Listen to a new song

...if the sound of love is a breaking heart; then you haven't stayed to hear the melody...




Switchfoot - Yet

East is East and West is West (and never the twain shall meet); but why are humans in-definitive?

I don't like to make generalities - they are weak points in a logical progression. Stereotyping is also a logical fallacy. But there in nothing wrong with deduction, the difference is that here, your stereotypes based on general deductions are constantly changing - the more data processed, the more absolute the principle (if anyone followed that...well, that's great - it's somewhat of a paradox). Ha, I love reasoning...

I made a generality in my post, Alexithymia, a stereotyping generality. Generalities are not a normal thing in my posts, and if I ever make one I will point it out. But I made this one with the understanding that I would later have to build a support structure beneath it, or bail from it. And now I want to start building - and bailing...

I want to bail from my "persona"; I'm afraid that if I retain it I will not be understood. I have been approaching this "idea" form a strictly logical point of view (over the past week), and I have been reveling in it - I want to lose that. I don't want to treat humanity (the subject of this post) like that in front of whoever may read this post. This "idea" entails a lot, but I wonder how much is healthy to pursue. And coupled with that fear is that God created man, and I'm confident that no amount of data will sufficiently allow me to categorize His "crowning creation" absolutely. So, I'm going to demonstrate my position with "emotional" facts (now that is a paradox!); I hope that it is understood better this way.

The idea that I've been toying with is that there are two types of people in this world - those who express the emotions in the scenarios of life, and those who express their emotions through them. I suppose that I'm not naive enough to assume that this principle is black and white - I know little enough about humans to know that there can always be exceptions to any such principle. And I think the most important thing to keep in mind throughout all this is that the "realm" each person happens to be in only affects their reality, not their personality (and it is interesting to note that the two are easily confused). Personalities are what throw a curveball at every principle that attempts to categorize people - and as such, I imagine that categorizing personalities absolutely will remain an elusive feat, forever...

Of the two realms, the former contains the people that tend to leave the biggest impression on society.  
This type of person naturally absorbs the emotions of whatever situation they are in. It is natural for them to be change their mood rapidly, as their environments change. And the emotions they express tend to be less "personal" and more generic - and as such they can relate to many people at the same time and to the same depth, although it may be somewhat shallow. They make better classical musicians - able to percieve the "emotion" of the piece and express it without clouding it with personal feelings. They make stable, "sympathetic" friends, ones that are able to keep issues in realistic/longterm perspective and not to blow them out of proportion because of the feelings involved. It's not that they are aloof, or unable to feel, it's just that they are less affected by "animate" emotions and more affected by "inanimate" ones (maybe "personal" would be a better word to use). The reason why I said that this reality type tends to be more "impressionistic" is because they are more outgoing, influencial in a broader way - and their legacy (so to speak) is left with more people, although the legacy tends to be less "vivid" and personal.

The latter type of person seems to be less common; either as a result of there being fewer people in this realm, or simply because they are more withdrawn. They express emotions through life, dependent upon the situation they are in at the moment.They cannot express themselves through all scenarios, only through a select few. And so, for them, life tends to be a sort of closet who's door is only open at certain times; when it is closed, it is dark and lonely; when it is open, it is intense and hard to control. They swing from being walled up and untouchable to being vulnerable and unstable, but their overall mood is very slow to change. Their feelings are personal, specific and "exhausting" and that makes relating very difficult. But in the few cases where it occurs the relationship is deep and whole-hearted, almost "passionate". To contrast, if the former type of person makes better classical musicians, this latter type tends to make better "contemporary" musicians (think rock/alternative not hiphop); using music as a "door" to express themselves. They tend to be "swayable" and "empathetic" friends; intensely focused on whatever issue on hand - a perspective based on the moment and the feelings involved. Emotions are personal and therefore they are hurt easily, and that causes them to withdraw back into their "closet". Their influence is not broad, but it is deep.

I'm not sure if any of this makes sense. Personalities (either real or manufactured) easily disguise a person from unobservant eyes; but if personality factors are removed it seems that only these two types of people would remain. And the most important thing is that it is not for an outside person to determine which of the two types an individual is - or, I should say that it is possible to guess, but it can never be determined for certain without being the individual.

I'm the latter, how about you...?

- This taken me two weeks to write -

Love can give a little more...

I have lived life in a very different mindset than I do now. That is; I considered pain to be the last result of everything. I might be given temporary reason to rejoice, but pain would soon follow - and it might even go back and forth awhile, but in ever increasing increments pain would return; and it was always going to be the last. 

I lived in a reality where pain was the deepest feeling I would ever experience. 

And it was very close to being true - I could tolerate a lot of abuse (still can), more than anyone else I know. But once I was hurt (and I guarded myself very effectively against that) I reacted - I recoiled and withdrew. I never have been very expressive, even as a baby. But pain would cause (and still can) an extensive external reaction, nothing else I experienced came close to even making my face twitch. So I considered pain greatest...

But I was wrong; pain is not the strongest feeling, it doesn't have the last say in everything. And I could have seen this all along if I would have been observant. And do you know why?

Pain has never made me cry. 

The hardest thing for me to do is cry - actually cry; to allow a tear to slip down my cheek. Allowing myself that depth of uncontrollable feeling is the hardest thing I can do. I always sense it coming and stop it. And pain can never make me cry.

Relief does.

Relief from pain. Joy and happiness have triggered me to sob convulsively. Pain has never so much as caused me to wink an eye. Love breaks me down. That's how I know that pain is not the end of life - it has been beaten by Christ. And there is now something deeper. 

Want to see me cry? Rip my heart to shreds and all you'll have left is my steel casing. But, patch my heart - even a small part - and I will turn away so that you don't see me experience the strongest feeling on earth...

Even a corner-dweller wants to speak up - sometimes, most of all...

I'm not sure that I know what i'm talking about, or even if I am able to phrase it understandably, but I have a thought about marriage. More than a thought really, but I don't want to set it in stone. And it came in the form of a question...

What makes a marriage work? 

Before you jump on your podiums and give me your opinion - think. think of what foundation you have for your conclusions. Because, I'm pretty sure that the success rate of marriage will not fall in accordance with your definitive. I say that with some measure of confidence because I have not been able to find any factor that is present in successful marriages and not present in unsuccessful ones (or vise-versa). I wonder if others have struggled with this as well. After seeing enough unhealthiness and failure in marriage you begin to question what makes marriage work. And I know that I have had a desperate fear of commitment, because of the failed marriages that I have witnessed - ones that should have worked (according to the factors present). Each factor can be a definitive in one relationship, but in another it can have no affect at all - and that means something to me. It means that the problem goes deeper. So where can the issue reside? What is underneath factors? 

Well...definition is.

What is the meaning of marriage? What is the intention? We look around and see so many incompatible couples fighting out their differences; the weaknesses in one aggravate the weaknesses in the other. We see broken and incomplete sinners dragging each other out of commitment; and after more obviously satisfying things. We see rigidly proper couples spewing hatred with their glances because they are willing to bend no more than the other. We see self-righteous christian condemning their spouses because "God doesn't tolerate sin". We know that marriage is a picture of the relationship between the Church and Christ; and we know we must be without blemish to please God. 

This makes us believe that a successful marriage requires compatibility; that weaknesses cannot coincide. We believe then, that that it requires a self-debasing denial of pleasure unless it comes from an "spiritual" source. We believe it requires the perfect match of resilient and flexible.  We believe that it means that there must be absolute agreement of beliefs so that judgement is mutual. And we know that the relationship between the church today and Christ is quite ugly, so we assume that we have no hope.

And now I'll speak up...

Doesn't that picture look, well, "static" to you. Like we assume that the I Do's and the kisses and the rings are the accomplishment? Doesn't that make getting married the goal? As though the moment you are presented as one to the world is the moment of windfall or calamity? What if it's not?

What if Marriage is about the path? That it's not how well you fit together, but how well you work together? And the only factor necessary to work with something is a knowledge of what that "thing" does...(clarifying)...so what makes a marriage work or fail is dependent on how well you know the person you're laboring with. Now do you see the importance of communication? And the only thing that aids communication (other than God's grace) is a similarity of  "realities". The closer these "lenses" are, the more natural the understanding is.

And therefore, etc...(all else can be inferred)

I confess; I have flesh to spare

I'm piqued at the drama and the manufactured personality of some people...and the funny thing is, that the only reason why I am piqued is because I do not have the energy to care for them...