I remember my first few breakups, and my god, they were catastrophic. I felt like my world was ending. But looking back, as I get older, I don't seem to be as crushed any more,... and I wonder whether that's a good thing?

Maybe I'm becoming more mature... learning to have my own identity, to be a whole person both within and outside of a relationship. I'd like to think that's the case.

Maybe I'm just better at suppressing my hurt and anger, or at keeping my walls up. Maybe I'm not letting people in so much, trusting so much. That would be a shame.

The silly thing is, then I wind up feeling guilty. Like if I'd *really* loved them, I'd want to throw myself off a bridge, or something. That seems... like an unhealthy variety of idealism, to say the least.

So I guess I'll settle for letting myself feel whatever I'm feeling, while still trying to live up to the line in my profile about "not [being] afriad to put my heart on the line." We'll see how that works out.

For those who aren't familiar with it, an excerpt of one of my favorite poems, by Khalil Gibran:

But let there be spaces in your togetherness,
And let the winds of the heavens dance between you.

Love one another, but make not a bond of love.
Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.

Fill each other's cup but drink not from one cup.
Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf.

Sing and dance together and be joyous,
but let each of you be alone,

Even as the strings of a lute are alone
though they quiver with the same music.

Give your hearts, but not into each other's keeping.
For only the hand of Life can contain your hearts.

And stand together, yet not too near together.
For the pillars of the temple stand apart,

And the oak tree and the cypress
grow not in each other's shadow.

I use OK Cupid to find people I think are neat -- a touch weird or a little different, in that fun sort of way. People who show a little bit of intellect and introspection.

That's largely because my best relationships, on and off OKC, have always required two things: people who I admire, and who intrigue me.

I message people on a whim, because some aspect of their profile caught my eye enough to want to talk about, or because their personality seems so interesting that I want to try for a conversation even if there wasn't a specific topic to talk about. (These are always the rough ones, and I often get blown off if I don't have a specific topic, not that I blame them.)

I don't tend to get too caught up on OKC messages and relationships until they become "real" in the sense of lasting through several dates. Maybe it's a defense, but it's part of the way I look at internet dating... I'm not willing to invest too much in pixels and fantasy worlds. (No, the irony is not lost on me.)

I've been in several really nice relationships, and made some friends as a result. The best have been meeting people I've developed a truly deep admiration and respect for, and that's why I'm still around. I'm like a trained dog that way... intermittent reward, and all that.

Not saying this is the "best" way to use OKC, but it works OK for me. I only wish some of the coolest people I've met weren't so far away.

I know a lot of people are... less than impressed with Alanis Morrisette, but I have to say that she really captures my thoughts on love with "You owe me nothing in return". I'm even going to be so gauche as to post the lyrics here:

I'll give you countless amounts

of outright acceptance

if you want it
I will give you encouragement

to choose the path that you want

if you need it
You can speak of anger and doubts

your fears and freak outs

and I'll hold it
You can share your so-called shame filled accounts

of times in your life

and I won't judge it
(and there are no strings attached)

You owe me nothing for giving the love that I give
You owe me nothing for caring the way that I have
I give you thanks for receiving it's my privilege
And you owe me nothing in return

You can ask for space for yourself

and only yourself

and I'll grant it
You can ask for freedom as well

or time to travel

and you'll have it
You can ask to live by yourself

or love someone else

and I'll support it
You can ask for anything you want

anything at all

and I'll understand it
(and there are no strings attached)

You owe me nothing for giving the love that I give
You owe me nothing for caring the way that I have
I give you thanks for receiving it's my privilege
And you owe me nothing in return

I bet you're wondering when

the next payback shoe

will eventually drop
I bet you're wondering when

my conditional police

will force you to cough up
I bet you wonder how far

you have now danced

your way back into debt
This is the only kind of love

as I understand it

that there really is

You can express your deepest of truths

even if it means that I'll lose you

and I'll hear it
You can fall into the abyss

on your way to your bliss

I'll empathize with
You can say that you have to skip town

to chase your passion

and I'll hear it
You can even hit rock bottom

have a mid-life crisis

and I'll hold it
(and there are no strings attached)

You owe me nothing for giving the love that I give
You owe me nothing for caring the way that I have
I give you thanks for receiving it's my privilege
And you owe me nothing in return

Really, if your only impression of her music is "Jagged Little Pill" and "Ironic", it's worth giving some of the stuff on Under Rug Swept a shot.

minakali and I were discussing the nature of art and post-modernism earlier, and it got me thinking about the prevalence of magical thinking in valuing art works.

I suppose first I should establish my premise that the concepts of symbol and sacrifice are crucial to magical thought, but I can really only do that in precis, given that that's a pretty deep topic in itself. As examples, however, the concepts of sympathy (things which seem alike are alike), contagion (the part represents the whole), and correspondence (as within, so without) are all pretty clear examples of symbolic thought. Similarly, nearly all magical traditions demand sacrifice in return for the power or supernatural influence -- from ritual offerings, to aesceticism, to taboos and behavioral strictures, to blood rites.

So, given that magical thinking is so deeply rooted in symbol and sacrifice, consider the parallels to art.

I think the role of symbolism and shared meaning in art should be reasonably uncontroversial, or at least, well examined. (I should know better than to call anything "uncontroversial" when discussing the definition of art.) Wikipedia has a nice exploration of the topic of "aesthetic relativism".

As for sacrifice, the idea that an artist should suffer for their art is one with a long pedigree. We place a higher value on a hand-crafted work than a machine-generated work, even if only a single copy was ever created of either. We value value works inspired by personal tragedy more highly than those which only explore the idea of personal tragedy.

It is admittedly more difficult to prove the source of these valuations, as it correlates so closely to scarcity. Do we value a work more highly when the artist is dead because they gave their life for their work, or because there is now a limited supply?

But intuition tells me that a machine-built, but unique beaded bracelet would fetch far less than one beaded by hand. The sacrifice reaffirms and reinforces the symbol for us, proving the value of the work, and the dedication to its creation.

One wonders if the same might be true in magical thinking, as well.

"What we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly; 'Tis dearness only that gives everything its value." -- Thomas Paine

I'm a service-oriented person; I enjoy doing things for the people I care about (and sometimes for random strangers). It makes me feel useful, important, fulfilled... however you want to describe it. Makes me feel happy, and contented with myself and who I am. It's a big part of my self-image. But trying to be giving seems to make people UNhappy as often as not.

My friends and dates all want to keep careful track of who paid last. My last girlfriend left me because she felt like she "wasn't good enough"; she always felt "guilty and angry with herself" around me. And just this weekend, a close friend mentioned that I make her feel bad because she feels like she's always taking and not giving anything back.

I don't want anything back! I don't want to have to keep careful track of who owes who how much! Don't get me wrong... I don't compete for the check, I don't insist that I never need anything. If people want to do things for me, that's OK. Can we please not keep score for our friendship?!

But that seems to be unreasonable. The friend I mentioned is a service-oriented person, too... the kind of person who's always giving friends a ride to whatever, looking out for people, etc. If even she doesn't understand, can't see that the point of the giving is _giving_, not getting,...

I honestly don't know what to do. Being generous is important to me. It's one of the things that I like about myself. But I'm not willing to let it keep sabotaging my friendships and relationships. If the reality is that our society makes us keep score, and doing otherwise is making the people around me less happy instead of more, I have to adjust to reality.

But I have no idea how to find that line, where I know that I'm giving too much, and making people uncomfortable. And I'm a bit sad that I have to keep track of not only my own boundaries for giving (healthily), but everyone else's for receiving as well.

In case no-one has pointed this out, science can be lots of fun when you horribly mis-apply it to things it was never supposed to be about. Take economics and dating, for example.

Now, some people might claim that dating is about finding the best possible match who'll settle for you. The funny thing is, though, that while this is almost a classic economics problem (cost / benefit analysis, and all that), economics has long since moved past the "undifferentiated market" stage. There are all sorts of cool concepts like utility that let us talk about why your best match might not be mine, and such.

But what's even more fun is to take even more esoteric concepts, like Keynesian economics, and try to think about how you can mis-apply their analogs in the dating world. Sticky prices? Hmm. Well, I have noticed that more women are interested in me whenever I'm already dating someone else. Or maybe a better analog would be that after I've dated someone really cool, I'm always a little hesitant to settle for people I don't know as well. Or...

Heck, I could play with these kind of ideas all day.

Y'know, this dating thing is a pain sometimes. I know, you're shocked by my insight, right?

Anyway, it's frustrating, because it's one of those things you can spend huge amounts of time over-analyzing and trying to "figure out" without getting very far. And even when you do come to some nugget of understanding, they always seem to be the near-impossible things to implement.

For example, tell your average, nerdy, self-conscious teenager that "girls will find you more attractive if you're self-confident, but you can't just fake it, you have to actually believe in yourself." You may as well have just asked them to pick up Mt. Vesuvius and hold it out so we can get a good look at it.

Sure, you can fake it. Studiously control when and how you respond to people, so that they don't notice that you're waiting on their every e-mail... after all, that seems desperate. Of course, so does making sure you wait exactly 3 days before responding, or any of the hundred other signals you can send that shout "I'm single for a reason!"

So we do this intricate, silly little dance of trying to reveal just enough (but not too much!) while trying to poke behind the curtain of everyone else and figure out just what it is they're concealing and dancing around...

What a pain. We humans are silly, silly beasts sometimes, y'know?

Regardless of your actual age, do you consider yourself to be an adult?

• Yes.
• No.
• Only some of the time.

"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." --C. S. Lewis

As I was cleaning out my study (so it can be painted) and throwing away ancient bills and such, I stumbled across this personal ad from a few years ago. Can't remember whether I ever put it in the paper or not. I was amused enough by the nostalgia to post it here for everyone to comment on / pick-to-pieces. :)

A-Muse-ment

You: Inspiring, light-hearted, imaginitive, idealistic, bright, N/S.
Me: Computer professional, hobby roleplaying gamer. SWM, 25, 5'10", thin, confident, genuine, liberal, Unitarian, romantic, caregiver, deeper than 40 words. :) Content, but seeking dating-to-LTR. Let's imagine together; shall we share smiles?