (sigh).

Now, looking at the above, you are promising a grand deal and telling all of us that you will not negate on any of these (silly) promises. The thing is that when we digest what we are promising, it is a lot, since we have absolutely no idea how, who, where and what we will be in a week, a month or in years - that future thing, remember? We don’t know how we will develop as a person, character-wise, emotionally or what new values will pop up or down. But we still tell the world that we will be good and do all that heavy lifting – till death do us part; quite a task, really, and more than a mouthful.

I can tear all those vows apart and be a smart-ass, but I also acknowledge that when vows are exchanged, the seriousness, romance and love are all honest (if not, they should be) and thoughts of a happy life forever and together should be the fruit of that. Perhaps it won’t happen by the book, but I’m positive that we all give it a go from the very moment we blurt out: ‘I do’.

My cynical side (which is also pretty, by the way), asks me to come up with a solution. When being totally realistic, I suggest that instead of ‘I do’ we should go with the much more applicable: ‘I’ll do my very best’. Covers a lot more ground… and cannot get you into any hot pudding, as it gives you a fair way out if needed.

And then, of course, we have to deal with the doubts when we are in the process of committing to a relationship, partnership or marriage – that is rather natural. We answer: ‘Yes, I have never been surer about anybody – no doubts at all’. But reality is that we still have some lingering doubts, one of them being: ‘do I do the right thing for me?’ I mean, how can we be sure about anything or anybody when we consider how unsure the future can seem? We seriously don’t know what’s going to happen. Sure we know what we want to happen, who we (at this moment) want to be with as the things we want to happen actually happen. But we can only guess about the future concerning luck, love and relationships – as nothing is guaranteed.

I’m a huge fan of creating my own luck – make things happen as I want them to happen. Of course, at times it doesn’t go as planned – which can also be exciting, as it exposes new challenges (failures?) But I never rely on my luck, as that would be very silly.

When we do the ‘I do’ we do it with good intentions; we want it to work out with Miss or Mr. Right. So we labor for happiness, thrive to build foundations for each other, we look for those positive things that make us unique, make us stronger, together and individually. We will find disappointments and sides of each other we did not see before. But then we try to deal with it by seeking solutions and new agreements, stuff that our relationship will learn, flourish and move forward from. Yes, relationships take work, a lot of constant work to be balanced, productive and happy, but the fruits of that hard work are for the most part priceless – if not, they should be... or you shouldn’t be together.

‘I’ll do my very best’ is a more realistic confirmation concerning any partnership, more so then ‘I do’, as ‘I do’ leaves no wriggle-room. In my book, any marriage and partnership, including the doubts and all, needs room to wriggle – and the more we can wriggle, the better; Amen.