The living contradiction|
[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
[ << Previous 20 ]
[ << Previous 20 ]
|Friday, September 8th, 2006|
|Action/reaction mathematics update
Mmm...my research methods are circular and move in a very roundabout way. It helps me cover lots and lots of ground, but my focus is absolutely shot. Well, in relevance to this, my research in various other fields has lead me back into my theory of action/reaction mathematics, which I had started about five months ago but gave up on to pursue other more relevant fields (such as PDP theory, which led me into creating my current "convergence theory" of personality, which none of you know about...yet.) I am now calling that field Behavioral Topology
. It and the other fields I am researching are all still quite nebulous and vague to me, but I have extremely high hopes for them.
Right now, I am sulking over the fact that my formal mathematics skills are quite low. I know what I want in my mathematical theory, the problem is that I have not the ability to formalize it. This is one reason for my interest in a minor in mathematics, but I fear that waiting to take a class on formal mathematics would take too long (chances are that I will not be able to take that class until next school year.) I try to teach myself mathematics, but...it gets really difficult at times. I know exactly what I want, though, and I know roughly how to express it in mathematics.
So far I am trying to formalize what I call a static reagent
, which is, intuitively, a constant object (such as a rock or a pillow). I have that a static reagent is made up of one set of actions, one set of reactions, and one set of action/reaction pairs such that no element of the action set is identical to any element of the reaction set and the set of action/reaction pairs is formed by a bijective (one-to-one) mapping of the action set onto the reaction set (so that every element of the action/reaction set is in the form (a ® r
), which is basically an ordered pair, (a
), with the comma replaced by the "causes" operator.)
Now I just need to formalize that statement.
|Friday, August 18th, 2006|
I've recently been working on a project I've been dreaming of for some time now, that is, writing an operating system. I initially wanted to create an OS purely for gaming that would turn the computer into basically a Nintendo- or XBox-type device. After hearing about dual-core processing, I thought, why not utilize one of the cores purely as a graphics accelerator? That way, programmers could benefit from an open-source graphics system and be free from proprietary, closed-source and Windows-specific graphics adapters. And running graphics software code on a dedicated processor core allows for both greater capabilities and flexibility and huge increases in speed.
Right now I am busy with two subprojects, reading up on the Uniform Driver Interface (UDI) specification and writing a complete CPUID instruction wrapper. Specifications are hell to read through but somehow also quite interesting and entertaining at the same time.
If anyone is interested in my project, you know where to find me.
|Friday, August 4th, 2006|
Eight theses about swarm intelligence and the human body (from http://www.molbio.ku.dk/MolBioPages/abk/PersonalPages/Jesper/Swarm.html
1. Signs, not molecules, are the basic units in the study of life.
2. The simplest entity to posses real semiotic competence is the cell. This is because the cell is a self-referential system based on redescription in the digital code of DNA (Hoffmeyer 1992).
3. Subjectivity - or better "subjectness" - is not an either-or but a more-or-less phenomenon. Subjectness has its own natural history.
4. Living systems exhibit extreme semiogenic behaviour based on the semiotic dynamics of semetic interactions, whereby habits come to signify the release of further habits in an infinitely long and complex web stretching back to the beginning of life and forward to the global semiosphere of tomorrow.
5. Vertebrate bodies are supposed to function on the basis of swarm dynamic principles not unlike those pertaining to social insects.
6. The swarm of cells constituting a human body should be seen as a swarm of swarms, i.e., a huge swarm of overlapping swarms of very different kinds. The minor swarms again are swarm-entities, so that we get a hierarchy of swarms.
7. An image arises in which the brain is functionally integrated into the body. Swarms of immune cells interact with swarms of nerve cells in maintaining the somatic ecology.
8. Thoughts and feelings are not localised entities. They swarm out of our body collective.
|Sunday, July 23rd, 2006|
From Futurama, Episode "The Why of Fry", after Fry learns that his reason for being frozen for 1000 years was because he was the only one who could save the universe:
Nibbler [on screen]: We had no choice. You were the only one who could help us. What is one life weighed against the entire universe?
Fry: But it was my life.
There is something deep in those words.
|Thursday, July 20th, 2006|
|Intel is God of all that is blue and shiny
Just got my new boxed motherboard and processor today in the mail. The motherboard is the Intel D945GTPLR Media series based on the 945G chipset for microATX boards. The processor is a Pentium D 930, 3.0GHz, 800MHz dedicated processor bus. Two processor cores on one chip. I have so many ideas on how to really utilize those two cores. Just looking at the box really turns me on.
All in all, this system cost me only around $290 + $100 for the memory/power supply upgrades. I still have to get a new power supply that has the 12V 2x2 connector for the processor voltage. My current power supply is around 7 years old. :/ Luckily, I only spent $70 for a gigabyte of dual-channel, DDR2 SDRAM (Circuit City discount with mail-in rebate.)
I really need an external hard drive with at least 50GB of space (the cheaper it is, the better.) External, I say, because my computer case won't fit any more drives in its 4 drive bays. But that what you have to deal with when you want to upgrade your system as cheap as possible and have to deal with a microATX system.
The computer used to house a Pentium II, 400MHz, Slot 1 type processor on a 440BX chipset, microATX board. So such a huge upgrade (about a 7 years increase in the technology) is going to be one hell of a problem. For example, I have to cut the I/O shield out of the case directly to fit the new one. Yeah, I said 'cut', because Gateway decided to build the I/O shield directly into the case. No easy clip-on shield like they have nowadays.
Plus I need a new monitor. The red blew out on mine. And it must be a CRT monitor. They are cheaper and more versatile in graphics applications than LCD monitors.
I really wanted a Pentium Extreme Edition with a 975X chipset (don't we all........) :(
But that would be running around $1200 just for those two components. And who knows how much I'd be spending if I would have waited for the new Core 2 Extreme processors to hit the markets.
And I am not going with AMD. They run way, way too hot and have stupid processor names.
Anyway, here are some pics so that you may also share in the glory that is Intel...
Take note of the last two pictures. I said my board was the Media series of the D945GTP board family, but the box in pic 2 says "Classic series". The actual board in pic 3 is a genuine "Media series". Yeah, that's right, someone somehow somewhere sometime screwed up and put the wrong board in the wrong box. And ONLY the wrong board. Every other component is of the Classic series, even the software and the I/O shield (although I don't think the I/O shield even fits ANY of the D945GTP boards. It's missing a couple USB holes.) So I will have to contact Newegg.com tomorrow and see if I can get the right components.
|Friday, July 14th, 2006|
What's the difference between amateur literature and time-tested literature from all of our favorite authors?
Well, one reason I dislike amateur literature is that beginners too often include themselves into their stories. This is fine when your point is to make personal commentary or expose your soul to the world. But it is NOT good for just an everyday, run-of-the-mill story. Objectivity is the key. If you are telling a story, we want to know what is happening, not what you think about what is happening.
Take the following sample: e.g.
Notice all of the personal comments? The personal interpretations of people's behavior? This is in a third-person limited point-of-view, but it should be in first-person.
Maybe my criticisms are nothing to worry about. Maybe the story is really a good one. But here's another point: think about what the story is about. Think about its main focus and what it is trying to show. Then notice what all of the "personal comments" and "interpretations" do to the focus of the story. Distracting, aren't they? The first three paragraphs are completely unnecessary to the plot and only serve to describe an irrelevant aspect of the main character. And then the second half of the story is too interpretive in a cliche type of way. "Still watching her like a cautious hawk..." Not exactly clear, really.
Paranoia Agent is coming on soon. So this criticism will end here.
|Friday, June 30th, 2006|
|Jung's psychological stereotypes
You know, sometimes, in the secrecy of the darkness, I think I could be an extravert. ENTp, to be specific.
Hey, you never know.
But recently I've been reading Jung's Psychological Types
. Right now I am looking into what Jung really, really meant by the 'object' and the 'subject'. So far I've been able to discern that:
'object' is something external that the extravert both feeds from and feeds into,
'object' is something dynamic,
'object' is something extraneous and technically unnecessary;
'subject' is something either internal, internally created, or something external assimilated into the self (what ISxjs do),
'subject' is something static or controlled by the self,
'subject' is something necessary for survival.
'objects' and 'subjects' are objects, needs, wants, events, processes, or whatever that a person consciously treats as one thing and that serves as the main focus in that person's life.
|Tuesday, May 30th, 2006|
|An A+ summer
Summer vacation has been in session for a few weeks now, and for those past few weeks, I've been "hard" at work reading and studying for the A+ exam.
And if you don't know what the A+ exam is, it is a comprehensive test measuring one's knowledge of computer hardware and repair. When you pass it, you gain "A+ certification" which is a great resume add-on especially if you are into computer-related fields.
I figure that since my current software capabilities are equivalent to having a bachelor's degree in computer science, I might as well beef up the hardware side of my knowledge, which right now is barely worth three months in a technical trade school.
But I really need to get my other obligations fulfilled, like work on Socionics and practice my damn piano.
|Tuesday, April 18th, 2006|
|Revel in Ravel
Ravel's Piano Concerto No. 1, second movement has to be the most beautiful piece ever. I heard a live version of the concerto about two months back, and even though the rest of the concerto was played horribly (university students, you know), the second movement was sublime. A smaller-than-average concert hall does wonders for the feeling of intimacy.
I wish you all could listen to a good mp3 recording of it, but my source for classical music (classic.manual.ru) is temporarily down. You COULD listen to a RealPlayer version of it, but the quality sucks so much, I am doing you the honor of not putting the link on my journal.
Now there are some internet-related things I should be doing, but I'm not going to do them quite yet, as I've been distancing myself from the cyberworld recently and the liberating feeling of living in the real world takes awhile to wear off.
But my theoretical developments on Socionics are really starting to show some results. Yay!
|Monday, April 17th, 2006|
|Fight Club's power overwhelmed itself - old forum repost (10/13/03)
This is a post I made on a movie critic forum back on 10/13/03 that I decided now, 2 1/2 years later, to repost on a more accessible medium.
It took me about two days of reading and studying the numerous posts on this forum, but I think I finally got the entirety of the idea of the film, Fight Club. Now, don't get me wrong, I love this movie, but the problem Fight Club has is that it's main idea is blinded and shrouded by its overwhelming power to "rebel".
First of all, I agree with "cheeksw" (5/28/01 post) in that the movie was not at all about "do what Tyler Durden does." (par. 3) Tyler Durden was definitely the bad guy in this movie. I knew that from the first time I saw Fight Club. Tyler's idea of "utopia" is a world where guys blindly kick each other's asses into a pulp and blow up buildings just to release their "primal instincts" that have been repressed by a materialistic society that forces them to live for commercialism. Well, the film definitely got that point out clearly enough. Tyler's army of men is reduced to a mindless cult that lives only to follow Tyler's instructions. They are the "space monkeys", doing only the job they're trained to do. Edward Norton's character is the only one who actually disagrees with Tyler. He is the only one who actually thinks for himself.
This brings me to my first point: the movie wasn't about going crazy on everyone and everything, it was about thinking for yourself. Many reviewers of this film called it "fascist". They were exactly right--and exactly wrong. That's the irony of it. The film as I see it has a strong resemblance to George Orwell's "Animal Farm". Orwell's main idea in that book was "it's okay to rebel, just don't do it like Russia did it." Fight Club's main idea is "it's okay to rebel, just don't do it like Tyler did it." Tyler's rebellion against society is fascist in every way. Webster's Dictionary defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition". Now, tell me if this isn't Tyler's fight club in a nutshell. Look at some of the words. "A political philosophy...that exalts nation and often race above the individual..." ("You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.") "...stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader..." (Tyler.) "...severe economic and social regimentation..." (space monkeys doing the jobs they were assigned to do.) "...forcible suppression of opposition." (when Tyler forces Lou to let them use the basement, when Tyler's group forces the Commissioner to forget about the recent crimes around the city.) History has already told us that fascism doesn't work. So, it might even turn out to be that Fight Club actually embraces individualism and free thought (for ourselves).
Now, alot of Tyler's ideas about a rebellion are definitely good ones, but he, like every other rebellion throughout history, forgets to look at the entirety of human nature. Humans don't just desire to kill each other and everything. I agree that we should pay more attention to our desires to kill, but that's not the only desires we (they) have. They also have a desire to create and appreciate. Tyler was only partially right when he said, "Self-improvement is masturbation. Self-destruction is the answer." Tyler was subjecting the "space monkeys" only to destruction, which turned them into babbling drones who only followed Tyler. Tyler creates nothing and appreciates nothing, and this angers the Narrator, who is the only one who realizes Tyler's mistake. He tells Tyler this in the final scene of the movie:
Narrator: Do something for me.
Narrator: Appreciate something.
Narrator: Look at me...
Narrator: My eyes are open.
The Narrator both tells Tyler that he screwed up and tells the world to think for themselves. If you want to watch a film on the appreciative side of human nature, watch "American Beauty".
What saddens me is that most people get the wrong idea from Fight Club. Palahniuk made Fight Club's anarchist, nihilistic, and violent tendencies too powerful. They block out the movie's true message. I just hope that people read this and get the true idea of Fight Club.
So, basically, Fight Club is about how rebellions only accomplish a redirection of power to another, even worse government. Technically, it's not about how we need to rebel; you don't need someone else to tell you that. I'd put "Fight Club" in the "anti-utopian literature" genre, which follows these five characteristics:
- Man is able to destroy all of mankind, not only himself.
- Man is at the mercy of a higher power with no control over it.
- It analyzes the the theme: man's inhumanity to man.
- Man starts out bad and ends up worse.
- Man is directed for purposes other than developing what's best in nature.
"Fight Club" is nothing new, but it is definitely a genius work of art.
If you want more information on this topic, I'd consider reading some of George Orwell's works.
|Tuesday, April 11th, 2006|
I am eternally grateful to the makers of the "Symbol" font of which allowed me to create such a beautiful presentation of my mathematical concepts. Because we all know how much artistic precision is important to the mathematician.Definition 1
: Let R be a set of reactions, A be a set of actions, and r
be reactions such that r
, u Î
R. Then a
such that a Î
A is called an adient action
if and only ifr ® a ® u
is true. R is called the set of beneficial stimuli
: Let R be a set of reactions, A be a set of actions, and r
be reactions such that r Î
R, v Ï
R. Then a
such that a Î
A is called an abient action
if and only ifr ® a ® v
is true. R is called the set of harmful stimuli
: If an organism perceives a stimulus as beneficial, it will respond in order to increase the duration of the stimulus. If an organism perceives a stimulus as harmful, it will respond in order to decrease the duration of the stimulus.
The above theorem is the same as the two definitions in layman's terms. More specifically, the theorem states that a stimulus can be determined as beneficial or harmful depending on the reaction of the organism to the stimulus in terms of adience and abience.
An adient response is that response which elicits more of the desired stimulus. An abient response is that response which reduces the influence of the impinging stimulus.
In the above mathematical definitions, the symbol ®
means "causes" or "results in" and is logically equivalent to the symbol 'and'.
Also, an "action" is any response elicited by the agent (organism) in question. A reaction is any response elicited by the environment.
|Monday, April 10th, 2006|
|Why women can't have sex
This is my attempt at an explanation of why men are considered "studs" when they fuck five women in one night and why women are "whores" when they give in too easily to one guy.
The simple answer is that there is an imbalance of power when it comes to the sexes. Historically speaking, men are the go-getters; they go out and win the bread and whisk the women away. This puts them on the offense of sexual competition. They are the ones to always initiate everything. Women, on the other hand, stay at home and take care of the kids or gather berries or whatever. This puts them on the defense of sexual competition. The men come to THEM, not the other way around. Thus there is a type of aggressive/submissive hierarchy going on.
Biologically speaking, it is more advantageous for a man to sleep with as many women as he can, whereas it is more advantageous for a woman to sleep with the most qualified man in terms of genetic superiority. This is because of the gestation period in women, which basically says that men can fuck five women in a night, but women can only be pregnant once every nine months.
So already we have an argument for the gender-role fulfillment theory
, which states that men or women who deviate from the time-tested roles assigned to them are considered abnormal. Men who aren't living to their potentials are considered weak by the stronger men, and those women are considered immoral by the sexually-ascetic women.
This is how a social biologist would explain this phenomenon. However this explanation implies that we think on a much more biological level than we actually do. It is true that men still think of lesser men as "weak" in the strictly biosexual sense (and of course the comic or feminist would say that this is because men are more primitive and only think of one thing), but morality is not a biological phenomenon, thus women are not fully explained. We must go deeper.
If women and sex is a moral issue, then where do we go to learn about the origin of morals? The church, of course.
Because men are considered the "go-getters" and women are more passive, there is created a sort of game, a game in which the men are the players and the women "play hard to get". A woman by definition is expected to be discriminating when choosing a partner; she is not apt to just let anyone in. But men are supposed to be very lax when accepting a partner. Thus depending on who takes the initiative, the women is hard to get and the man is easy.
Our moral system usually states that taking advantage of an unfair situation is wrong. Say that women wanted sex as much and as often as men. Then there is absolutely nothing to worry about, because most men would jump into the arms of an hot, initiating woman if given the chance. Thus this is an unfair situation that one can take advantage of. So then, women can't fuck men as often because it would be taking advantage of an unfair situation and lead to such vices as greed and gluttony.
So there you have it. I hope you will continue to come back later for more of Cone's Super-duper Lectures on Stuff That Happens.
|Saturday, April 8th, 2006|
I've always said to myself that I would stay in this little hick-town of mine and try to combat the "Brain Drain". I loved it here, so many memories and nature is so vibrant here. But alas, when your inner soul changes, that's the signal to leave. I am not a child anymore, so there is nothing to look forward to here. It's time to hitch a ride on the "feather in the wind" again.
Yes, that was a reference to Forrest Gump
, which by the way, is my absolute favorite movie of all time.
Most people look at Forrest and see "stupid". I look at Forrest and see my dual. To run full-force into life without knowing what is at the end or where you are going or what is good or bad or right or wrong is to me the most admirable and beautiful thing I think exists. I love ignorance. Or better yet, I love innocence.
If Forrest is ESFp, Jenny has to be INTp. I think she saw exactly what I saw in Forrest.
I have no anchor in life. In other words, I lack a stable identity by definition of being INTp, but I have nothing to fall back on, no one to really look up to or imitate. So I grab ahold of every new character I come across and try to model myself after them. I take "imitation is the most sincere form of flattery" completely out of hand. And I think people notice that.
My INTp cousin is lucky. He has ME.
I could really, really use my dual right about now.
Have you ever gone to a friend's house and took a peek at his/her AIM buddy list? One kid I knew had at least 300 friends on his. And I think that was his new one because the old one he had reached its limit. My ex-girlfriend had around 100 phone numbers in her cell-phone address book. That one was also a new one, because her other cell reached its limit too.
Too many people take relationships for granted.
You have probably had sex with more people than I have had true friends in my entire life.
I try as hard as I can to make people feel like they are really worth something. Perhaps that is because I do not want to lose them. Or maybe it is because of that old saying of Jesus', "do unto others as you would want done unto you." I take that saying to heart.
But something tells me that I am not what I think I am. I am too egocentric. I think one way and live another.
I am not analytical in the least bit. Logic and theorizing are simply a game to me. I live unsystematically and uncaringly. Nothing I think about is ever applied to my life.
...ok, you are right. That was a gross over-generalization.
I want to rip the seams of thought apart and show people a world that would kill many simply by the sight of it.
I want to be Huey Freeman.
I really hate saying this, but ultimately I must admit to my unconscious sentiment: I think everyone I have ever known is stupid.
But there are some people out there who make me realize how stupid I really am.
Those people are Jacob (pedro-the-lion) and Maria (implied).
The internet saved my life. Well, the Socionics forum anyway.
I've always wanted a woman who is highly intelligent but has no idea of what she is talking about at any given time. Women who know what they are saying don't need me.
I wish someone would care about what I have written.
Ok, I'm done introverting for tonight.
|Sunday, April 2nd, 2006|
|South Park friends
South Park character generator: Awesomeness!
With this little program, you can make your own South Park characters modelled after yourself and your friends/family/whoever.
Here are the characters for my Socionics friends: the16types.info
Here is me:
This is my INTj cousin on an archaological dig in the lands of Osama bin Laden:
Here's my INTp cousin set in the background of heaven, since he is the most religious of us all (I think that expression is a perfect representation of him):
I plan to make some more characters for the rest of my family, so stay tuned.
|Friday, March 31st, 2006|
I found this on Maria's journal page. So I decided to predict my scores on this test beforehand. Some of them came quite close, some not so close.
Work ethic: 41%
Need to dominate: 32%
Change aversive: 58%
Peter Pan complex: 41%
Physical security: 11%
Physical fitness: 23%
Female cliche: well hopefully this is inconsequential
Take Free Advanced Global Personality Testpersonality tests by similarminds.com
Advanced Global Personality Test Results
Stability results were moderately high which suggests you are relaxed, calm, secure, and optimistic.
Orderliness results were low which suggests you are overly flexible, improvised, and fun seeking at the expense too often of reliability, work ethic, and long term accomplishment.
Extraversion results were low which suggests you are very reclusive, quiet, unassertive, and secretive.
secretive, reclusive, messy, disorganized, introverted, unassertive, rarely worries, dislikes large parties, does not like to fit in, does not need to control others, solitary, ambivalent about chaos, tough, leisurely, does not respect authority, not aggressive, observer, abstract, impractical, dislikes leadership, daydreamer, bizarre, does not make friends easily, not a perfectionist, suspicious, rarely irritated, strong physical instincts, unsympathetic at times, risk taker, submissive, weird, sarcastic, strange
My prediciton for "romantic" was spot on, surprisingly. I am most surprised by the variations between actuality and prediction in those variables, "self-absorbed", "physical security", "interdependence", "hypersensitivity", and "vanity".
I think the trait snapshot does a damn good job at summarizing how I perceive myself.
|Thursday, March 30th, 2006|
|Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006|
|I am sad
This journal has pretty much become my outlet for talking indirectly about my relationship, if you haven't noticed that already...
Socionics is killing me. I am so bogged down by certain problems, I barely know what to do. It seems now, though, that I can't just run away from it. Looks like I have to take the bull by the horns if I ever want to function well again. Ah, but all the convincing and straining I will have to do, it's too much.
And right now I am feeling more isolated from other people than ever. But it will pass, thankfully. And then it will return, *sigh*.
Talking about feeling depressed really makes me feel better.
|Saturday, March 18th, 2006|
Due to encroachment on the relative safety of my egocentric decision processes, this journal is now a friends-only journal. So yay to all of you of whom are either too egocentric or too paranoid to bother me. You may view my private thoughts.
|Friday, March 17th, 2006|
This is more or less how my feelings for a person/object exist.
1. I have a dog. He is really cool. I tell him I love him.
2. Now for some reason, this causes an opposite reaction in me. I tell him I hate him.
3. Feeling that might have been too rough, I tell him I was just kidding and that I really do love him.
4. Opposite reaction of hate, then cycle endlessly in this love-hate loop until I exhaust myself.
I will admit it. I am highly emotionally manipulatable.
Basically, this is the theory. Being INTp, I treat everything as concrete. Thus I look at my feelings in a concrete way. However, to truly understand your feelings, you must look at them in an abstract way, because feelings are highly dynamic and changeable. They are ephermeral in a way and must be perceived in a general, heuristic way. I.e. you've just got to believe in them.
What happens with me is that I perceive the feelings of others literally. So if there is a break in the regularity of one's showing of affection, I think her/his feelings have changed. I am the type that needs constant reassurance, more or less.
Which is actually a part of myself that I hate.
Because I know thinking that way is very egocentric. Not to trust another's feelings for you.
Anxious-ambivalent attachment is what they call it. Supposedly I wasn't loved enough by my mother...or so the theory goes...ha, whatever...
But I feel better now.
|Tuesday, March 7th, 2006|
|What it means to understand your own emotions
A Russian forum member named Rick proposed an alternative aid in discovering one's Socionics type, which can be found here.
I answered the questionnaire thinking I pretty much nailed the meanings of the questions down and answered it accurately. However, there was one specific ambiguity that still existed, in this question:- [do you require] assistance making sense of your feelings towards people and things
Of which I answered:Doubt it. Unless I don't understand what exactly "making sense of your feelings" means?
Now, I know what my feelings mean, right? I'm sort of a sensitive/tough-minded guy, a strange combination which kind of makes me receptive and knowledgeable of my own feelings but not of others. I know how I feel about things and people at any given time, of course. A feeling is a feeling, right? Analyze it enough and you will understand perfectly its root.
Well, guess what? THAT IS WRONG.
Today I realized something that has been going on inside of me for about two weeks now, something that has been progressively destroying me and making me doubt my own honesty. That something is a bundle of emotions I have for a specific person of which some of you know all too well. These emotions that I feel are real, that is true, and I know what they are. But I do not know what they MEAN. I have finally realized that "making sense of your feelings" means not KNOWING what they are, but rather, in the grand scheme of things, understanding which ones are truly important. For I feel plenty, but I know not where these feelings will take me.
Here's the case: there are times when I feel like I need this person, but then there are so many more times when I feel like I have no feelings for her. It's so situationally-dependent that it completely tears me apart. How do I know how I really, really feel about her? One minute I feel totally lost in her, and the next, nothing. She excites me, then she bores me. When I speak to her, I really feel something there, but when I think about her, I can't feel a thing. This occupies almost every waking hour of my day life, to the point where I just can't think about it anymore. I analyze it so heavily, yet nothing ever results. I am forever lost in emotional ambiguity.
Then I look at her. I understand how she feels about me. I know she holds a love for me that is ever-increasing and ever-present. She seems so perfect in that respect. But what's wrong with me? Why can't I be like this?
Well, I had the realization today that even though feelings are not always there, they still exist. Yes, there are times when you feel nothing and yes, it is frightening. It becomes so difficult at times to differentiate between what is real and what is fake. But "making sense of your feelings" means understanding that an empty feeling is simply a break between your true feelings, and that it is all just situationally-dependent. It is nothing to worry about. Eventually you will see your true feelings filling in those empty gaps, being "conditioned to feel without stimuli", in a Pavlovian sense. Even as I write this entry do I feel my emptiness filling up with my true feelings for this person.
So tomorrow I may feel emptiness. I may feel like nothing is there and can never be there. But at least I will understand why I feel this way.
A few hours before I wrote this post, I felt doubtful of my feelings. But now I remember all those feelings I felt while talking to this person for hours into the night.
And that feeling is love.