(no subject)

[reenka]

I think I look too much for the -essences- of things, and that's why I have such a hard time explaining myself so that other people really know what I mean. It's like... maybe one can't explain why things feel -right-, why they -click- in your head, without losing that initial drive of rightness, that lightning in the brain, which is normally how I understand anything.

It's especially hard when one's talking about emotions or the human behavior they control-- well, love in particular. Pragmatically speaking, any pairing has a different and possibly interesting dynamic, and a way it -could- work. And it's not as if I think some people are "meant to be". I don't believe in destiny or fate or even soul mates. It's just... I -feel- like there's a level on which people can be -right- for each other... like... the mixture of their very essences produces a greater whole. Together, they have some indescribable chemistry which involves a -reaction- of some sort. Something basic in them transfigures into something else, and that links them. It's like the emotion gains a life of its own, like it's its own separate "truth" which demands attention. Which sounds all Platonic & ridiculous.

See, I'm not making any sense unless you already know what I mean, probably. Rationally, I don't believe in these things, I really don't. I don't think "essence" exists, even. So there is no "essence" of anything or anyone, there is only a shifting array of characteristics which react in different ways with other sets of characteristics (that is to say, people). I think 'essence' is a metaphysical illusion because the human mind constructs patterns and gives them higher meaning as a sort of game. Like dreaming; it can't help it. Doesn't mean it's there.

On the other hand, if you don't deal with essence, intuition can't work. Seeing into "essence" means determining the one factor out of many which you need to pay attention to. You often don't have time to logically test every possibility-- you need to -know-. It's so confusing, because I constantly think this way, and yet I don't believe it's actually fully valid.

I like H/D so much partly because it makes sense largely on the level of ideal & essence rather than on the level of common sense or predictable interaction. It's like, this is how it -should- happen, how things -should- work. My instinctive complaint about any other pairing with them is "but why should this be true?" I mean, it -could- work, but why -should- it? And as I said, I can't even explain the "should" in plain terms, 'cause it's an intuition, so I'm stuck sounding like a crackpot.

I hate sounding like a crackpot, and I -know- I often do, I know I do. I hate that so, so so much. Like, please, soon I'll be talking about complementary energies or some such, at which point I'll have to gag myself and call it done with.

I've spent most of my life thinking about what -should- be true, but not in terms of necessity or responsibility, far from it. To me, those things barely matter on a subconscious level. All that matters to me is what is the intrinsic, natural state of something or someone. If you gave them complete freedom to -be-, who would they be? What would they do? It's quite possible, of course, that this whole idea is unnatural and the question is unanswerable because such a natural state is purely hypothetical and can never truly exist. Thus, satisfaction can never be found, and it's almost a joke to think that romantic love between two fallible, immature teenagers can ever even touch this dilemma.

It's basically the idea of balance. What would happen if one achieved balance? Can balance be achieved through the relationship of two people who otherwise are far from balanced themselves? Could any (even minor) form of enlightenment be attained through the struggle to reconcile the differences between two people and to find a common language where there was once none? What does it do to the psyche to have to operate outside of its normal territory of comfort?

Most people instinctively feel attracted to the idea of opposites in terms of love, it seems. It's like people -want- to reach outside themselves, even in small ways. Much as they keep to people they understand and identify with, there's a consistent drive to diversify and evolve, also. In reality, of course, few to none actually reach any greater understanding of themselves or anything else through this method of pairing and opposites-attract relationships fall apart more often than not, don't they. People keep trying, of course, but love has a really bad track record, doesn't it. Passion burns out, they say. Familial love lasts, but then, people accept that they're -stuck- with their families, -physically-, don't they.

I get so frustrated and keep going around and around in circles. I'm just so insecure with my intense belief in the potential of these bonds that transcend boundaries-- that tie opposites together-- and yet there's virtually no proof that it helps anything. There's a lot of proof that laughter and kinship and a sense of responsibility and protectiveness and belonging is what keeps people happy, all of which builds on covalent rather than ionic-style bonds. It's kind of like the difference between an endless, often thankless uphill struggle and the comfort of settling down in one good spot and not moving at all. And-- well-- most people only like to move when necessary, it seems. Me included, a lot of times, though that's not what makes me happy.

In stories, it works. In stories, love is somehow central and somehow both covalent and ionic at once, and people change, and discover what they want and go after it and get it. In stories, people -are- something and you can see their essence and how it -needs- this other essence to be complete, to really flower. *sigh* But really, nothing is ever so simple.

Well, no wonder I like stories more than reality, huh. For all my talk about how "realistic" I want stories to be, I guess that's my own rather skewed brand of realism, where I get to tinker with probabilities a whole lot. Especially epics and heroic quests like say, The Lord of the Rings. Now -there's- a story to make you expect the wrong things from life if I've ever heard one. Sure, it's a great allegory, but... it deals in essences, therefore it has limited application. *sigh* Art itself, actually... that deals in essences, doesn't it. A painting, even the most realistic painting, is always going to hint or directly point at Essence.

Maybe that's the job of art, and the curse of the artist, to never personally attain that which they envision as what -should- be real. "Normal" people use religion for this purpose, to separate what they want and can't get from what they want and mean to achieve. For the artist... all these boundaries of desire seem skewed because they actually recreate the world anew in their art. Heaven in a wildflower, indeed.

I'm all sad now, and all because... all because it's like I'm stuck on the other side of the looking glass. On one side is the realm of art and music and love and dreams and stories, and on the other is the realm of the senses, of probabilities rather than possibilities. And while I love and need the world of my senses... it's just so lonely and unpredictable and too predictable at the same time. Like... I love it because it inspires my art and every dream I ever had and because it's -beautiful-, and I hate it because it is what it is and thus it will remain. I can't change it. Art can't change it. Love can't change it. It can only change -me-... in all manner of ways strange and intractable, as if the artist were the true canvas.

At least it's beautiful, huh.

Comments

[liasantana.livejournal.com]

Oh reenka, sometimes I want to 'memorize' your entire LJ.

I think the whole idea of opposites attract is something so beautiful, and romantic and hopeful. It's the yin and the yang, the 'you complete me', the two parts of the same whole. It's perhaps born from our need to achieve... ultimate perfection? Maybe it has something to do with the whole 'man want to be God' scenario, maybe it's selfish and greedy, but isn't that in effect a facet of all people?

It's true that in 'reality', or at least what is a possible human reality, the whole opposites attract and balance each other out business, in terms of love, is rarely all that perfect. Or balanced. But the continual aspiration to -reach- any form of balance in life is hopeful to me because it signifies the constant need to -better- ourselves. To be a better person, to achieve higher success, to be happier. And I guess that can be seen as something both beautiful and ugly, as long as I'm talking potential wise. Also, I wonder if balance is achieved, would we even be gratified? Happy? Would that in the end mean we’ve reached happiness? But then isn’t happiness itself dependent on unhappiness?

Fiction, and actually all forms of art, probably all desire to represent reality in some way. But it's so difficult because I support the belief that humanity is at the center of reality, and it is virtually impossible classifying humanity as any one form (as you said about the 'essences', I think). Perhaps then, why fiction is sometimes so much clearer than what we know in real life, so much is (although not black and white) in only few shades of grey as opposed to the countless millions in real life.

Guh! I've totally lost my point somewhere in there, and I'm not too sure now if I had a point to begin with. But I guess a part of what I'm trying to say is that reality is so subject, your reality is different from mine, but to obtain the 'true reality' - that of all beings, is probably something that all art aspires to. But maybe the actual journey to define it is more important than the actual definition?

Hm. I have totally confused myself, and you in the process as well. Sorry! >.<

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

It's all right, you know, sometimes. A lot of times. The fuzziness and the sheer unpredictability and letting go of certainties and rightness and just going with whatever works in this particular moment. Going with the flow. A lot of art/writing convinces me to let go of my preconceptions-- that's one of the main pleasures of it. It's not as if I read or listen to music or even -write- in order to reinforce some sort of preconceived notion. It's always a process of discovery, it can't be anything else. It's always reaffirming and dynamic rather than stagnant. Otherwise it becomes meaningless, y'know. A truth that isn't challenged is a truth that dies forgotten, I think.

Funny, I keep saying stuff like "in essense..." blah-blah and people probably think I've got it all figured out. Heh. But the -reason- I cling to it is because I don't, 'cause I'm always questioning everything, so yes, of course... it's all abou the journey... to the definition. The quest remains, as does the constant dissatisfaction, but... therein, perhaps, lies the satisfaction. Like... the constant sour=sweetness of life which gets momentarily transfigured into peace, if only for a little while....

I suppose it's the peculiar foible of human nature that even while we think we know better, we will always hope. Even if we think of real life in terms of probabilities and realize some things are just -really- unlikely, what keeps us sane is the hope that tomorrow things will change, that -we- will change. And you can never say "tomorrow will never come", because, well... that's only true if one is dead.

Logic is all well and good, right, but hope has nothing on logic~:)

And oh, um. I'm just glad you were unconfused long enough to try and confuse me. It's a party :D