Tragic dimensions to what we do?

[Fletch]

Both you and Feraud have important points here. I began getting back into the music and the material culture once I discovered I didn't have to scratch and twitch away in stuffy libraries for whole days at a stretch.

Another thing. We throw so much away in this society. More than any of us will ever know, really. It's how beautiful things become garbage, and those who love them take on the characteristics of guttersnipes or derelicts or pests.

In a way, it's not even their fault. It's a predetermined role. You're always close to being a member of a social underclass, and if you lack any particular careerist ambition or other means of support, you often become one. In my elder years, I myself likely will become one, whether or not I keep digging for stuff.

 

[Paisley]

Curious how no women have responded yet...

My two hobbies are gardening and dancing. (I don't collect anything.) Through those things, I've met some really great people who also had interests outside of those areas. But I'm not consumed by my hobbies. I don't go out every night and I don't get the latest and greatest plants every season. But there are people who, as non-professionals, travel to every lindy exchange they can, or travel to national rose shows on two plane tickets: one for themselves and one for their flowers. That's just a lot more time, money and effort than I ever wanted to spend on a hobby. Moderation in all things works for me.

 

[Subvet642]

It is a trap as old as lust and envy to say to oneself: "I'll really be happy when I have X." Usually that happiness is very fleeting and we quickly move on to another must have. To say: "I'll be happy when I have X," is to block happiness in the now.

Well said! I've heard that called "Provisional Living", which is to postpone happiness until some goal or objective is achieved. That being said (and I know I simply re-phrased what you wrote), one need not dig at the roots to make sure that the tree is growing. Obsessive self-analysis is just as destructive as anything else, and may even lead to neurosis. I have a cousin like that. It has become so pervasive that therapy has become her social outlet. So I'll say (though I'm not the first): And you harm none, do as you will. If your passions bring you joy, what harm is there in it? Life is short, be happy.

 

[Fletch]

Curious how no women have responded yet...

The kind of obsessive, detail-oriented connaisseurship we're dealing with here is an overwhelmingly male behavior.

We can do it, I think, because we're not socialized to be quite so connected with others. More men are about things - providing things as a way of caring, connecting to things instead of people, connecting to people thru things, and, of course, as things.

 

[Fleur De Guerre]

I was thinking just the same thing - every person I know who is 'obsessed' with something, whether music of a certain genre, comics, art, robot toys, books ... they're all chaps!

 

[Fletch]

Chaps? Don't you mean wallies or anoraks?

 

["Skeet" McD]

That is until I got to Skeet's post and remembered this is one of the reasons I quit drinking. It became my social life, my life, my money, my marriage, way too many of my thoughts, etc...it was sucking everything out of me that was good and didn't give much back.

First of all, Celtic: congratulations on your choice to take back your life, and the strength you've shown to do it. Unlike our collecting obsessives...you were dealing with emotional and physical issues. It's a hard thing to beat, and you deserve a lot of respect for doing it.

There does seem to be a consensus here, so far at least...that there's a difference between liking something--even at a very significant level of emotional investment--and being obsessed by it. We have it on good authority (says Catholic-boy again) that you'll know the tree by its fruit. I think you've said the same thing very well when you speak about it sucking everything FROM you, and giving very little TO you.

Respectfully,
"Skeet"

 

[LizzieMaine]

Curious how no women have responded yet...

My two hobbies are gardening and dancing. (I don't collect anything.) Through those things, I've met some really great people who also had interests outside of those areas. But I'm not consumed by my hobbies. I don't go out every night and I don't get the latest and greatest plants every season. But there are people who, as non-professionals, travel to every lindy exchange they can, or travel to national rose shows on two plane tickets: one for themselves and one for their flowers. That's just a lot more time, money and effort than I ever wanted to spend on a hobby. Moderation in all things works for me.

I've specifically *avoided* getting involved in "hobby" type activities. I attended one Old Time Radio convention -- but only because I needed to make an appearance to promote my book -- and I met a lot of fine folks, along with too many of the types that Fletch describes, and some of them, frankly, made me very uncomfortable. I did not enjoy being buttonholed in a hotel corridor one night by a large sweaty fellow who wanted to interrogate me in great detail on radio transcription matrix numbers, and didn't want to take no for an answer.

I do collect things -- books, magazines, recordings, etc. -- but not for the sake of accumulating and cataloguing them. I *use* them in my day to day life, either as reference material for my writing or as simply the stuff of my daily existence. My wardrobe isn't a "collection," it's my wardrobe. My books and records aren't a "collection," I read them and listen to them the same way anyone else reads or listens to theirs. My vintage appliances aren't a "collection," I use them to prepare my meals and wash my clothes, and clean my rugs. I guess I just don't get the collector mentality of amassing a roomful of stuff just for the sake of having it and endlessly cataloguing it, and I think Fletch is right when he defines that as a "guy thing."

(I can be intricately detailed when writing for publication, of course -- but that's proper journalism, not obsessiveness.)

 

[Miss Neecerie]

heh...

I have multiple obsessive interests.

Some fall into the 'wow that something new and cool and I must now -research and know everything there is to know' type...and those do eventually fade as another 'new cool' takes its place...but its how i know so much about so many different things.


Others fall into longer term interests...but i think for women, these mostly fall under something that can be labeled 'productive' by the non obsessional society. Knitting, scrapbooking, sewing, crafting anyone? Women collect the supplies and apparatus and magazines and everything to do with the 'lastest' in these fields...just as single mindedly as men obsess about 78's or old airplanes.

But it is -perceived- differently since there is a product at the end of the path....even though most times, the amount of product produced is well under the 'buy supplies to actually make things' ratio.....fabric stash anyone? Yarn stash?

So our obsessions are more -socially- acceptable...and thus most folks wouldn't equate a quilter with a 78 geek....but come on....its the same.

D..the unashamedly Obsessive Compulsive

 

[HungaryTom]

Collections

It is nice to see this thread. I also have consecrated my time, money and ENTHUSIASM for different things in life. Things that made me richer or not but things that formed me.

After a while I get saturated somehow, especially if the subject of the obsessions is of the material sort. However this hunter and gatherer instinct is god given and must be lived out somehow.

The intellectual pleasures like reading and making creative things are not the opposite of collecting vintage, one can get acquiainted with all dimensions and aspects (literature, music, cuisine, interior design, architecture, clothing, history) of an era or more and getting experiences. Also the encounters with interesting soul mates is a great thing.

It is a great experince PER SE to dig into an area while making sacrifices and limiting your 'freedom' but this is the only way I think to get some real joys beyond the shallow satisfaction of the purchase.

I mean this place offers so many things beyond talking hats. I at least found one daily keyboard or pen friend and some fine discussion partners which is priceless.

 

[Feraud]

The kind of obsessive, detail-oriented connaisseurship we're dealing with here is an overwhelmingly male behavior.

We can do it, I think, because we're not socialized to be quite so connected with others. More men are about things - providing things as a way of caring, connecting to things instead of people, connecting to people thru things, and, of course, as things.

On the contrary Fletch, women are just as disposed to obsessing over stuff as men are! There are women out there who are losing sleep over collections just like we do.

 

["Skeet" McD]

On the contrary Fletch, women are just as disposed to obsessing over stuff as men are! There are women out there who are losing sleep over collections just like we do.

Well, there are outliers in every way of cutting up data--nothing is black and white. But I have to agree with Fletch: painting with a broad brush, Collecting (with a capital "C") is much more associated with males than females. As perceptive an observer of social issues as Jean Shepherd was commenting on it back in the early 60s; if you want to hear his take on it, go to the BRASS FIGLAGEE podcast site and download his radio program of August 22, 1963; the section under discussion occurs in the last 15 minutes or so of the broadcast.

"Skeet"

 

[Inky]

I too have avoided "collecting" in my more "mature" years, but I was an avid collector in a previous life, and my ex and I spent many an hour trolling swap meets, antique shows and the like for our spoils.

Which I only ended up losing and/or selling in a nasty divorce. After that my lesson was learned.

Now I have a few hobbies, knitting, learning to swing dance, sewing, making jewelry, but I find that unless it is useful to me personally and does not clutter up my life (yarn stash excluded, of course), I really don't want to be involved in it anymore. I suppose I am a less is more person now.

 

[Feraud]

[QUOTE="Skeet" McD]Well, there are outliers in every way of cutting up data--nothing is black and white. But I have to agree with Fletch: painting with a broad brush, Collecting (with a capital "C") is much more associated with males than females. As perceptive an observer of social issues as Jean Shepherd was commenting on it back in the early 60s; if you want to hear his take on it, go to the BRASS FIGLAGEE podcast site and download his radio program of August 22, 1963; the section under discussion occurs in the last 15 minutes or so of the broadcast.

"Skeet"[/QUOTE]
I agree collecting is more associated with men than women.
The reality is much different. 40-something year old data or observations do little to bolster the idea that women do not obsess over stuff. I know of women who Collect (with a capital "C") make-up, shoes, handbagss, vintage knitting needles and sewing items, quilts, handbags, compacts.. the list can go on and on. Heck man, my wife Collects half the junk I just listed!

Visit YouTube and search "makeup haul" for a small sample of the modern lady and her colletions.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

I agree collecting is more associated with men than women.
The reality is much different. 40-something year old data or observations do little to bolster the idea that women do not obsess over stuff. I know of women who Collect (with a capital "C") make-up, shoes, handbagss, vintage knitting needles and sewing items, quilts, handbags, compacts.. the list can go on and on. Heck man, my wife Collects half the junk I just listed!

Visit YouTube and search "makeup haul" for a small sample of the modern lady and her colletions.

Agreed 100%.....but these Collections ...are socially not -perceived- to be the same sort of collection as the 'Geeky collections' of the male half of the species.

So..women collect more -practical- things...does not mean for one second it's not 'Collecting'.

Ours just make us look more "oh she stockpiles for the future, how enterprising'

Trust me...no one with only -two- arms actually needs 6 boxes of yarn for knitting.....just waiting to be used. It's is thus a collection, bought with 'I will never find this particular one again'...same as any other Collector.



And the lady that dies with 600 sets of bath towels, just in case.....is for all purposes just as -sad- and erm for lack of a better term 'mental' as the man who dies with a million 78's in his house.

Obsession is obsession...regardless of the nature of -what- is collected.

 

[irb]

Especially with access to the internet, we currently have the luxury of accessing an almost limitless supply of knowledge on and almost infinite list of categories.

This is true, but contains a paradoxical problem: though all this stuff is now out there on the Internet, it's all stored in various ways, some of which will be entirely obsolete in even five years. We can still listen to records, but will we be able to decode, say, MP3s in 200 years? We have enough trouble reading tape from 20 years ago, or importing databases
created in version X when we've upgraded to version X.Y....

A complete discussion of which verges dangerously close to the shores of OffTopia of course, but ultimately the point is that collecting hard copy (like 78s) is still relevant and important. Just ask fans of Doctor Who. *grin*

 

[reetpleat]

The kind of obsessive, detail-oriented connaisseurship we're dealing with here is an overwhelmingly male behavior.

We can do it, I think, because we're not socialized to be quite so connected with others. More men are about things - providing things as a way of caring, connecting to things instead of people, connecting to people thru things, and, of course, as things.

I would go so far as to suggest that obsessive searching, collecting, connecting to the past etc, rather than a way of expressing the male urge to explore, conquer, etc as one might imagine, is actually a desire to connect, find intimacy and meaning. Women are not so inclined a they naturally find this in their lives connecting to people.

Men in our society are socialized to only think of intimacy in very limited terms, either through male bonding over things, activities, masculinity, or through romantic and sexual connection. Shame.

 

[reetpleat]

[QUOTE="Skeet" McD]First of all, Celtic: congratulations on your choice to take back your life, and the strength you've shown to do it. Unlike our collecting obsessives...you were dealing with emotional and physical issues. It's a hard thing to beat, and you deserve a lot of respect for doing it.

There does seem to be a consensus here, so far at least...that there's a difference between liking something--even at a very significant level of emotional investment--and being obsessed by it. We have it on good authority (says Catholic-boy again) that you'll know the tree by its fruit. I think you've said the same thing very well when you speak about it sucking everything FROM you, and giving very little TO you.

Respectfully,
"Skeet"[/QUOTE]

don't be so sure that obsessive collecting is not dealing with werious emotional issues.

 

[reetpleat]

Since you bring it up, there are a couple of other issues that are possibly involved with "what we do here." Some people on this forum seem very unhappy in their disdain for modern style, culture, modern times.

If someone is happy doing their own thing, great. But when they become obsessed with how awful modern times are and how much better they were back in the day etc, then they are setting themselves up for a pretty unhappy life.

If this describes anyone reading, think about it. If it does not describe you, then it is all good.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

... these people may be looking to fill a void and, in doing so, make the void even deeper.

In a nutshell, you're describing me.

"If you believe you are nothing without it, you are going to find you are still nothing with it."

I'm dangerously close to this point.

More men are about things - providing things as a way of caring, connecting to things instead of people, connecting to people thru things, and, of course, as things.

Shyness and mistrust of people can lead to this. Though a teacher by profession, I'm at heart a loner.


Obsessive collecting demands much time, perhaps a lot of money (especially over the years), and often space. In my case, space is quite limited, and my collections are closing in on us fast.


My problem is that I have focused on collecting things that are pretty much one-of-a-kind, and are used as physical extensions of myself: vintage tobacco pipes, ties, suits and sportcoats, shoes, hats, and even antique absinthe spoons. Practically all of the stuff is of very high quality. Therefore, the pile is especially hard to let go of, as I perceive that these difficult-to-replace objects make me look good. They project a very specific and arcane image that I want to have of myself, and want others to have of me.

.

.