I know this is a much drained topic; dull, boring, taken for granted nowadays, but I figured I might as well include it... and if you've visited here before, you can see I've gone against all my former wishes, and made this page rather pink and happy.... just to contrast my psychotic counterpart... hopefully this won't become a long psychology lesson; but then, this IS my page, so i can bore you with whatever crap I feel like!
11:00am, 7/11/99 Love is something unexplainable, because it is different for everyone.... love is when two people understand each other so implicitly that they should be able to sense any difference in a person's essence, to detect any cause of worry or concern without anything visible to show this.
11:00am, 7/11/99 Love is not just fun and pampering; love is guidance and trust... One should always have faith that they are loved, and not require constant reminders: simple content in one's company.
11:00am, 7/11/99 Love does not mean that one should agree with the other in every aspect, but help to expand the mind into something greater than either are capable of alone!
7:30am, 13/11/99 Love does not happen at a moment's glance - that is, I do not believe in love at first sight. Infatuation might begin at first glance, but not love. Love may develop from infatuation, in time, should that be the course, but one does not have enough understanding of the person at a glance to know what there is to be loved. Love can only form with a certain degree of intimacy - this cannot be judged by time; like music, the development of intimacy is controlled by how time is spent and not how long it is spent. To parallel another movie, one can be as intimate with another in the space of seven hours, as somebody else, in seven days, or seven weeks, or months or years. This might seem to contradict with the concept of the impossibility of love at first sight; however, the depth and complexity of character differs with different people and the different penetrations of understanding; an early understanding of one's character, does not mean you shall always understand...
10:30pm, 14/11/99 People change; people have shells that they prefer to show rather than themselves; or hide certain parts of their character behind others which seem contradictory and hypocritical. It is never possible to understand fully - this does require time. Be not fooled by false appearances; do not startle yourself by believing that you know someone; always be prepared for change. People you know from the first steps of your life may suddenly appear to be the people you know the least... but always in retrospect, you shall see that it was not they that were deceiving, but you that was blind. Be aware of this. Always, be aware of this. Or it might slap you in the face... and be more than you can handle. Don't ruin a friendship by such a blind mistake.
12:30pm, 13/11/99 I always vouch for the underdog... there's something about the way I think that makes me justify in whatever means possible, the actions of the supposedly "evil", "bad" and "naughty" people - inducing a form of piteous compassion towards them. It has always been one of my strongest beliefs that those people at school who are always late for class, or always talking, are never doing their homework are not just "naughty" kids, but that their minds have been somehow warped by family problems. Now I know that that just sounds like some wild sci-fi way of putting it, but that is what I believe. Maybe that person’s parents care more about their businesses than their children, maybe their parents are abusive, over-restrictive and protective, or perhaps their morals are not as they should be - and these all pass to the child. I can reason to myself, when I meet someone who is determined to make me believe what they say, or have to have the "hottest gos", that somehow they want to prove to everyone around them that they are important as well.
If you observe, the majority of kids who are supposedly "naughty" at school are those whose families have broken up, whose parents have big important jobs, or whose families' own morals and theories are perhaps not as they should be. Why blame the kids for faults of their parents? You might say, well the kids have control of their own lives so they should be able to act differently despite their parents... but everyone knows this is not always possible; emotional scarring occurs without the person's knowledge - they do not realise what they do; if they do realise, it shows the desperation of their situation. If you understand this, then it makes it easier to be friendly to those who you formerly would rather spurn... give them a friend; they need it. :)
If you really want to understand my character in regards to this concept then feel free to read my Richard III essay... (don't worry, I don't really expect you to read it, but considering that my level of expression is not the best, you might like to read it to get the idea. You see, the topic of the essay was "Richard may be bad but he is also fascinating." I kinda twisted it to say, "He is fascinating; whether he is actually bad is the question"!)
5:00pm, 13/11/99
I have never seen such love as displayed between the sisters Hilary and Jackie du Pre, particularly after seeing the movie Hilary and Jackie and reading the biography, A Genius in the family. Jackie, later diagnosed with MS, has bouts of fanatical, really psychotic behaviour - one of which is requesting permission to be allowed to sleep with Hilary's husband. Hilary, knowing that her husband has been such a wall of strength for Jackie, allows this to happen... several times. Now who would do that for a sister?
7:30pm, 23/11/99, UPDATED 2:23pm 4/3/00 People often don't like others because of some fault in their character - she's so blunt or he's so outspoken or she never remembers anything but for herself! They're so rude! Dare I suggest that this is not rudeness but honesty? This kind of parallels one of my hypocrisy theories. It is in the nature of some perhaps even most people, to act before they think and regret it after; they say or do whatever comes into their head. You might call this selfish or inconsiderate; I would call it being natural or honest. Surely it is unnatural to go against one's original instincts and actively think "oh, I shouldn't do that".
I was going to add some more, but...
8:45pm, 24/11/99 Something really sweet for the soft at heart! hehe "No man is worth your tears, and the one who is wont make you cry" Cute? yes. Sweet? very. Possible? uh, sorry. In a general sense, I believe this probably to be true; however literally, we're going to have to be more realistic than that. But at the moment, I'm just going to enjoy it! hehe
10:30pm, 25/11/99 Research has been done to discover whether people are born with character or develop it from their surroundings. I agree with the latter - or at least, too large a part of one's character is affected by the latter for the former to have any significance. This is one of the reasons why I advocate the concept that we should be piteously compassionate (in our own minds, not necessarily blatantly obvious) when with others, rather than judging them and repulsing them for being blunt or outspoken or weird. It is no fault of theirs.
People's characters are what results from how people act and treat them around them. The way their minds function is a direct result of the attitudes they were exposed to - as all these are different, then each mind functions differently. Just as most of us are repulsive at the idea of cannabalism, if we had been raised cannibals, we would see no fault in it. Therefore, when you see someone whose antics are not what you would consider as agreeable, then pity them - pity them for the connections they had that were inadequate to teach them what you consider to be right. Do not show this and become a condescending person but use this in your own mind to allow you to befriend these people. Others may not have reasoned as you have; give them a friend.
It is human nature to want attention; to want a friend. If for whatever fault of your surroundings, you are spurned then your behaviour shall alter - consciously or not - in order to try and accommodate this. Especially in older kids, this alteration might just seem like another fault in their character...
Therefore, overlook these in your own mind. You shall see a whole new world (excuse the expression) in the minds of these people who appreciate your attention.
8:25pm, 26/11/99 "The greatest happiness of life it the conviction that we are loved - loved for ourselves, or rather, loved in spite of ourselves." (Victor Marie Hugo).
Remove people's faults from your mind and you shall find an excellent person and a solid friend.
11:20pm, 6/12/99 Tactless people cannot teach Tact to others. People without taste cannot teach tastes to others. Indelicate people cannot teach delicacy to others. Therefore, do not judge others for their insufficiencies - inwardly blame the parents, and pity the victimous children. Guide them if you will, suggest tasteful and tactful concepts. Do not deny them.
7:02pm, 17/2/00, UPDATED 2:34pm, 4/3/00 The development of one's character occurs from the various push-pull forces from the outside, influences from parents (particularly), friends, neighbours and trends in society. It is hard to keep one's character from being marred by the errors of others, no matter how aware you are, beforehand, of those faults. Ironically, the more you think you have been untouched by external forces [sounds like a lesson in physics doesn't it ;)], the more you are actually blinded to the retaliation/resentment in your own character that has developed, consequential (is that a word?) to what influences have been pressed on you.
"Purity of character", so to speak, is very hard to keep up. It is also a very vain concept, yes. But if you are aware that certain facets (is that the wrong word? is that a word?) of your character are right by principle, although all your friends try and encourage you against it, you should try and keep it. Maybe you might influence other people into your frame of mind! :)
For people who aren't so lucky as to have a happy life, they must alter their behaviour in order to try and "fit in". Sad, yes very. It ruins character. Try and get to know the people you would rather spurn and you might be able to uncover the character underneath. It's a fun experience and a rewarding one (corny!).
5:32pm, 3/3/00 Why do people mistake shyness for arrogance? Excessively shy people will not have the courage to speak, to make conversation; some might even go to the extreme of not being able to meet your gaze or avoiding you just to avoid a situation which might make them nervous. Be careful. You might meet someone like that. Don't misjudge them.
1:50pm, 4/3/00 I suppose I should add here that many of the things above (especially the first few, about "true love", as the cliched phrase goes) is purely hyperthetical for the obvious reason that I don't really think anybody can claim they have felt "true love", they would not flatter themselves on that. Again that statement is hyperthetical.
1:55pm, 4/3/00 There is also that rather miserable problem that (shy) people often have and that is that lovely experience when the mind seems to freeze when startled. A simple greeting by another peron (say, a general acquaintance, or someone who would like to get to know you better) might startle the shy person and the reaction might be one of seeming silence or such a soft reply that it goes unheard. Again, this might be mistaken for unfriendliness but is, in fact, a great degree of timidity. Be nice 2 these people :)
12pm, 19/4/00 I'd like to make a statement about relationships. I never thought I'd say this, and if my parents were to read this (heaven forbid), they'd say "we win you lose ha!". Nonetheless, on one matter, i have to admit I've been converted to the parental side of thinking. Why must there be such an official "do you want to go out with me?" occasion? Why must people be clearly identified as bf/gf? Why must there be the definite "breaking up"? Why, when two people of the opposite sex are getting along really well, there is always the assumption that there will be "chemistry"? WHY????? When the question is asked, there will always be some subconscious obligation to accept, simply out of gratitude - not a very large part for most people, no, but it still exists. The identification of bf/gf impairs the people's relationships with others - i know, i didn't believe this either at first, but I've been converted. No proof as yet, that i can express vaguely concisely, but i know it's true.
If there is natural inclination between two people, then they would naturally get to know each other better. THEN, if they have gotten to know the person, partiality will naturally occur. If anything happens - if it is discovered that there is something objectionable, then it is easier for there to be separation without a big deal. Natural tendencies will be enough. Otherwise, people are obliged to put up with it, or whatever, and it generally leads to a greater blowup than was necessary.
All this rigidity leads to problems - pressure, people trying to "set others up", a whole list of enemies (that is, ex-bfs, ex-gfs) forming, and conflicts between friends occur because A was flirting with B's significant other, or X is trying to steal B's bf/gf. It all gets a little too contrived and "typical". Nobody believes you when you're "just friends" with people; false accusations come up, false jealousies. If there was never any identification of who was who's bf/gf, then there's no possession, and thus no stealing.... i ain't finished on this topic, but i'm too tired to continue at the moment....
6:35pm, 19/4/00 Everyone needs love. This is particularly obvious when you see those people who are most insecure - they are the ones who throw themselves at any passerby (figuratively, and partially literally), just for a little bit of affection. In extreme cases, they are the supposed "sluts" or "fast" people. The problem with this, is that they are prone to getting hurt, because the relationships were never meant to work in the first place. Just the little things in a relationship are what figuratively and literally bind people - the hugs and kisses, the arm around the shoulder. By observation, i have learnt that when people break up, they miss these little pieces of affection. Hence a cycle develops where they "go after" someone else, just to restore that little piece of love that that had before. It's important to be aware (*groan*) of this, so you don't get trapped... you might start developing a not-too favourable reputation for yourself.
6:42pm, 19/4/00 Love should be sacred; the little precious moments, the hugs and kisses, that shouldn't be shared with anyone else. During the Regency, just a simple lock of hair was prized - even sometimes as far as symbolising an engagement or perhaps secret love-interest. The kisses and other things were left in privacy. Nowadays, even sex seems to be tossed about. It's sad.
8:42am, 20/4/00 Relationships are so contrived and false these days. All those annoying talk-back radios shows that discuss how people were "ready to say those words, but what did she say in answer?", about people "ready to go the next step", In my not so very humble opinion, I'd say the fact that the next step is planned or looked for, already shows falsehood and insincerity. It almost seems like a self-discussion "Yes, I am ready. Yes I like this person. That means I have to do XYZ". All those annoying magz and stuff who rave on about how once "the words" are said, without a favourable response, the relationship is over???? now come on!!! How pathetic can you get! Sure it might actually happen that way, but it's got nothing to do with the fact that he said it and she didn't or whatever! IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO HAPPEN!
You can't force these things. Such words, also, are sacred and shouldn't be said, because one is "ready" or just because one's significant other has said it already. It leaves the heart vulnerable, makes it less important when you actually mean it from the deepest corners of your heart... more on this later.
8:50am, 20/4/00 Obsession isn't love; obsession is just brain in overdrive. Obsession can turn to love, just as infatuation can, but the two cannot exist together. Obsession is blind inclination... more later
4:25pm, 25/4/00 A friend - someone to talk to, to make you feel special.
11:23am, 23/4/00 Kindness is telling the truth, not necessarily just saying what the person wants to hear. It might hurt at first, but in the long run, it might do some good... of course, there are exceptions to this rule - it's all about timing.
11:50am, 4/6/00 Ok, some more objections on this patheticly insincere form of love that we get these days. I HATE people setting other people up. Not only is this because I am completely averse to "meddling" of any form, but when it comes to people's feelings, it just causes more problems.
Firstly, it puts two people together who know NOTHING about the other. One meeting. You're pressing the politically incorrect concept of judging by first impressions - you're expected by the end of a few hours together, whether you "like-like" the person. You ain't gonna know.
Ok, so you say, organise more meetings then. Right, more meetings. Fine. But then, these people still don't know each other well enough to know what the other is thinking. One person could be head-over-heels in love (*groan* *shudder*) while the other is being turned off; it just prolongs/increases the problem.
Because of the obligation I talked of earlier, this "set up" makes people feel obliged to accept, else it's like a personal affront. There is no way you can completely convince someone or yourself that there is no obligation. The fact that there is a mediator in this "setup" also makes it worse - you are virtually obliged to that mediator to accept, as though saying "yes, you make good friends. i like them."
3:00pm, 5/7/00 Desiderata, Found in old St Paul's Church, Baltimore, dated, 1692. Nice.