following up on the post before the previous one, today I asked one of my friends how important she thought she was to me. She actually answered exactly right, which was a little bit surprising to me…I was pleased~
It’s always interesting to ask people how important they think they are to you, because usually it’s actually very difficult to get a good sense of how much you mean to someone. Different people care about others in different amounts and different ways, and you don’t really know the details of their interactions with others, so it’s difficult to get a good sense of things.
I’m a good example of this, of course. I write really long and thoughtful hand-written letters to my friends, and I call them up and ask how they’re doing and everything…which goes beyond what a lot of other people do, both male and female. But I write letters to a -lot- of different people–people who I’m not particularly close with too. So even though I’m taking the time and effort to write you this nice little letter, it still doesn’t really tell you much about how much you mean to me. Which is interesting. Add that on top of the fact that I’m generally really quiet in a group setting, so people often only get to know me through one-on-one interactions, and I think it makes it seem perhaps even more important to show those few people who are truly important to me that I care. There’s no way they can tell otherwise, really.
“Do you think love is an illusion created by society which can coherently be explained away with biochemistry and analysis of social behavior or do you lean more towards the idealized & romantic conception of love?”
This question is flawed because it assumes that if love can be explained by “logical” means (biochemistry, neurology), then love is an illusion. And of course, this assumption is totally false!
I can’t seem to find a way to “fix” the question and make it interesting to me. It seems to be getting at the difference between love stemming from the heart and love stemming from the brain, I guess. But in my view, “love stemming from the heart” is just an expression anyways, and the fact that feelings of love can cause physical reactions in the region around your heart can presumably be explained through some logical process. But everything here is still real!
You might question my definition of “love”, but even THAT doesn’t make the question interesting. To me, the question “what is love” is totally nonsensical. It’s the same problem as the question “what is life”. It’s totally uninteresting. Love and life are both words that represent concepts. The concepts that they represent can be different things in different contexts and to different people. Perhaps the only real answer I can give to “what is love TO YOU?” is “different things.” Either that, or the smartass answer of “it’s a word that represents blahblahblah…”.
“what is happiness” is also uninteresting, for same reasons.
Perhaps the essence of the question still has some merit though. It’s essentially asking whether or not you buy into romanticism. …which is too big of a question. Instead you could ask something like “do you believe in soulmates?”. That’s easier–I would argue that it’s a more interesting question, but still painfully simple for me to answer. The answer is essentially no, but that doesn’t mean that the idea of a soulmate doesn’t have any merit.
Without going into that in any more detail, I could ask you whether it would really be advantageous for soulmates to exist at all. Let’s say every person has one other soulmate in the world, and this is all predetermined.
The first thing you have to realize is, you have to have some way of -knowing- who your soulmate is (i.e. it has to make some appreciable impact), otherwise IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER. So, to make things interesting, let’s assume that once you encounter your soulmate in person, you instantly know, beyond a doubt, with 100% certainty, that that person is your soulmate.
If it’s guaranteed that you’re always going to meet your soulmate at some point in life, then is that good? Well, yes and no. Yes because that means you can simply wait around until you meet them and then be happy (yay.). No, because there’s no guarantee that the waiting around will be worth that happiness (imagine waiting around for 90 years).
If it’s not guaranteed that you’re ever going to meet your soulmate, then is that good? Well, probably not. You can either wait around hoping that you’ll meet them, in which case you may never find them anyways, or you may decide on someone else, -then- meet your soulmate, and then that’s problematic as well.
So, it’s really a good thing that soulmates don’t exist.
(explanations have not been drawn out for brevity’s sake, blahblahblah)
In astrology, Taurus is considered a “feminine”, negative (introvert) sign.
In Western astrology, Aries is considered a “masculine”, positive (extrovert) sign.
Since I’m on the cusp between Taurus and Aries, it almost makes sense to have both a feminine and masculine sign. The negative/positive juxtaposition fits too. But it doesn’t really work out, since there’s no part of me at all that’s extroverted…
This says something about me that NEITHER fb’s “about me” nor its “favorite quotations” have the capacity to fit what I want to put in them.
Side note, I’m now up to NINE url links that I can give people:
And, of course, typing ddrkirby, ddrkirbyisq, or ddrkirby(isq) into google will now bombard you with results for ME. whee!~
another note: I recently broke 2,500 xanga posts.
My first thought upon walking out of class to find the entire sky filled with cloud cover, haze obscuring the buildings in the distance:
“Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, Zip-a-dee-ay…my oh my, what a wonderful day~”