Return of the Mathematician

In talking to Mother Bear, I was reminded that people think math is all about numbers and coming up with the right answer. True to some point. But higher level mathematics (yes, Calculus is basic) is all about universal rules and truths. True mathematicians (I am not on that plane, but was trained to start thinking that way) try to prove the truth of something, no matter what numbers are put into it. My algebra students absolutely freak out when we first see variables: “why do they have to put letters in math? Letters aren’t numbers!” To the contrary, they are getting the first glimpse of the art of mathematics.

Much of Calculus is the study of limits. A function looks like x3 – 5x2 + 2x – 8 (this is a simple example) and you figure out what happens, over time, as the value of x changes. Using Calculus, you can study the increasing/decreasing nature of a function as well as it’s concavity. A function like this one, though simple, in time will shoot off to infinity. A perfect example for what we hope love to be. A function such as (5x + 2)/ x5, will approach, though never reach, the value of zero. Unfortunately many love relationships are in this predicament and people don’t even realize it because it never actually hits zero. Other functions approach a certain numeric value, again getting infinitely closer and closer, but never reaching, or passing!, that value. This can be positive or negative, but still limiting. And still other functions are sinusoidal or periodic in nature meaning, essentially, that they bounce back and forth between two limiting values. A most interesting function looks like a butterfly. Close to the origin it bounces back and forth between very small values, but in time it bounces between positive and negative infinity!

I may be Jane, but Joe and Bill are just variables. I have a hard time expressing myself , even TO myself. By putting in variables and seeing the potentials/limits for Jane, it allows me to get an objective view of not a specific but a general variable and it’s potential. I just wanted to discuss some thoughts and feelings with my all wise friends, not yet ready to talk about specifics.

As for specifics, if any of the following names mean anything to you, Joe, the guy Jane thinks has potential for love (no, she’s not IN love with anyone at this point) is a composite character of the Dustins/Alexs/Mikes in Jane’s life. These are guys Jane meets and feels an instant attraction and some sort of mental/emotional connection with. Jane feels comfortable and like she doesn’t have to hide. In fact, the more she can share of her true nature, the better she feels. Thus, she explores the potential for love. However, speaking of limits, these also all happen to be guys that don’t want the same thing as Jane; they have different values and belief systems. Jane doesn’t believe in casting people aside for their differences, Jesus said love everyone, and so she opens herself to the possibility and it keeps resulting in heartache and disappointment.

Bill, the good guy in this scenario, really is a sketch of the Denniss/Kevins/Matts that Jane meets. These truly are good guys who are kind and shy and want good and right things. Sometimes Jane even enjoys their company and she definitely sees the good in them that should be appreciated. Unfortunately, for the most part, Jane usually ends up bored. There really isn’t any chemistry or attraction. And, just as important, Jane feels very limited in the expression of herself. In order to get along with these guys, there are only one or two sides of herself she can express. Still, if one of them (which they all seem to do) seems to adore her, she doesn’t take this lightly. Perhaps Jane’s definition of love and potentials is skewered by movies and books and television where true love is immediate and full of fireworks with no questions or real big conflict to get over. Perhaps if Jane gave a Bill a chance, he would turn into a law (get it? I’m a bill, I’m a bill…). That really is the question. Because Jane has learned that the potential in Joe eventually would peter out to zero, or at the least be stopped at some finite number, because she would be losing too much of what matters to her. Should Jane explore the Bill function further? Is she wrong in her initial analysis that shows there is a limit?

As for Tony, he really is more of an ideal, like the sixteen-year old version of what love would someday look like. Jane always thought she would grow up, go to BYU, find a returned missionary, and live happily ever after. This didn’t happen and Jane (is it maturity or skeptical and bitter?) now realizes there is so much more to it. Jane still hopes for a Prince on a white horse, but is not content to sit around cleaning someone else’s house playing with dwarfs.

So, anyway, this is what I would like this blog to be for a while. I appreciate, enjoy and learn from all the comments if you are still interested. Perhaps it’s boring for you, but Jane is still learning. I’m sure it’s annoying that Jane has to speak in third person through alter egos and abstracts- Jane gets annoyed too!- but at least now she is putting names to the voices in her head! It’s very good for Jane.

Now, as a sort of update. Jane has had somewhat of a crush on Trek at school. She doesn’t see him often enough to really have a crush on him and because of certain circumstances, nothing could happen at this point anyway. The other day, Jane saw Trek from a distance and immediately felt that little surge of attraction that leads one to think such thoughts as love and potentials. If Trek was closer, Jane could easily talk to him and it’s not just a physical attraction. But, from a distance, Jane listened closer to the ZING she felt as she watched Trek walk away. She realized that, although strong, that feeling had no more substance than the sixteen-year old crushes. Not that those feelings are not very real and substantial, but the substance seems to lie more in the idea than in reality.

On the other hand, Jane has gone out twice in the last week with Kliff. Jane is very much enjoying Kliff. Jane doesn’t believe in kiss and tell, but for the purposes of the story will tell you that Kliff held her hand on the first date. Call Jane a prude, but she usually takes more time to build up to even that. So, while she didn’t NOT want to, she was a bit surprised by it. Perhaps because of nerves, it wasn’t like fireworks exploded and she is now without a doubt in love with Kliff. It was more a quiet kind of “hm.” Something to be considered, a curiosity, a simple pleasure. Jane was excited for their second date and looked forward to it all week. Admittedly, she was excited to hold his hand again. The second date was just as good as the first. But, Jane feels cautious. I’m sure that all seems normal to anyone normal, but Jane worries that it’s a bad sign. Perhaps the lack of overwhelming fireworks means there will be none (thus the question “can love be grown?”) It seems almost unfair of Jane to Kliff, should in time she fall in love with him, to say there was this hesitation or unsureity at the beginning. She would like her Prince to fall in love at first sight with her and would like to say the same to him in return. Jane always wanted to believe that love at first sight was a spiritual connection to your soul’s mate. Perhaps it is skepticism and bitterness and Jane is now too cautious to admit it if she did feel fireworks and love at first sight and so, whoever the Prince may be, the beginning will be like Kliff. Perhaps Jane was wrong, and true love will start with a quiet “hm.”

And maybe that’s okay.

I Love You for My Sake (Jane's moment of Zen)

Once upon a time, Jane fell in love with Tony. Now, we’re not debating whether she was really in love or the definition of “in love.” Her mind, her heart, her actions told her that she was. Tony seemed like the kind of guy that Jane needed and wanted. And then, Tony broke her heart.

Heartbreak is supposed to be a painful, excruciating thing. And, to some extent, of course it was for Jane. She carried on as if nothing had happened when really her insides had been slashed to pieces. But then something amazing happened. Jane threw her love out to the universe as if she was playing with a boomerang. She gave it up to the world and
it didn’t return, not in the way that makes a happy movie ending, not in someone outside herself, the object of her affection. Instead of waking up without it, Jane woke up amazingly happy. What she realized is that even love only matters within one’s own heart.

It was an empowering thing. It made Jane feel like she had choices. But the most important things was, Jane realized that if even love isn’t about the other person, she no longer had to feel like she existed to impress the world.

This brings us back to Jane’s dilemma with Joe and Bill. We have received some very thoughtful and interesting comments. Here’s what Jane’s friend, Pepper had to say:

“If Jane chooses Joe, she is giving up almost everything she wants in life for what she believes is the love of her life. The contradiction is that the reason she thinks she loves Joe, is because he makes her feel completed. However, in the process of choosing him, she will lose herself. She can’t give up everything for love in another person, because it only really matters within herself.”

Perhaps if Jane chooses Bill, he will be fulfilled in the love he has for her. In return, Jane may come to love him. If she thinks she loves Joe because of what he gives her within herself, isn’t it possible that Bill’s love will bring forth even greater fruit? His love for her has to have an impact. The life he is willing to share and build with her will give her fulfillment because it’s who she’s always wanted to be. In some sense, wouldn’t she have to come to love Bill with that same passion because of who they are together? Because of the life they have together? Because he is giving/being her everything?

I realize that a lack of love can destroy a home, an identity, a future. But if two people were truly committed, can love be grown?

Questions of the heart

I think it's time I should change the name of my blog... but since I don't know how, it shall remain. It still fits. My current thoughts, as usual, are in the realm of love- the romantical kind. So, let's set two scenarios...

A girl named Jane meets two nice fellas. Bill is a successful guy who, like Jane, wants to get married and have a family. He has a good job and would be happy to support a stay at home mom (an important thing to Jane). He is spiritually a good guy (and for those with differing opinions, let's just say it's important to Jane that she and her husband share religious beliefs and attend the same church, not just for her, but for the future children). Jane enjoys Bill, thinks he is cute, and likes being around him. There is nothing that she doesn't like, but alas, Jane is not smitten down with love that can't be helped.

Joe is the other guy that Jane has met. They seem to be unable to help their love for each other. Jane feels complete infatuation for Joe, but Joe is not very successful. Maybe he's a good, hard worker, but he doesn't have a strong education and will never make enough money to support a family on his own, leaving Jane, the more successful of the two, to have to work to help support the family. Furthermore, Joe already has children (and so an ex-wife) and doesn't know if he wants more. Also, Joe does not share Jane's religious convictions. He believes in the same God, but that's about as far as his faith goes.

Should Jane choose Bill or Joe? In the long run, who do you think Jane will be happier with? Can she learn to love Bill? Can she learn to not love Joe? Is logic or emotion more important in this sense?

P.S. No, I am not Jane. I don't know why this question keeps coming back to me in some form. Perhaps in a future blog, I will be more personal and y'all can be my therapist and help me figure myself out.