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.
4 comments:
HA!! See!? Its like I meant to say back when you commented on my site. Math is philosophy too. :)
Part of the problem may be that, because of the nature of relationships, there isn't just one variable. Jane herself is not a set equation, and thus it isn't just a matter of figuring out which "x" will bring Jane's equation the closest to infinity. Jane herself has many variables, I would think, that can change the nature of things. That's an important thing to remember.
And here's a question to VERY seriously think about: you look for this giddiness to be there from the get go, but why? What exactly does that tell you? What does it ensure? Something tells me this will be a difficult question to answer. Doesn't that tell you something? Would COULD it guarantee? And if it doesn't guarantee anything, why demand that it exist before you pursue something?
If someone you hardly (or don't even) know makes you all giddy, how can this be love? You DON'T know the person. You CAN'T love something you don't even know. You CAN'T. You can only love the attributes that you assume he has, or that you EXPECT him to have because you feel giddy around him. And that sounds dangerous to me because, in some respect, you already think you know his personality. And, chances are, it won't actually match what you're thinking. Not exactly anyway. And then you'll interpret that as a sign that this guy isn't the one because, hey wait a minute, you felt all giddy over something that didn't exist.
I speak from experience. In the early days of my own relationship, I wondered how I'd know if it was right. I mean, wasn't it POSSIBLE I could be happier? Well yes, probably. But, unless you're clouded by giddy naivity (that won't last anyway), you could probably always find someone to make you happier IN SOME RESPECT OR ANOTHER. So you can't base it on this. And, early in a relationship, you could probably find someone else to make you equally happy or happier for that exact moment of time. But the end product is what matters, and once you start down the road with someone, you'll get closer and closer until they are your soulmate. Not because it was decided millions of years ago, but because that's exactly what you've done - mated your souls together. A relationship has to get to a certain point before nobody else will do, and that's because you come to know each other so well that you are now CAPABLE of being perfect for each other, though not even being perfect in each other's eyes.
Is it any less beautiful? No way. I can't imagine it being any better. It's a miracle and a neat one. Nobody else has been down this road with me, and nobody else will be going down this road with me in the future. That's awesome. That's what makes Melanie my soulmate. Because our souls are now partners forever and nobody else is taking that journey with me, and nobody else is taking that journey with her. And now I KNOW Melanie so well that I can love her better than anyone else in the world, and she can do the same with me. And nobody, at this moment in the world, COULD love her more than I can because nobody else can KNOW her like I do now. And because we know each other so well, we're better suited for each other than anybody else in the world. And because we know each other so well, we can love each other enough to make this committment to each other. And we know what we're getting into by making this committment to each other. And that's incredibly beautiful, because we know in what respects we disappoint or hurt each other. It's flattering to be chosen rather than designated, to be honest.
Whew, I'll shutup now. Did I miss the point? Ramble too much? Hope something I said will be useful, if only to spur an insightful thought of your own regardless of how it relates to what I've actually said...
Yay! Andy, thanks again for visiting.
And Benny, you are my hero. I am so impressed by everything you said. Seriously, reading people's comments, I feel like I wish someone would have said this stuff to me sooner. But, at sixteen, convinced that it was true love on some spiritual level with the guy across the hall that I didn't even dare talk to, I wouldn't have listened anyway. I LOVE your explanation/definition on soul mates. You are so absolutely right. Wow. Why did I never think of that? Well, probably because I haven't experienced it.
The only thing I disagree with is that mathematical equations CAN have a multitude of variables. In Calculus we dealt with nth degree equations, n being any number you want it to be, it will still work this way. But still, that may even be too simple a thing for "real" life. But you still got my point.
Jane, I guess I didn't express myself very well because that WAS my point - that relationships have a multitude of variables. We're not all walking around as a set equation with a blank "x" spot that is whoever our future partners will be. How I choose to behave towards certain things are also variables that can influence the outcome, regardless of who "x" turns out to be.
Anyway, forget about that. You may remember that Benny too was looking for someone much like Jane. So I'm flattered by your sweetness toward me. Just remember that I'm okay with whomever you choose, so long as they like 80's pop and Mountain Dew. Know anybody that fits this description? ;)
Post a Comment