|
|
Monday, May 8th, 2006
| |
6:02 pm - sex? *gabi
|
What defines the point in a relationship between two people where they desire to go "all the way"? Is it a physical line that you both cross, unable to be contained by each other's desires? I don't think that's the only requirement. You should be able to respect the other person; respect what they do with their time, how they act around others, how they deal with problems, and other idyllic requirements that make the first time worth it to go back. I don't know. Whenever it happens, it'll be my first time; maybe not yours. But you said you have this epic idea of love; I have a sweet idea of love and an epic idea of sex.
What are your views?
I figure this is a healthy and neutral bouncing-off point. Mm?
current mood:  agitated
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Thursday, March 16th, 2006
| |
12:38 am - Love is pomegranites - Gabi who forgot to sign her last post
|
I should see Moulin Rouge the rest of the way through. It's special to me, because it is what I started to watch with the guy who is now my boyfriend. Mmmm.
Love for me right now is kinda superstitious. I feel like I need it to survive, so will use a variety of methods to keep it there. Nothing creepy and spansel-like, but....I tend to over analyze it, so I feel like my relationships require more than other peoples'.
Maybe you've heard of people in arranged marriages falling in love after a couple years. I don't understand that, but I could see it happening. I have an aunt and uncle who have been together since junior year of HS. My grandparents made them go through college and get married, but very shortly after, they started having kids and being a family. New love. Love that still exists as they celebrate their like...30th anniversary or something. And they're younger than my parents.
Romeo and Juliet were stupid....in a way. I don't want to get blinded by love and get pregnant and have to give up my career dreams, even though once I do have a family the career will come second: I want to love doing my job but then come home and be happy and love my family more.
If someone came up and said "Hey, you should come live with me on this deserted island and we will be so in love; but you have to give up singing forever," would you take the deal? I would't run away from a lot of the things I love...
I'm also really tired. Sorry.
current mood:  sleepy
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Saturday, March 11th, 2006
| |
3:03 am - like a feeling of fullness...rob
|
i think my problem is mainly that i want love to be epic. the first love that i felt was a loud banging punch in the gut kind of feeling. it was after that that i came to feel the kinds of love that creep in quietly. the number of moments in my life where i really knew i loved is fairly small. not that i don't love, or anything like that. it's just that i don't know.
what's the connection between the rush of blood to the head when you first kiss someone you never thought you'd kiss, and crying in a car when you get to someone's house not ten minutes after they pulled out to go to college? or the confused feeling of happiness and jealousy when someone you realize you love is happy with someone else?
there is no connection between the many and varied forms of love. true love comes from deep trust i think. without trust there can be no love. there can be strong emotion. lust, jealousy, passion, desire, etc. but not love. true love is the kind of bond that makes all other bonds inconsequential. think of the greek tragedies. think of moulin rouge, or romeo and juliet, or any number of love stories.
its not easy to obtain. i don't think many people attain it and hold it. it's too much.
but then, this is assuming love is the province of the young. i believe it is. but some would say love comes with time. you come to love the one you're with because you are with them. not because of any inherent connection you two possess.
which is it? and it's not both. which is real, which matters more? does either matter?
thats my next question. how much does love matter?
"hero and leander how your passion is brave!"
current mood:  thirsty
current music: myths and hyms
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, March 7th, 2006
| |
5:17 pm - Love is....
|
I know more people who are afraid to lose love than simply afraid of it. However, the notion of being afraid of love brings to mind a bitter old man who lost his wife years ago and now doesnt shave and wears flannel shirts and is greasy and bitter and snappish at young children. A hermit. Enter Julie Andrews or someone soft and sweet and woman-ish to soften him and coax him back into romance.
To me, love is all about caring. Parents can love their child or children, a boy can love his dog, and actually an artisan can love his craft. The craft is not animate in the way you and I and a puppy are, but it is not inanimate either. The artisan loves to do his job, and perhaps he loves to see his customers appreciate his handiwork in the rugs he weaves, the paintings he paints, the cakes he makes, or the hairstyles he fixes.
People can also love each other (OK I was going to write 'a man and a woman' but I thought that...exclusionary; so lets open this up to every situation, including polygamy too) in a romantic way, or possibly even sexually. There are literary examples of people who love each other romantically but not sexually; and I might know some people at school who function in that way.
For a partner in life, romance is a big deal for me. I do not enjoy simply being friends until the bedroom (this is a metaphor...sort of). I want to be flirted with in real life but not have it lead to anything until later because our days are busy and we both have other stuff to do besides that kind of thing.
**If this is enough, please run with it; I'd like to keep talking about it. Right now I have to go to dinner :-)**
current mood:  puzzled
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, March 5th, 2006
| |
7:06 pm - wasn't it your turn...?
|
regardless, since i was nudged, i shall post.
the topic on my mind at this moment: love.
what is it? why do we seek it so long and often, and why are we so afraid of it?
it seems to me the word is overused. what should be about deep seated feelings for another human being gets tossed around in reference to chocolate. that is not love. passion can be felt for inanimate objects. but not love.
alternately, i feel we say love too soon and too frivolously to our friends and acquaintances. the working definition of love for me came from an editorial in the hatter's herald o so long ago. according to chad matlin, with whom i will forever associate the meaning of the word love, you love someone if you can sit and listen to every detail of their day and not be bored. this worked for me once. but not so any longer.
i can now safely say that there is a fairly sized group of individuals who i care about enough, or am interested in enough, to listen to all the trivial happenings of their day and still care. however. i do not love all of these individuals. i do not even love most of these individuals.
the number of people i truly love can perhaps be counted on two hands. there are many others whom i should love certainly, and to them is extended a deep amount of feeling, but to few real love.
so i ask you this before i begin my evolutionist ramblings, which were inevitably coming. what is the definition, and origin of love?
and i recognize this is a big touchy topic that no one ever agrees on. but i'm intrigued.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Friday, February 3rd, 2006
| |
10:24 am - Pornographic pharmaceuticals ~ Gabi
|
An issue that has been evident most recently:
How do you feel about the pharamceutical industry? I used to work for them...and felt like they were really pushing the pills...to the point of making up diseases so that they could market drugs to fix these diseases. Like...a while back when the patent on Prozac ran out, they started marketing a pill called SeraFem for women who had "premenstrual depression disorder", or PMDD. The pill was....exactly the same as Prozac, just a different color.
Were they greedy and wanted to keep running this Prozac and making money off them? Were they legitimately curing the like...3 women in the United States who has "severe PMS" and needs to take an antidepressant? As a child whose mother is into Homeopathy, I would resort to other means of therapy before taking a pill. My mom believes in herbs, and oils...and penicilin for bacteria cuz it kills all the bacteria dead. But then, like a true naturopath, she makes me eat yogurt to replace the good bacteria into my body. ((What's the difference between Danbury and a cup of yogurt? Only one has an active culture.)
Thoughts on this? Cuz I'm sending resumées to two pharmaceutical companies later today...the industry is oddly fascinating....
current mood:  anxious
current music: Only the hum of the career center
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Sunday, January 22nd, 2006
| |
11:18 pm - a well lived life - rob
|
well, i think one of the prime factors affecting accomplishment is the instinctual urge to fit in. apes are social creatures. we like to conform. and accomplishment is often a sense that is enforced in children for doing things society deems good. such as, doing well on a paper.
i think one of the problems with accomplishment, and the whole methodology of praise/correct/praise, is that it becomes about the praise and not about the accomplishment. the values that need to be instilled in children are the values of appreciating a job well done because it is more efficient than one done poorly.
the problem is of how? because one of the easiest ways to express satisfaction with something is to reward it. the only time that it becomes possible for accomplishment to become a true internal thing, as opposed to something from without, is when the individual in question decided to make it a priority in life.
but this too presents problems. why is accomplishment a good thing, worth chasing? because often, one ends up chasing it and never getting it. which leads me to my counter question: which is better, a life of accomplishment with no real effort, or a life that never really does anything, but was well lived in the sense that the individual had motivation and worked hard all his or her life?
current mood:  contemplative
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| Saturday, January 21st, 2006
| |
5:45 pm - Accomplished - gAbi*
|
What does it mean to feel accomplished? I have, at this very moment, JUST worked out the calculation to the huge and scary first lab in Chem II. I feel like dancing around the room and kissing people. But honestly, why do I derive such pleasure from the alligning of two numbers? Or conversely, is this the most deep kind of satisfaction a person should have; from a job well done. Kinda takes the spice out of life~ what about eating your mother's famous chocolate chip cookies or... doing other actions that make you feel good.
I was talking to a collegue of my dad's when I came home for winter break. She went to a small private lib arts school in Oregon that innovatively didn't permit their students to see any grades until graduation, at which time it was optional. They thought it wasn't right to have a kid go "I really want an A- in Chemistry...I'm going to work hard to get it," but thought she/he should say "I want to learn chemistry, so I will work hard to do so this semester."
Both are valid arguing points, and in fact I have felt sometimes the people who get A's don't understand it but are just lip-servicing/BSing the exams and forgetting the material the minute they leave. Did we not have a conversation in study hall in 9th grade where you were working on questions from the history textbook and decided to write down random crap? It would serve the purpose of having Mrs. B would see that you wrote down a legitimate amount of content and give you a 10/10 even though the content was not about the lesson at hand? Hah.
But sometimes a child wants to have an A in a subject or a gold star in shoe tying so that he or she may display it proudly. That is why they give diplomas and degrees written on pieces of paper: the fact that you passed through M'ville or RPI isn't enough.
When you graduate, what will your degree say?
All yours, ol' chap.
current mood:  Accomplished!
current music: American Woman
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, January 11th, 2006
| |
5:08 pm - Gabi takes a long time to update
|
Wasn't that what that book Angels and Demons was about as an underlying theme? Or rather, it was a sub-plot of how the engineer chick whose adopted isolated the antimatter (the stuff that was going to blow up the Vatican) believed in both science and religion; she had been left on the steps of a church as a young child....but then grew up to be a fabulous nuclear engineer? I certainly enjoyed it more than The DaVinci Code but the general populous of n00bs prefers the sequel because theyre like "OMG I'VE HEARD OF THE MONA LISA!!!"
I believe maybe that God created atoms and then crap happened with the atoms and it was good. And then millions of millenia later it wasn't good because people stopped running and started driving cars; they stopped listening to Bob Dylan and the Beatles and started listening to Britney; they stopped watching Masterpiece Theater and started watching football. Ugh.
(In all fairness, I have to admit that I don't like running.)
This was a conclusion. Care for another discussion or to continue with this?
current mood:  embarrassed
|
|
(1 comment | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, January 3rd, 2006
| |
7:58 pm - science...the new religion?
|
well, in reality, there isn't much difference between believing in god and believing in dinosaurs. or believing that god created the universe or that it was a train of random events that led to more random events...you get the picture.
i don't even know why the ideas are in disagreement...
oh right, because ignoranmuses (on both sides) claimed that they were absolutely correct. and to most humans, absolute implies mutual exclusivity. not so say i.
i think (and i take the inspirtation from ian malcom in 'the lost world') that we've simple replaced the idea of god and angels and heaven and what not with the idea of molecules and atoms and neutrons and their ilk. not sure that either is right...or that either is wrong.
i oppose the idea of intelligent design. it's creationism, plain and simple. and while creationism isn't necessarily innaccurate, the disciplines of science and religion are seperate, and so intelligent design has no place in a classroom teaching science.
i think its the implications of either side being right that scares the other. if we really are just composed of energy, what happens to that energy when we die? where does the soul go? and conversely, if we are creatures of spirit, why are we so bound by rules of flesh?
people are afraid of their ideas being right in a different context than they think of them.
go.
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| |
2:23 pm - Intelligent Design, and other worries - Gabi
|
Now I have a question...because I have been given an oppertunity to teach a small band of preschoolers (my mum's class) about rocks and minerals. Just the basics, you know? Those we know and love: igneous, sedimentary, metamorphic. The rock cycle, and all that jazz.
But as I was going over what I'd say in my head, I thought of something. The rock cycle has been going on for millions of years. Because of the laws of conservation of mass and energy, the rock material that was on the earth a million years ago is the same rock material that is on earth today. Maybe it's in a different form and maybe its in a different place, but that same crap is still there.
La la la, that's fine. Back in preschool when I learned this for the first time (at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science) they told us that rocks were even older than the dinosaurs! *que "ooooh"s and "aaahhh"s from eager young minds*. But now, honestly...do I mention dinosaurs? Do I say "before the dinosaurs, when the Big Bang made the world come together"? Did God make rocks?
(((("God made mud. Then he said to the mud, stand up!"))))
Sooo I suppose the discussion topic is the big piece of philosophy and natural science known as evolution, or lackthereof. In the first Hitchhiker's Guide book, they said that the earth was made in a planet factory, and that fake dinosaur bones were buried so that the inhabitants could make up a history and theory of evolution, which would comfort them even though it was technically a lie. So according to Douglas Adams, were there ever dinosaurs?
And also, if George Lucas's famous doubleTriolgy was set ~A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...~ what happened between their time and our time? They were obviously capable of interstellar travel and light weapons.... yet our ~long time ago~ was the stone age. People knocking chunks of obsidian together and discovering the sharp edges made good projectiles for hunting food. Survival aides, you know, as opposed to carbon freezing.
Yes George Lucas and Doug Adams are fiction writers...but it's entirely plausable. I think. Go!
current mood:  amused
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| Friday, December 30th, 2005
| |
7:26 pm - taking initiative - rob
|
ok, so hopefully eventually more people than you and i will read this. but if not, cool.
so let's talk about freedom. because i am increasingly of the opinion that people don't have any. not necessarily because it is unavailable to them, though it may well be, but rather because they refuse to take it. i'm thinking freedom of choice.
think, if you will, on the end of high school. what is next? for the vast majority of people, college. why? is college necessary for life? no. we survived for hundreds of thousands of years without institutions of higher learning. and even after they were invented, they were most often for the wealthier members of society, and only in the last 50 years that it became available to the masses. and that's only in western countries!
its partially a societal thing. to survive, you need some education. not because the tasks you have to do to survive require an education, but because you need an education to get a job. often a menial one. perhaps its because i believe in the proletariate, not as an actual class, but rather as a vague category. we see the proles every day. they are the mcdonalds workers, the retail wokers, low-level office workers...etc. and i don't believe this mass of people to be unintelligent. some are unmotivated, some are unlucky, but for whatever reason, their lives are contained within small circles.
then there are the individuals who everyone knows. politicians, celebrities, and their ilk. now, i don't think that this is particularly healthy. but it seems the little people make decisions based on these larger than life figures. i even do it sometimes. but why?
because humans don't want freedom. it's scary to be beholden only to yourself. if people believed that they were owed nothing, and in turn owed no one anything, i think they would be scared senseless. they all would run like crazy to stop anyone who was trying to really free people.
take it further...
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
yesterthoughts's journal