Self Pitch

this is the post that I'm able to tell all the good qualities of myself that are applicable to girls I might date in the future, only without sounding egotistical in the process. quite convenient I think.

I'm an honest and trusting person- I'd say it's impossible for me to get jealous. Although I've never been in a relationship, I think I can safely say that I'm a very loyal person as well. For the person that I'm with, I can guarantee that they would be my primary focus, meaning I would pretty much always put their desires before my own, assuming it to be within reason. In other words, I am generally the submissive type. the only exception is verbally- in which I am very assertive.

I'm a very outgoing and talkative person, and open-minded as well. I very much prefer 1-on-1 to large groups- the implications of this are that I'm not interested in those that go to concerts, karaokes, bars, clubs, sporting events, parties, and the like. That should have knocked out 3/4 of potential candidates, if my estimates are correct.

You should be able to deduce by the above that furthermore I am not "rugged" or "manly", and have no interest in the activities associated with such words.

I have found that I am turned on by: short height, and energetic, outgoing personalities. Although this is probably not important, I tend to be more attracted to those with brunette hair.

It also appears that I connect better with women older than myself.

In God We Trust

that's what the quarter says (I don't believe in God myself, although I won't foolishly deny the possibility.) but is is really possible to trust in a God that you know exists? Anyone who is a Christian believes God and the Bible to be undeniable knowledge, and since God is perfect, how is it even possible to trust him? Well, you might say, "just because we know him to exist and be perfect doesn't mean we can't trust him, right?", but at least to me, in order to trust anyone or anything, risk is an absolute- thus without it you cannot trust it for that reason.

Well, from a psychological standpoint this holds true, as well is financial- I haven't found any non-theistic examples in which trust does not require risk for trust to risk. Okay, maybe God is supernatural, but why make him an exception on such a fairly irrelevant basis?

It is true that although all the definitions of trust infer risk, most do not clarify as such, although some do. Perhaps this is the source of the confusion, or perhaps maybe the definitions were reworded to better suite the more theistic connotations. Well, now I'm bordering on conspiracy, but then again every conspiracy has legit origins anyway (well obviously we can't prove that, but it would be a more logical conclusion.)

Earlier, I had a similar struggle with the word "believe", wondering why a God we know exists is possible to believe in, since the criteria for a belief includes not being a fact. Recently though, I came to the conclusion that saying you belief in God, or certain related aspects, is simply saying that it's a fact while removing the opportunity for the person you say it to to be offended or voice their disagreement. By means of this middle ground, adherents of various religions are able to make it clear that their beliefs are fact, while avoiding the otherwise inevitable negative reactions when communicating with those of different beliefs.

However, trust is not limited to religious contexts, and thus cannot be given the benefit of the doubt on account of socio-psychological adaptation practices. In order to best define trust, all variables must be taken into account.

Faith, however, seems to be limited mostly to religious context, although there are some exceptions. But due to the usage being almost entirely religious, it would be acceptable to use it in the same way as "believe" even though faith bears a definition highly synonymous with that of trust. Due to popular usage, this exception was made, however, this leads to an even greater confusion due the meaning being the same of that of faith, at least in practical usage.

My conclusion is that in religious contexts, trust bears a slightly different definition than in other contexts, in the same way as faith and belief. However, although all three words are interchangeable in practical contexts, (the extent to which belief is interchangeable with the other two is comparably limited though, because the approach is slightly different; trust and faith are more passive, where belief is more active.) in religious contexts are markedly distinguished. In other words, they all mean the same thing in most contexts, but in religious contexts, all three words have very different connotations.

To avoid confusion, let me clarify: in religious contexts, all three words are apparently used to declare certain religious opinions as if they were fact without the ones of a different belief taking offense or other negative reactions. However, each word represents a different approach at accomplishing this, and has different goals associated with it. In spite of the clear distinction, however, the only reliable part is the distinction- the differences associated with the distinction is up for debate, and inherently unknown. Pretty useless distinction if you ask me. Perhaps it was made solely to emphasize the words chosen in the Bible, or if relevant, other religious texts, were not simply chosen to hold the readers attention by means of variety, but in fact represents an integral part of God's purpose. Well we'll never know, but in either case, because the distinctions cannot be statically defined, many religious adherents use them interchangeably as they see fit, relying primarily on what fits best, which is in turn usually inspired by the ever-evolving religious writing, continuous attempting to adapt to religion(s) in which words have undefined distinctions. From this point of view, it is one of the most useless things to ever attain such an undeserved level of influence.

Patronized

I have just uncovered a new quality about myself. Actually, it's something I've been trying to figure out for a while now. See- for the last 6-8 months or so, I have rarely every gotten angry. The reason for this is explained in past articles, particularly in "The Importance Of Relativity". However, there are certain situations that I cannot help raising my voice or using intense verbal tones in, or, in the case of chatting online, writing in such a way that my anger leaks out This was all very confusing, because I could not pinpoint why I was angry all these times. All I knew is the their words pushed my buttons, I did not know why.

After all, if I maintain a perspective where everyone has reason for their actions, I would have no reason to blame them for their words. And, because their words need not affect or change who I am, the words affecting my self esteem is not possible. So, since my self esteem is not affected, and I do not blame them, why am I angry?

Today, I was feeling angry due to this kind of circumstance, but this time I was able to discover the reason for my anger- which button(s) they pushed.

It all lies in a quality that I myself failed to notice- and that is that I hate being patronized. So for those who know me, I think it would greatly improved relations in the future, since I think this is actually the source of most of our disagreement. I have determined this to be the case in retrospect. Now I feel relieved, since this has been a great source of trouble for me.

prior to realizing this truth, I had noted my dislike for others forcing their life experience as if they were my father. ironically, patronize comes from the latin root pater "father"

the reality of love

My conclusion is that love, in all it's complexity, cannot be simplified into a single definition, or even single concept. More specifically, it's different things to different people. Individually, we decide what love will be. Although some perspectives on this may be more ideal than others, they are all equally right and equally wrong, because this can only be decided on an individual basis.

However, I have made note of three perspectives on this that seem (to me) to be attributable to the majority. As I continue pursuing this topic, I may find other perspectives of significant influence, but until then, I will hold to these three.

1. Experience. this perspective is the one I have chosen, and the idea behind it is that regardless of compatibility, physical attraction, chemistry, or other related factors, love is ultimately determined by experience, that is, how many memories you have shared with the designated person, the level of intimacy and passion associated with these memories, and the overall importance thereof. That is, the more that lovers spend time together, the stronger their love grows, depending on the quality of these memories.

2. Instinct. Regardless of actual prevalence, this perspective is relatively unpopular. The idea is that love is found by seeking out the best mate possible. Thus, if after finding a mate, if a person finds a better mate, they will leave their current mate for the more promising one. This of course is dependent on the new mate possessing qualities that outweigh the sense of security in the current relationship. For this reason, we must also take into account that the sense of security strengthens over time.

3. Romance. This is probably the most popular perspective, and the idea behind this one relies on the concept of dating. For this reason, the origin of love varies extensively. It ranges from love at first sight, to love based upon common interest (most likely the most common), and can even "dance" with what normally falls under instinct-based love. In summary, it's a sort of hybrid between instinct-based and experience-based love.

There is a 4th perspective, but due to it's nature, I have separated it from the three above. Serendipity- otherwise known as fate, destiny, predestination. Although this is not necessary, this perspective of love is usually used in conjunction with the above three. The idea that a love is meant to be can give a wonderful sense of security in a relationship, But most believe that it's not wise to leave a relationship wholly in the hands of fate, because the future is never clear. For this reason I have made the distinction.

I may add more perspectives in the future, but at least I have gained a clearer understanding of the inter-workings of love.

the perfect guide

in many story lines, though naturally I'm specifically referring to those in animes, the is a character, and usually only one or so; this character is usually mysterious, and furthermore guides the other character(s) as the story goes on. This mysterious character usually is well aware of the happenings that concern this character, and thus can exercise control over the circumstance, or even bestow this knowledge upon the character(s). But instead, they choose a passive approach, occupying themselves with watching over this character, influencing the circumstances only when necessary, and occasionally giving subtle hints.

To free you from this vagueness, I'll be more specific: Mizuki Kaho from Cardcaptor Sakura. there are other examples, but since I am watching this one right now, it's most clear in my mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaho_Mizuki

(note- the english dub would be Kaho Mizuki, but I don't watch that, and I want to say it correctly, the "japanese way" (since the story is based in Japan, I wonder how they get away with it?)

by the time I become I parent, I want to be able to master this method of guidance. The reason for this, is that we cannot control our own fates- those were ultimately determined by our parents, in one way or another. (I have a lost of reasons for this belief, I think some of them are covered in the post "the importance of fate"

therefore, the only true way to leave my mark is to determine the fate my children, and not take that power lightly. by giving my children a beautiful future, I will have immortalized myself. Although it might now seem this way from the surface, either directly or indirectly, how I raise them will leave a lasting impression that will never fade away. In fact, taking math into account the impression will probably increase as time goes on. The reason for this, is that the power of an idea increases as more believe in it, and as such my ideals will shine every brighter as time goes on. All I need to do is ensure that my ideals become deeply embedded in my children.

Now, if I were to just tell them what I believe, I can't expect them to agree. Nor can I tell them "do this" or "don't do that" and expect them to obey, or even if they obey to do it out of thinking that it's the best way. In fact, it's common knowledge that in many cases the more expectations you have for your children, the more likely they are to rebel.

this is where Mizuki Kaho's approach comes in guide them along, giving hints and subtly influencing the environment. In this way, your children become just as you want them to be, but all the time thinking they became that way of their own accord. This is the true mastery of a guide, one I aspire to. If God exists, I think this might also be the method in which he guides us, and furthermore, Mizuki Kaho kind of remind me of God in this respect.

To be able to mold a person into something beautiful is difficult- It's like trying to mold clay without using your hands. But if you use your hands, the "clay" with resist, and the work may (and probably will be) less than satisfactory. As such, it would be better to use the harder method, so it will be my goal to master it.

chaos: my outlook

I was writing an email to someone, and I decided the information I wrote was worth blogging, so I copied and pasted it here.

there is a huge difference between spontaneity and chaos. spontaneity pretty much means "living in the moment" chaos means "unpredictable" or according to google "a state of extreme confusion and disorder"

I am actually an extremely spontaneous person, if you knew me you would know that. It's a trait that be a big disadvantage at times. But I also have something of fear of the unknown. I don't know the extent to which it exist, or when it started, but I believe that the reason I am hard pressed to be wrong about things that I know about, and constantly research what I do not know, is at least partially driven by this fear. this is also why some horror movies that people considered scary I did not, but ones that weren't considered as scary, such as "the ring" thrill me the most. note no movies will probably scare me now, due to changes in perspective, but previously anything known as a "psychological thriller" would probably (for lack of a better way of saying it) give me goosebumps. the reason for this is that movies of this type almost always feature "the unknown" and/or chaos.

"Life isn't perfect; it's bound in chaos."

I disagree, just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean it has to be chaotic; there is a lot of structure in the world, I'd say most of the world isn't chaos.

the only living species actually capable of chaos is humans beings (in my opinion). my reasoning for this, is that the defining difference between humans and other living things is that humans can think abstractly. creativity is a byproduct of the abstract part of our minds. now if you look at the definition of chaos, "extreme disorder" is included. creativity in and of itself has no order to it- order is predefined, creativity involved redefining. thus creativity involves a state of extreme disorder, and thus chaos.

by this perspective, the more creative something is, the more controversial it will be.

Our abstract nature gives us the insatiable drive to adapt and change, and for a long time creativity, and thus chaos, was the only method by which to accomplish this. as a result, these elements have become an integral part of our culture- or should I say, the reason for very existence of culture.

however. there are some other methods of adaption, that while do involve creativity to an extent, manage to refine it and remove the chaos just as molasses is removed from raw sugar. this method is technology. With technology, we can adapt infinitely to higher technology without awaking chaos in doing so. This may change once the technology conflicts with modern ethics (to an extent it already has), but as of now, the resulting chaos is minimal.

This is probably also a lot of the reason I'm so attracted to technology, because I hate chaos and technology allows me to adapt without it.

Change of moral code

right now I am trying to determine whether or not to change a particular segment of my personal moral code, namely, my sexual lifestyle. Up until now, I have been very idealistic about it, saying I will not have sex until marriage, and even then not having it often.

But recently, I realized that this idealism has no solid backing, other than being a relic of my Christian lifestyle of the past 16 years. I have already determined that because sex does not require love, and love does not require sex, How often or with whom a person has sex (in and of itself) has no bearing on love, and for this reason, does not damage any future relations, and furthermore, would not even damage a current relationship if there was it was to be expected prior to the act.

This is actually common, and statistically, is a proven and popular way to avoid breakups/divorces. It's called an "open relationship". There are also other variations, such as couples meeting with other couples to "spice things up", among other similar methods.

In light of the above, I have realized that at this point my beliefs are but an empty shell, and thus must be changed.

I have some interest in "S&M" relationships, where I am the "S", but the truth is having no experience and limited knowledge my interest is at least half speculation.

Today I saw a girl in a miniskirt, and at this point I realized that my lack of sexual interest is also in part biased by the fact that I don't get out enough. Just that one moment reawakened the sexual passion that I had lost over time as I spend 90% of the last year (of the time I was awake of course) in front of the computer. From this perspective, it's only natural that I lack sexual drive. it could be that I am actually a complete horn dog and just don't know it. Who knows!?!

so keeping that in mind, I will attempt to gain a more accurate understanding of my "true" sexual self.