Note to self: never lie to yourself and think that perfection is an achievable state. Nothing truly can be; its hard enough to match one's own ideals, but to do so also in the eyes of others? Should this even be the measure for perfection? Admiration of others? It would be a chase in which you would lose your very sense of self. I'm trying very hard to remember this---that a perfect state does not exist in the mortal realm.

Do we all go through stages of disillusion? do we all feel the need to rip apart the seams of our own worlds, to test our own boundaries, until at the very end there is only the core of who we are?

On an entirely different note, I started thinking about The Little Prince again.

"One day," you said to me, "I saw the sunset forty-four times!"

And a little later you added: "You know--one loves the sunset, when one is so sad . . ."

"Were you so sad, then?" I asked, "on the day of the forty-four sunsets?"

But the little prince made no reply.

metathinking.

Is it possible to get so caught up in thought, in general, abstract terms that one forgets distinct incidents that otherwise contradict the basis of one's belief? I wonder if I have been so absorbed in finding something to blanket all that I know to justify the action's of other's in my mind; rolling around in philosophical ideas of human behaviour so I can sleep better at night 'knowing' to some extent that there is so grain of goodness in us all. In actuality am I trying to justify things I can't possibly understand?

A revision of my thought processes is necessary. Perhaps it would be better to say we have the capacity, the predisposition for goodness, and thus, for what society terms as 'wickedness/evilness' as well. Its even vaguer than before. I'm at square one. I need more reading material on this.

Say we learn most of what we believe to be right and just from Society and Culture; we might disagree with certain principles, but society and culture lay the foundation for our preconceptions of what behaviour and actions are good. While that allows for the rationalization and questioning of these learnt 'laws', where does it leave the rest of us who don't question? Who don't demand answers?

So does Society and Culture demand that we do not kill a fellow human being? In most cultures, yes. Not every, but most. But the idea that we might not form this consciousness, this superego as Freud would term it, unless the cultural context in which we live in provides us with these laws is rather daunting. The lack of thinking and reasoning of why we do what we do leaves a Deterministic tone--without thought, are we at the whim of our upbringing? Or do we innately know the value of human life? Yet there is slavery, genocides, cannibalism. Do they not show a disrespect for human life? If there is a biological part of us that knows it is wrong to take another human life unless it is out of self defense, how would one explain the aforementioned trio?

 Let us put aside those who suffer from sociopathic disorders, schizophrenia or what have you. In a less gruesome example, if Society and Culture made it alright to lie, would we actually believe it to be wrong?

A bit of a rant I suppose. I'm watching The Pianist, and am greatly affected by the movie, even knowing roughly some of the reasoning the Nazis had. There has to be a reason such a mass of people behaved the way they did---did they all do it with no nagging guilt eating at their hearts? I don't believe that. Not every one of them, at least. And what of Stalin's regime? In any case, I'll post a revision of sorts of this post in the morning when I can think straight. Sleep deprivation does wonders to the brain.

If I could, I would pretend that I am unaffected. That your voice and words do not echo through my days.

On a different train of thought, I am over it. I have been for a while now. And I have to wonder at how persistent your dislike for me is. But the thing is I realized last year that people will hurt me. It’s invertible. We hurt those around us, intentionally or not. We might not seek to cause them pain, but we do. It’s the porcupine’s dilemma that those closest to it would be the one it hurts the most.  I expect those close to me to hurt me, and I know they may mean it and may not mean to as well. I have hurt others and been hurt. To some, I have been an absolute cold hearted bitch that just forgets those around her when they are of no more importance. And you may be are right and justified in believing that. But I also know that people will make judgments, assumptions and accusations without the full picture even if I did play by the rules.  Even if I did the right thing, not everyone will look at such acts in a pleasant light. Even those closest to us can make quick assumptions about our behavior and accuse us of doing wrong, of hurting others whether we did so or not. So really, why would I want to fight your judgments and public opinion when there is little I can do to control what you think? You are free to believe whatever you want to. To see me in whatever light makes it easier for you. Fit me into whichever stereotype that allows your world to function. In the meanwhile, I’ll be living my life according to the rules I believe in. I’m choosing not to withdraw from potential hurt, but to allow that they will come. You are free to believe what you want of me.  

I wonder if you realize I am over it. If you realize that in many ways, I have forgiven you for hurting me. I'll never trust you to the extent I did before, but I don't hate you. I can't hate you for being who you are and having your own motives. I may wish you would have considered things from my perspective and been a better friend, but I don't expect you to. At some point I realized that you have trouble doing that; stepping into the shoes of others and remaining there even when you feel uncomfortable. So while I wish you were more, you are who you are. 

I'm still wide awake.

 “What if all the beautiful people were disgusting, and the prettier the more disgusting? We would have a totally different view of beauty then.”

Ju: “…First we would have to define disgusting.”

I have been having variations of this conversation with others (and my own very noisy brain) over these past few days. How do we define a trait? How do we decide how to categorize people into little clusters based on a selection of characteristics? Stereotypically, an extrovert is seen to be outgoing, ready to try new things, someone who loves having company. But why can’t an extrovert also be shy and feel alone in the world? Must they always be bold and friendly in new situations? Why can’t an extrovert enjoy singular yet adventurous sports? Why can’t an introvert be bold and outspoken? Who decided that if you were one, you could not be the other? That Extroversion and Introversion were polar traits that cannot co-exist in a person? Why can’t a person be logical and creative? Shallow and silly in some things yet deep in other ways? Beautiful, yet have disgusting traits? And so on. Psychology allows for so many theories on this, but the one I subscribe to is that personality traits are a continuum—like many fine tuning levels that you can adjust with various possible combinations. Because there aren’t just five or six or eight types of people in the world. Personality tests are helpful, insightful, but sometimes I think they perpetuate stereotypes among those who don’t truly understand that a test cannot measure everything a person was, is and will be. Tests are just guides. The words used to described a person are so general at times, and often a person leaks other categories. Stereotypes are just quick assumptions we make about others because we cant be bothered to take the time to get to truly know them. Instead, we want them to fit the rules and schema of our world and forget that they are unique and contradictory creatures.

But back to the discussion of beauty and disgusting traits. Let us say disgusting traits vary from picking your nose, wearing the same underwear every day without washing it for weeks to things that are socially looked down on and disgraceful. Let us then say that beauty is something that we are attracted to, that is appealing to us. If the beautiful were disgusting, and open about their various flaws and bad habits how drastically will this affect the way we the general public views beauty? Would it change? This is a long stretch but if the media were truthful about the flaws, failures, mistakes and dirty, disgusting things that everyone, even the beautiful commit, would we still have the same obsession with beauty? Would we accept that perfection is a concept, abstract, and indefinable? Would we realize that flaws are normal, and that the beautiful are normal and not some being that can do no wrong? Would we realize in increments that we are beautiful too in our own way? We are obsessed with the lives and scandals of the rich and famous, perhaps because their flaws humanize them to a standard that makes it alright for us to have flaws and make mistakes too. It brings them down to our level, so that they no longer tower over us with their beauty. If imperfections could be accepted as something that lives alongside beauty, would the disgusting be beautiful as well?  Because after all, who said that the pretty can't be disgusting, and the disgusting pretty? Our definitions would change I think, if we can accept such loose concepts.