When you look up at the night sky (in a place where you can see stars) I dont know about anyone else, but i've felt totally and completely overhwelmed. There are places out there that we could scarcely imagine. Places of both wondrous and terrible diversity. When I think about the great beyond, I get two feelings. First: It brings in fuzzy happy feelings, thinking of the stars and trying to imagine what worlds lie beyond our own. It brings a feeling of comfort. Who knows what kind of species and lifeforms are out there living like we are or living completely different from us. Second: I feel cold and afraid. Space is so vast and so unpredictable that we dont know what we would find out there. So far it has been only barren planets. But what kind of creatures live out there which exist solely to harm others. What kind of creatures lie in that terrible, dark place in the universe. The movie 'Event Horizon' made me think of this. The movie is about a group of people who go in search of an expensive spaceship which has the power to use black holes to travel through space. Upon finding it, they take a tour of the ship and discover the log of the previous crew. The log depicts a depraved orgy of torture and death with the crew killing one another. Eventually they dicover that the ship, when going through a black hole, took a portal to a dimension (probably Hell) and brought back an evil presence with it. What's fascinating about this movie is that it shows the idea of "science taking man beyond where he was meant to go." There are great mysteries out there in the Great Dark Beyond, but some of them are not meant for mortal eyes. Some things are best kept unfound or unknown. This is what is so scary about the place that exists beyond the boundaries of our world. While we naive human beings think that we may have some concept of what constitutes good and what constitutes evil, in reality we know as much about absolute good and evil as we know about time travel, we can scratch the surface of it, but we can never truly delve into it. Sometimes when I think of space, I also think about parallel worlds and other dimensions. Whose to say that there isnt another world, exactly like ours, where we exist and go about our daily lives, but our personalities are completely different. The real question is, if you could see beyond the boundaries of this world...if you could identify the mysteries that lie beyond, would you? Would you cross that boundary? Would you really want to see what is out there? Would you be able to come back and live your life after what you saw? Would you see something so good that it made you marvel at the wonders of creation, or so terrible that you despaired the existence of a higher being and the existence of any good at all? Our curiosity knows the answer to this question...our curiosity says that we should look into this...that what we see, whatever it may be, would be worthwhile for the process of enlightenment. I dont know...If I was given the choice I think I'd leave well enough alone because in this case I think that curiosity really may just kill the cat.

LOVE LOVE LOVE KABOOOM

Love has generated quite a bit of talk about itself...it should be proud. It would seem that the idea of a clockwork orange refutes my argument, however the point I was trying to make has been articulated magnificently by Karen: social conditioning. Reading that post, I saw what I had been trying to say written much clearer. Now then, I think this: There are two parts to human nature, the 'angels' and the 'demons', my question is, which one of these two does love bring out more? Think carefully about this. I think that this is really and unfair question because it is incalculable. I have to wonder though...has love done anything for this world? Sure it has...It's brought people together and made them join into one so that they could accomplish great things. But I must say, love is the weaker emotion when compared with the other: hate. Human nature is beautiful, it has so many twists and turns. Love and Hate are inextricably entwined. Love is strong yes, but one day of cold hard hate can equal a week of magical love in its intensity. Hate is far more a part of us than love is. Hate breathes life into us in a way that love cant. Hatred drives far more people than love does. Having a hate object will unite people around you, having a love object doesnt have the same effect. Hatred unites us far better than love does. The effects of hatred are also far more stunning than love. Is Hatred better than love? In some cases yes. What is it about so called 'negative emotons' that qualifies them as negative? How is hate negative? It gives you a purpose and it gives you a drive and an animalistic desire that you seldom achieve. AHHH but it also leads you to do things which may be less than agreeable socially. But there is really nothing wrong with hatred. Delving into hatred leads us into the other so called extremes of human emotion: fickleness, selfishness, obsession, perverse lust, agressiveness, and some other things which could lead you to commit homicide. Emotion is a fine realm, and it often changes, like a realm of chaos. These things are far stronger the other, weaker kinds of emotions. Where does love sit in this spectrum? I'd say if the emotions mentioned above were at the far right, love would be in the middle. Love however, doesnt have the momentum that hate does and if both love and hate were measured in terms of their accomplishments in this world, hate would put love to shame. and P.S. to Grant, no I've never been drunk, but I do have an alchoholic uncle, who knows, maybe his genes will work their way into me in due time.

What a Loving Debate!

Sorry for the delay in posting fellas, but here it is.

First, my thoughts from Jon's first post on the topic.

"Love may come from the brain, but your reaction to its thought always starts from the heart."

Not true. Everything you perceive that makes your heart race has to go through your brain first. I won't go into the neuropsychological aspect of it cuz it's tedious to read and understand (if you want more detail, feel free to email me and I'll send you some lecture notes lol), but simply put, when you perceive someone that you are particularly fond of, your reaction to him/her comes from your brain. And yes, chemicals that are a mix of neurotransmitters and hormones curse through your blood, innervating your heart. Although, I think the lines "heartbroken" and "my heart aches" stems from the actual feeling you get when you're hurt. You don't feel it in your head usually; your heart feels it first. But just to make it clear: your heart feels it because your brain perceives and drives your heart to react.


"In fact, I've not met a SINGLE person who believes that not having a boyfriend or girlfriend signifies that you're a loser."

High school can provide many instances for this one. I've had friends who have felt worthless without a significant other in their lives. It's completely irrational, yes, but this stigma exists. No one outwardly admits to it because the idea is absurd, but it exists. It stems from culture, it stems from society, it stems from the media, what have you. Think about it. The hot hero always gets the girl. The hot girl is expected to have a boyfriend. The attractive people are always taken or gay. You see what I mean? No single person will say "you're a loser without a significant other" but it's felt in the things we say. This exists. You see what I mean?


"So is it better to have loved and lost than to never to have loved at all? Yes it is."

I, who have never fallen in love before, can say that I agree. I know people who have fallen in and out of love who do not regret their experiences. But that's only because we're considering the most ideal relationships here. On the flip side, there are friends of mine who have been in such terrible relationships, who have been hurt so deeply, that they feel the relationship has scarred them in the worst possible way. And in this case, would you say it is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all? I don't know. I'm not so sure about that. It's these cases that make me so scared to fall in love, cuz I don't know if I can deal with that sort of thing. Are you ready to deal with it? *shrug*

Now, back to the topic at hand...

Correct me if I'm wrong David, but I think what you're referring to is social conditioning; our perception of love has been completely shaped by society. The hugging, the kissing, down the the very act of sex has been exposed to us through society. How else could we have learned about it? It's difficult to imagine any other world that has no social influence, because we are just so incredibly seeped into it. The biological aspect, I'm going to stay away from because there's no possible way I can prove that two people will or will not learn, for example, how to have sex without society. So I'm not touching that topic.

The things to consider though, are these darling little quotes that are just so incredibly irksome:

I'm waiting for my prince to sweep me off my feet!
Oh my knight in shining armour!
Candlelight dinner? Wow that's so romantic!
My dream date would be a walk along the beach ^_^

Well, if you consider those things romantic, by all means gang ho! But realize that all these little tidbits that we consider an element of love are ingrained into our minds from what we are exposed to. Think about it: Disney movies illustrate the women to be damsels in distress, and the men are their saviors. Yes, these ideals come from sappy writers who have conjured the idea, but would we have believed them as children if we were not exposed to such material?

Ah, herein lies the debate of nature versus nurture again. Well, considering how frivolous the debate is, here comes my oh-so-satisfying conclusion: our perception of love is a nice mix of what our biological needs are and the superficial ideals that we have been exposed to since we were kids. We can't deny that what we consider "romantic" is surely influenced by our culture; and our culture, as David has been stressing, is influenced by European literature. It all goes both ways, I think.

Quick note to consider: Have you guys considered looking at cultures that lie outside of our bubble that is Western society? I'd assume their perspective on love and attachment are different, don't you think?

If we're going to talk about human nature, we can't just focus on our society in North America. There's a whole world of people to consider. I want to see what you guys think about that.

Re: Love Comes Back For More

Now that we seem to agree to love is good thing, I'll pass onto the issue of "European literature." First of all, if culture IS the thing that provided the starting point for what we associate with love (and I think the concept is itself sketchy), it has to come from somewhere. Writers of European literature didn't just pull ideas out of nowhere and say "hmm, I think I'll randomly decide that hugging is going to be a sign of affection." In fact, I have learned from English class that European literature was extremely unoriginal. A Clockwork Orange is an example of how humans are FORCED to act AGAINST their natural born instincts. Using Clockwork Orange as an example really refutes your argument more than supports because the entire idea behind Clockwork Orange is that it's a society where you forced to go against your natural born instincts. Yes, it is possible to "bring someone up" to abhor touching or hugging, but that very "bringing up" IS in itself FORCING someone else to abhor something that he or she shouldn't abhor naturally. As humans, we instinctly crave to be touched, to be hugged. You said so yourself that love is a survival mechanism. Because it is a survival mechanism, we are innately born with it. I'll back the example of a baby crying and wanting to be cuddled. When an infant is crying, the best way to get it to stop crying is to have the parent cuddle it (I've already said this in my first post). This is NOT because a baby has been brought up to associate hugging with love, it is because INSTINCTIVELY, when a baby is upset, he or she needs to be held, to be cuddled to feel reassured. If you strike a child every time he or she tries to reach out to you to be hugged or cuddled, THEN it would be an example of you curbing its natural born instincts and the child will therefore grow up abhorring touch. But that's because you interfered with its natural development.

The term "culture provides" is a misnomer, much like the term "society says." Society doesn't actually say anything. Culture doesn't provide anything. People living in a society, that follow certain cultures provide things. And there are reasons why people who write European litature, people who shape culture, and people who function within society develop ideas of certain symbols of love. Almost all these symbols can be traced back, in some fundamental way or another, to some kind of human instinct or human correlation. Hugging for example, stems from the human instinct to want to be touched. See what I mean? All traditions or cliches stem back to something that is at least partly innate to the human psyche.

Love comes back for more

Chugga Lugga Bugga...She Loves me, She loves me not, She loves me, She loves me not...*GASSP*...SHE LOVES ME!!! Romeo Romeo Where art thou Romeo...Lets put it this way...Why do we feel good about doing certain things when we're in love? Does touching someone else affectionatley make us feel good? YES!! WHY?? I shall tell you. your very right that it does make us feel good, however, it isnt something that arose naturally. Hugging someone may make us feel good and it is something of a natural thing to do. The point is, European literature brought forth the code of conduct for what we consider to be love. This has been spread in books and on television. Personally though, I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if someone was raised to think that these ideas were an abhorrance. Have you ever seen the movie 'A Clockwork Orange' ? In it we are shown someone who loves violence and is eventually taken to prison. He undergoes a treatment which forces him to view scenes of violence while ingesting a drug that makes his stomach hurt. Eventually whenever he sees violence he associates it with that feeling and hates it. Coincidentally, Beethoven was playing while he was undergoing this treatment, and although he had loved Beethoven before, he abhorred it now. This is similar to what we consider to be signs of love. We've been raised in such a way, or brainwashed by culture and European literature if you will, to associate positively with certain signals. Someone blows you kiss, you have been raised to respond positively to this. Someone flips you off, you have been raised to respond negatively to this. You see where I'm going? European literature provided the basis for what we associate as good or bad signs in love. I wont deny that love is a good thing, but I will say that culture provided the starting point for what we associate with love.

So in the end...?

Grant has put the entire debate into very aptly worded terms. I never said love had to be a spiritual experience. David, you said love is simply a survival mechanism. I've seen a lot of "what we call love can really be called... (fill in blank)". And my question to you is what's wrong with all that? So love is a survival mechanism. So love is actually a selfish emotion. What is wrong with all that? Feeling hunger is a survival mechanism, and I don't see you ranting about how eating is a bad thing. Especially considering you don't believe in a higher power or a level of existence above the human plane, everything to you thus must exist within the world in which we live. EVERYTHING we do is driven towards self preservation or self gratification. Love happens to encompass both. The difference with love is that in the proces of self preservation and self gratification, someone else ALSO benefits. I mean, you could say that love is a lot less self centered than eating because when you eat, only YOU get the benefit of the food, nobody else. But when two people love each other, they both benefit from it. We fall in love and what we feel when we're in love is really all we need to experience to make it worthwhile. When you're starving and you have a really good meal, you feel satisfied after you're finished eating aren't you? The fact that it's a different feeling than being in love doesn't mean love is any less important.

You're also twisting the mob mentality into something completely strays off the main point of your original point, which is that love originates from European literature and that's the reason why we do the things we when we're in love. You're saying that we do somethings because everyone else does them. But love is something we feel and we wouldn't do the things we did in love UNLESS we felt good about doing them. Ok, sure so everyone hugs people that they feel close to. But when you hug someone, do you do it ONLY because it's what you're supposed to do when you like someone? Obviously not. That's a completely stupid concept. When you hug someone, you also get close to them physically and it's the feeling of physical closeness that makes us WANT to hug someone. On some level in the human brain, being physically close to someone we like feels good. If it felt awful then people wouldn't do it... and it wouldn't be an element of European literature.

On Morality

Forgive me if I'm jumping off topic, I've just been thinking about this for a while and I decided to put it up. Please continue talking about Love. I know Kay had a few things she wanted to post about it. But I'm just going to put this up. Grant actually brought it to my mind when he talked about my materialistic views on love. Well here's my materialistic view on morals. I have a question for everyone: What stops you from stealing something. Is it conscience? Is it the possibility of punishment? Is it the wrath of God almighty? What is it. If you said any of those above choices let me give you my opinion. What is a conscience? I think its something in your mind which makes you feel regret when you do something you feel is wrong. Having a conscience makes us think about all kinds of things and feel pain because we dont like it or it goes against our ideas of what the world should be. A conscience was ingrained in us by our parents when they taught us to do things which were right and which were wrong. What is right and what is wrong was determined by our society so in essence your conscience of right and wrong was also determined by society. Society says it is wrong to steal something. So when you do you feel as though you have committed some misdeed. Society has brainwashed us into thinking a certain way. Something that is wrong is something which harms or takes away from another person. Society, time and again, has drummed the message that if you steal you are bad and if you are bad you will be punished. This is not really the case. Sometimes you can rationalize past what society says and remove that twinge of conscience. But even then you may still be punished. Punishment and the fear of punishment keeps people in line. Suppose that there was no punishment for what you did? What would you do? Would you give free reign to your passion? Answer honestly. Punishment and conscience are tools which society uses to tame our baser instincts. As for fear of the wrath of God, well, what can I say, fear is useful in many forms. How pleasant it must be to live in that fantasy of eternal life after death. How useful God has been to the human race, pushing them to great limits. I ask you, if you dont fear punishment and divine retribution, what's stopping you from committing a crime? Alright, let me ask this: Is murder wrong? Is killing a vast number of sparrows which would consume your crop, if your a farmer, wrong? Of course not, you'll increase the profits of your crop for next year. Is killing a human being wrong? depends on what they're doing. If they're stealing from you is it right to kill them? No, because thats taking the law into your own hands. If theyre trying to kill you THEN is it alright to kill them? Absolutley. All I can say is this: Murder is not wrong. Murder is natural. The only thing that is unnatural is the society which has imposed laws to inhibit us. When a group of wildabeast saw a group of baby lions unatended, they mauled them to death to prevent them from growing up and becoming future predators. This is the perfect justification that murder is perfectly alright. The only punishment for it would be the punishment inflicted by society. And maybe the punishment of your ingrained conscience. So where do morals come from? They come from the society we are raised in. Some people value human life, others value God and life after death, but very few value death itself, the most natural occurence of all because not only do we fear death because we dont understand it, we fear death because we cant escape it and we dont understand it. Dont know what that had to do with my overrall point but I just found it interesting.

On Love, again

Once again I'm intrigued by what I've read down there...Its really very insightful. However I'm not finished with this topic of love just yet. Jonathan, when you said "I don't think you can say that we only do things like that because we see other people do it and we thus automatically do it ourselves." I was intrigued, I beleive we should examine this for a moment. How many times have you seen people do something because others were doing it? Mob mentality is very common among us humans. I know this may not apply to you Jonathan because you seem to be a cat of sorts, independent of mob ideas, but most people, when they see many other people doing something, they feel this need to join in, to fit in. This is why we have things like gangs, and dictatorships. People will do things if others are doing it simply because others are doing it. In a debate, who do you think most people will side with: the larger mass of people who are arguing, or the lone, persecuted person who is making a good point but is being rejected by everyone else? I know you would say the lone wolf Jonathan because thats exactly what you are. Remember that debate we had in Ms. Snell's class about women being pregnant and taking time off work? Remember the uproar that came about over it and the majority of the class including myself which remained either silent or sided with Valorie and Ms. Snell while you were left alone to defend yourself? I can tell you that I really didnt have anything to say about the topic itself, but if asked who i would support, I can tell you honestly that I probably would have supported Valorie and Ms. Snell. Because I feel passionatley that what they were debating was true? No. Because something inside draws me to them simply because they are the majority and you are the minority and being part of the majority is more comfortable than being in the minority. In any case. Why does a baby stop crying when a mother picks it up and why does being touched and loved make us feel good? Because humans are group animals and our brains are wired in such a way that the consent or closeness of another will make us feel good. When we dont have this kind of consent or closeness we begin to feel isolated. There is also a close relationship I think between love and self preservation. Babies enjoy being cuddled yes, but do they reciprocate that love to their parents? Babies take and take, and are only really concerned with their own survival. When a baby cries out because it wants something it is selfishness, not love that drives them. It is only with education that we learn to curb this kind of selfishness. Love is a survival mechanism. Its a tool which nature has implanted within us to help us propagate our species. Love has to be nice for us, otherwise we wouldnt fall in love and wouldnt support one another. Even today love could be said to be about self preservation. If you loved someone and they were homeless and couldnt get a job even if they tried and leeched off you and your life because they had to, how long would your love for that person last before you started looking for someone else who was better off so to speak? Heres an interesting thought. Say your partner likes someone else as well as you, and you find out they've been sleeping together. What would your response be? I can tell you that it would probably be negative and you would probably think about ending that relationship, but why should it be negative? If that person loves you and does everything for you, has been sleeping with someone else, but still gives you love and affection and this is genuine, why should it be a problem? It's a problem because love is about selfishness, its about self-gratification and preservation. Its very difficult to explain my position because what I'm trying to explain is the human psyche which is animalistic in nature. You know how its irrational to get upset over something, but you still get upset anyways...this is your animal side taking over. When you see your partner sleeping with someone else, your sense of ownership over that person dissipates and you cant tolerate this. You wanted that person to be faithful to YOU, YOU and no one else. You get the idea yes? I wont argue about love costing because you've made a good point about that. However I will say this: What we call Love is really just something in our brain which sends us signals because we are attracted to another person. Why are we attracted to this person? Because the law of nature decrees that we reproduce and if we dont reproduce then we will cease existing as a species. Why does love feel good? Because it has to, otherwise it wouldnt happen, its like saying why does sex feel good, because its nature's way of helping us to reproduce and survive. We humans have had so long to live in an existence where we dont need to struggle to survive (In the West anyways) that we start developing romanticised ideas about things, we start looking at the things that make us feel good and bad and we start branding them. Humans are group animals, they depend on eachother. Love is a survival mechanism, nothing more.

Re: The Idea of Love

I know David's post on this was last Thursday but for some reason, internet explorer didn't update pages every time I visted them. I would not have known that if I had not arbitrarily clicked the refresh button and found out.

Anyhow, back to the point. I don't actually agree with David when it comes to the idea of love so I'm going to systematically run through his post and respond to ideas as they come. First off, the idea of love and how we choose to show it. As far as PDAs (public displays of affection) go, some people choose to do it; some people don't, but the fundamental idea behind holding hands, hugging, does NOT stem from European literature. I don't think you can say that we only do things like that because we see other people do it and we thus automatically do it ourselves. I understand the concept of imitating what we've been brought up around but let's be honest. Even if the physical side of love (hugging, holding hands, etc) came from European literature, we would not imitate it blindly if it didn't in some way make us feel loved or feel good about ourselves. The idea of touch being related to affection is something that's innate; from the moment we are born, we feel emotional attachment from being physically close to someone. Why do you think babies always need to be cuddled? Why do you think that parents can get their kids to stop crying by picking them up and holding them? I'm pretty sure babies have not been exposed to European literature to the extent where they picked up their ideas of physical attachment from it.

European literature, if it has any effect on the image of love stems from people trying to reproduce REAL LIFE. Love is something that I don't think has been determined by our culture; it's an innate instinct to survival.

The term "heart being broken" is a metaphor that obviously isn't meant to be taken at its face value. And the statement that love has absolutely jack shit to do with the heart is also, I think, false. It has a lot more to do with the heart than you think. It stems from the fact that people can't read other people's minds (at least not normally), and the only way you can physically tell that you're attached to someone has to do with the way your body responds to their presence. Think about it. Blushing is a completely involuntary reaction, but it usually happens when people talk about you and someone else. What causes blushing? Blood rushing to your face, pumped from the heart. Even if you don't blush, what's an involuntary reaction when you interact with someone you love? Your heart beats faster. Love may come from the brain, but your reaction to its thought always starts from the heart.

There is nothing wrong with love encompassing lust and desire. Don't get too wrapped up thinking that love and lust or love and desire and mutually exclusive terms cause they're not. If you love someone on the intellectual level, there is no reason to assume that you can't also love them on the physical level as well. In fact, one could argue that the love must necessarily encompass the physical AND the emotional. There IS no border between lust and love. The quote, "The feeling of being in love, the happy, frivolous, light headed, care free feeling of being in love is what we enjoy more than the individual in question. Besides, if you desire someone and just want to experience the emotional attachment to another human being, this isnt really love." expresses just that. The happy, frivolous, light headed, care free feeling of being in love is precisely what love is. Ask yourself, WHY do you enjoy the individual in question? Because she makes you happy, frivolous, light headed, and care free. Being in love is precisely experiencing something that affects YOU. Again, you can't say that the two are mutually exclusive, they define each other! Mutual love should mean that you make her feel the same way. That's the whole concept behind love. Desiring someone and wanting to experience the emotional attachment is part of being love. If you don't desire someone and you don't experience and emotional attachment, then I would think that's a clearer sign that you AREN'T in love.

I also don't agree with the fact that you're necessarily a loser just because you don't have a boyfriend or girlfriend. In fact, I've not met a SINGLE person who believes that not having a boyfriend or girlfriend signifies that you're a loser.

The fact that love costs, takes time, and effort again does not devalue it in any way. I mean, if you don't put time and effort into something, how in the hell are you going to be able to appreciate it? The harder you work for someone, the more you can appreciate its end result. I don't think anyone can really argue with me over this. Sure its easier to neglect a child than to raise it, but put in the cost, effort, and time into raising a kid well and what's the result? You have something you can truly be proud of. We should all in fact, be very proud of our parents. I can draw the same thing about sports. Sure it's easier to just "play" let's say badminton. But put cost, time, and effort into training for it and I tell you, it's really something you can be, and should be proud of. Same thing with love. In fact, same thing with ANYTHING in life.

Obviously there will be ups and down in life, and love is one of the things that follow that trend. I'm not going to deny that believing in love and striving for it can be painful at times and it never seems like it's worth the effort, but as with most things in life, you have to experience the lows before you can appreciate its highs. So is it better to have loved and lost than to never to have loved at all? Yes it is.

The Girl and the Demon Part 1

Jessica Bellevue lived on the southern coasts of France, wedged in between Nice and Monte Carlo. Jessica was fifteen years old and was an avid reader. Oh the books she would read and the versatility of those books. She loved Charles Dickens, she loved Emily Dickinson, she even loved to read about Plato and Socrates. Her parents were both wealthy middle class people who did work for the U.N. and she would sometimes accompany them as they travelled to different countries: Africa, China, Mongolia, Vietnam, Russia, and across Europe. In many ways little Jessica had it made. However, her parents constant moving around meant that Jessica had very little time to form any freinds. Jessica however, felt that everything she had the privelege of doing made up for this. But sometimes, She would get lonely. She felt isolated from the world. Almost protected by her parents from experiencing the joy of the common people. She would often sit for hours on end reading not about the ideas of Plato and the stories of Dickens, but the newspaper. She wanted to learn anything she could about the world around her. She felt it was her responsibility as someone who would eventually become a leader of the future as her parents had told her. She tried to learn everything she could, but sometimes she was disturbed about what she read. The police had released a convicted paedophile for lack of evidence and the man had adbucted a young girl and brutally raped her before slitting her throat. The newspaper seemed to go into graphic detail about it and Jessica felt herself becoming sick. Usually her parents would have checked the newspaper for such contents as these, but she read it in secret, not wanting to have it censored. What made her feel worse was that this wasnt the only story which would haunt her. A gang of kids sitting on a bus had killed a man who had politely asked them to stop swearing so much. Why would anyone do such a thing? To Jessica these acts seemed to defy the realm of logic. She felt a dark pall coming over her. She felt cold and uncertain about the future. Her little cat, Pierre, seemed to sense this and jumped up on her lap to caress her. Jessica couldnt stay in the house anymore, she needed to get outside, she needed air. She went out onto the patio and looked up at the stars. Tonight was an unusually bright night, the stars were nice and she began to lose much of her anxiety from before. She began to convince herself that what she had read was a once in a lifetime thing. That these sort of things didnt happen in the real world that often and that it was alright to feel upset about it. Suddenly something caught her eye. High in the night sky she noticed a ray of light, a shooting star of some kind. But it was too bright to be a shooting star. She saw it only for a moment and then it was gone. She felt strange once again. All of her unease had returned. She just wanted to go to sleep. It was passed her bedtime after all. Her mother tucked her in and kissed her goodnight before turning off the lights and leaving. Jessica noticed that her mother had forgotten to close her closet door. Her mother knew that she was afraid of the closet. It loomed hight above the foot of her bed. When she looked into that darkness she thought she saw a million eyes looking back at her. She got up the courage to go over and close that closet. She got back into bed and felt much better, falling into a deep sleep. She dreamed, dreamed of a boy and a dog moving across the stars enshrouded by a bright light. She dreamed of them gliding, the boy reaching out to her, calling out to her with a look of distress on his face. They then disappeared in the sky. The stars disappeared, a blackness consumed everything. She saw the face of her mother, smiling, changing, morphing into the face of the paedophilic killer she had seen in the papers, he reached out to grab her, reached out with a knife in his hands. His face changing into that of a hideous, pale blue, demonic face. She woke up covered in sweat, breathing hard. She was sitting up in bed and must have cried out because she could hear her parents coming. For a moment she realized suddenly that the closet which she was sure she had closed was now open again, and she thought she heard a rustling sound coming from within. Before absolute dread clutched her though, her parents came in and turned on the lights. They hugged her and knew she had had a bad dream. She felt a little more releived. This time her mother closed the closet door before going back to bed. Jessica felt a little better, but she was still disturbed. Disturbed by her dream and disturbed by the fact that the closet had been open. Maybe everything had just been a bad dream. She looked out her window and noticed something very odd. Something that startled her. It had begun to snow. Nice hadnt been snowed on to her knowledge any time before. Suddenly the closet door swung open and she was so startled that she didnt make a sound. She was drawn into the darkness, drawn to the pale face staring at her in the darkness, smiling at her. She could just make out that horrible face in the din. She was drawn into the eyes, which seemed to glow in the dark. There was no sound, it just stared at her. In the midst of her horror she suddenly heard herself say the name, the name which must surely belong to what was now looking at her. "Beelzebub". She had never known that name in her life until this moment.

The Idea of Love

Where did love come from hmmmmm? What do people do that makes us know they're in love? Hold hands and kiss, caress eachother's hair, hug....ummm, hold hands and kiss. That sort of stuff. But what you should really be asking yourelf is: when did these things come to stand for love? The time has come to burst the happy little bubble we've all been living in. Love has been determined by our culture. Who says that you have to get someone a diamond ring as a sign of an eternal bond. Who says that if you give someone a kiss, you love them? The answer is European literature. All the ideas of lovey dovey standing on a sunny green hillside holding one another in a sweet embrace came from the ideas laid down about love by the Europeans. We are merely copying what we see people doing in the movies. Love as a concept has been greatly misused. Why do people say their heart is broken when love has absolutley jack shit to do with the heart but with an area of the brain. I suppose it wouldnt sound as nice if someone said "your breaking my cerebral cortex" or whichever mechanism in the brain is responsible for love. If you ask me, what we think is love, is really desire. Desire for the physical contact of another person and the pleasure we get from it. A good freind of mine, Friedrich Nietzsche, said that we love our desire, not what is desired. The feeling of being in love, the happy, frivolous, light headed, care free feeling of being in love is what we enjoy more than the individual in question. Besides, if you desire someone and just want to experience the emotional attachment to another human being, this isnt really love. This is where we cross the border between love and lust. Lust for the body of another. This is promoted in our society to a huge extent. Every film you see seems to have this principle. A good looking guy and girl in unreal circumstances suddenly end up falling for one another against all odds and everyone walks home happy. This is disgusting. The whole idea of love as we see it is disgusting. In reality, what we call love, could really be considered just wanting someone else to turn to when we really need to. And of course we cant underestimate the pressures that our society creates with the whole culture of girlfreind and boyfreind and that if you dont have one your, to put it bluntly, something of a loser. This is nonsense. We humans have a love of not living in reality. If you saw someone you thought was 'hot' and you fantasized about them day in and day out and one day you realize that this person has merely been a restraint on your time and you've wasted emotional energy even giving two thoughts about this person when you could have been doing something else. What we dont realize, is that the world of love isnt all its made out to be. Say you finally become the partner of this good looking person and after a few years you get married. Much of the glamor that comes from marriage eventually wears off. You'll have kids, you'll live your life, but you wont have that dreamy, idealistic feeling you had when you first fell in love. Here's an interesting question. Did you know people kill themselves over love? lol, thats a rhetorical question because anyone reading this already knows that. Why do people do this. I suppose when the emotion becomes so great and so strong you cant escape it and it consumes you, pushing you over the edge. Is this what love does? Better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all? Some people cant handle losing love. If you ask me, love is more a burden than it is a blessing. Yes it seems callous to say this, but its true. Its easier not to get someone a gift than it is to just show up empty handed. Its easier to neglect a child than it is to raise it. Its easier to not to provide support to a family member in need. Love costs, takes time, effort. I'll be honest when I say that if none of us could love, we'd all be much better off. Dont try and examine this and say how it would make the world a terrible place. What is love? Love is something in our brain which attracts us to another person because of our reproductive instinct (unless your homosexual or lesbian) Is better for us, or detrimental to us. Maybe a bit of both. But is it better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all? You tell me.

Do nice guys finish last? Interesting question. In this world things arent always what they seem. What Jonathan has said is undoubtedly relevant and true. However, love is a very complex thing, and something very difficult to explain. No one knows for sure why people suddenly fall for one another, perhaps there are certain electrical signals within us that attract us to certain people and not to others. In any case, if we want to see a good view of human behaviour we need only look to the animal kingdom. When it comes to being nice and freindly, we may think that it is good and indeed it is, but it wont always benefit us. I myself am no exception, there are numerous times when I have let others walk all over me, but there are other times when I will stand up vehemently for something. For instance you wont ever see me pressured into drinking or smoking, regardless of the pleas of others, but when it comes to doing something stupid or potentially embarassing, I may be able to be coaxed into doing it. This changes when you realize people will only ask you to do these things because they dont have the balls to do it themselves. in any case when it comes to being nice, it doesnt always work. Some people prey on 'nice guys' and use them because they know that they'll give in. This is seen as a weakness. In the animal world, the strong dominante. It isnt the nice lion that wins the female, its the toughest, strongest, most ruthless lion. Evolution hasnt changed our animal values, and so when it comes to certain things, there is always this side of us which will hold some sway. But I'm rambling here. I know very little about people's relationships and have never had one myself. But if you ask me, a nice guy who comes last with one person will come first with another. Nobody's perfect after all and people vary. I'm intrigued though, by Jonathan's point about freinds who become close and then break up and feel they cant be freinds anymore. I suppose I could understand the awkwardness of such an experience, but its a foolish way of thinking. Why should a good freindship end just because boyfreind/girlfreind experience didnt work? I know from personal experience however, that the closest freindships can easily be broken over trivial matters. Jon seems to know an aweful lot more about this topic than I do. Sometimes a person of what appears to be self-confidence and what is really egocentricity can be attractive simply because of their authoritative manners or demeanor. Nice and sensitive people dont have the same aura around them because they dont exude the kind of false charisma that others do. But, in the end, the aforementioned people become annoying and disapointing once you get beneath the surface and the latter mentioned people are genuinely special and can provide so much more. So in this case I think nice guys dont come last.

Nice Guys Finish Last?

Ok David, let's put the cow stories on hold for a minute and restart the debating bit of this blog. For those who haven't read Kay's recent post on "nice guys finish last" check it out first. With regards to nice guys finishing last, Kay makes a connection between "nice guys finish last" and "the guys without backbones finish last." Admittedly, there do exist nice guys who finish last and who you can describe as nice because they don't have a backbone. To those guys, well, it's something to work on because as to what Kay says about guys without backbones, I think she's right. For goodness sakes, if you're the kind of person who will do anything just because your girlfriend (or girl_friend or female acquaintance whom you're interested in or whatever) asks of it, even if it's completely unreasonable, there's something wrong. It's called the doormat syndrome that is surprisingly more acceptable (or looked over) between a guy and a girl who are seeing each other than someone who is generally afflicted with the doormat syndrome as an attitude towards life. You submitting to the girl/guy you're interested in all the time is really no different than submitting to everything else in life the same way. The basic principle of you wanting to please without considering yourself is the same.

Now, passing over that, I come to the next point in this post. Nice guys are NOT always synonymous with guys without backbones. I've known (and met at Queens) guys who do have a backbone and will stand up for themselves within reason, but are also genuinely nice, dependable guys. These are the guys who will tell you, with a smile and no apology that they aren't going to out drinking with you because they have an 8:30 class the next day. These are the guys you can call at 4 in the morning if you have a problem, but won't let you call them at the same time "just cause you're bored." They're the guys that will tell you that they can't go out tonight because they have a soccer game already lined up with friends, but invite you to come play soccer. You get the idea. I've going to center the remainer of my post about these guys. The ones who genuinely good people with a sense of compromise and equity but finish last anyways. And it happens. Believe me, it happens. But like Kay, this is also drawn from my personal experience and interpretation. If it were not considered an act of indiscretion, I'd post excerpts of email exchanges that have dealt with this matter specifically, but they take into account too many personal sides.

Most people have a cynical viewpoint about "love" or "relationships" or whatnot. As far as my experience goes, people don't go into relationships expecting it to last forever and people have grown to believe that anytime you break up with someone, you and her/him will hate each other forever. It's sad, but it's true. The idea of a "good" breakup doesn't seem to exist anymore. This is where it begins to break down for the "nice guy" as I shall continue to call him. Generally, they're the guys that girls talk to when they're unhappy because well, nice guys tend to be sensitive and/or understand... certainly much more so than "mean guys" or "egocentric guys." So all goes well, the nice guy listens to the girl, does the sensitive bit, and lo and behold, she feels better. We've all seen this happen and the rest is history. But what does that mean?! It means that in an instant, that nice guy has suddenly become important to the girl not only as a friend, but as someone who's dependable and who she can go to when she's having a really crappy day. That doesn't sound like a bad thing does it? Well, as far as relationships go, that's DEADLY!!!!!!!! I may be exaggerating the case here, but bear with it, it's a fun viewpoint (as serious as I am on this topic).

Anyhow, why is it deadly? Because that nice guy, in an instant, because invaluable. And as I have pointed out earlier, people have cynical viewpoints about "love" or "relationships." Because some (or most or at least a number of) girls believe that breaking up with someone essentially destroys the friendship, they don't want to risk such a "great friendship" with the nice guy by going out with him and them breaking up with him, potentially losing the friendship. And I'm not just "speculating" about how women think, this is a story I've heard personally from both guys and girls on numerous occasions. It's the same theory behind why people "say" never to date your best friend; because you've got such a great friendship going that to risk it by going out and then breaking up seems stupid. Some of you may remember how much controversy I caused when I posted the quote

“When friends fall in love, it means it was meant to be, but when friends fall out of love, it means they want to keep each other forever.”
-- Anonymous

Do you all remember how heated the response was?! It was like people refused to believe that falling out of love meant you could still retain a friendship. Those were the days. But I digress. I had another train of thought here but I lost it so I'll just end it here. So do nice guys finish last? Sad to say but sometimes, even those with backbones do.

Super Cow didnt prevail

Super Cow

Cows grazed on the farm. It was a peaceful day like any other. Farmer Joe was tending to the chickens. The sun was shining down on the green hills. Farmer Joe's cows were top notch. He fed them well in the winter and made sure the grass was in excellent condition during the summer. But Farmer Joe would also become extremely pissed off if the cows werent living up to his expectations. It wasnt until the Small Radioactive Meteorite Thingy fell from the sky that things changed. The little Meteorite soared across the horizon and landed right in front of one of the cows. Oblivious to what had happened, the dim witted animal continued to eat, unknowingly swallowing the tiny object. It was then that a miraculous transformation occured. The cow changed. He was no longer a simple cow. He was now Super Cow, defender of innocents, Master of Milk, Count of Cheese, and staunch enemy of beef products. When Farmer Joe witnessed this, he ran inside to grab his shotgun. No cow of his was going to be running around with absurd notions of saving the world. Super Cow examined himself, he had a strange uniform on. Some kind of spandex and a small blaster thingy. Examining this, he accidently pulled the trigger. The Blast seared halfway across the globe and destroyed Mexico City. Oblivious to this, Super Cow decided to pull the trigger again, only this time, facing the ground. The resulting cataclysm not only destroyed the farm, but also the hill upon which the farm stood. Super Cow however, was unharmed. Farmer Joe stood half burned to a crisp and bristling with rage "You stupid ass cow, I'll kill you, your not supposed to be able to do things for yourself" By now Super Cow had had enough of Farmer Joe and so picked up a tractor and launched it at him. With Farmer Joe now stuck under the tractor, shaking his fists violently at Super Cow, Cow gathered up the rest of the rest of the cows (which had also survived the blast as Super Cow's weapons cannot harm other cows) and sent them off into a fresh field where they could live happily. Super Cow now had to set about saving the world. He set off on a long walk which lasted three minutes before he collapsed from exhaustion. Surely walking must be easier than this. Surely he shouldnt have to walk at all. So Super Cow reached into his pocket and to his surprise, found a small box which turned into a miraculous jet pack. Super Cow put this on and hovered at a speed of 2 miles every 2 hours until he came to a city. When walking throught the city, Super Cow made a great name for himself. He found an old woman's dentures for her and ate a whole buffet's worth of potatoes and vegetables, making the restaurant bankrupt. He also nearly crushed a man to death when he sat on a bench and didnt notice the poor soul. Having made a name for himself, Super Cow decided that he would read the news paper (or rather the title of the news paper) which read "Horror, Foot and Mouth Disease strikes again!!!" Super Cow was terrified. He had heard of the malicious Foot and Mouth Disease, consuming poor animals all across the globe, well, not anymore. Super Cow had discovered his nemesis. He was ready to fight, but suddenly, he felt strange. He felt pressure inside of him. Before he knew it, he let one rip and felt a sigh of relief. He didnt see the unconscious bodies of those unfortunates who had smelled it. And so Super Cow put on his jet pack and flew out of the city into the countryside (when he was scratching his ass on the way up he unwittingly pulled the trigger of his blaster thingy and obliterated the city he had just left) now he was truly on his way. Foot and Mouth Disease, Beware, Super Cow is coming. That was the headline of the news which was warning Foot and Mouth Disease that Super Cow was coming in the hopes that Foot and Mouth would consume Super Cow. Most people were not very enamored by this Cow who came from no where and was destroying their cities. It was beleived that when Foot and Mouth met Super Cow, the Cow wouldnt stand a chance. How wrong those people were, they were very wrong, very very wrong. So wrong that it pains me to say how wrong they were, yes....they were wrong. They were wrong that Super Cow would not prevail. He would...or would he?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????