Golden Heart

This song is absolutely amazing. In the space of three months, it has gone from being the unknown title track on my newest CD, to being one of my favorite songs from that album, to being one of those songs I get obsessed with and listen to 24/7, to grabbing a spot on my Top 25 of the 90's list, to making the jump onto my Top 25 all-time, to rising to #6 on that same list. It is by far the newest (to me) of the songs in my top 10, and after listening to it non-stop for three months it still grabs me, it still makes me want to sing along, it still conveys a feeling of tremendous passion and elegance and it still takes me away. To Carolina if you will.
I am strongly considering moving it up from #6, but to crack the top 5 it will have to contend with five songs I have loved since junior high, five songs which mean an awful lot to me.

1. Timeless Love, is, at least for now, untouchable at the top of my list. It is my favorite song by my favorite artist, and every time I listen to it (approaching 800 plays on my computer alone) I can still feel the tremendous emotion in the song, especially in the live version, where you can just hear Burton pouring everything he has into his voice and his piano. For a long time, I thought Timeless Love was about two people who loved each other, and yet by circumstance were torn apart. To me, they were apart, but still in love. Then one day I sent the file over to Jackie so she could listen to it. She remarked that the song was terribly sad. I had never seen it that way before. When I went to see Burton live, I found out that Jackie was right. I knew it the instant he started talking about the song. You could tell that he truly feels everything he sings about in those lyrics. He said, "I haven't played this song in a long time. We got it out especially for this tour." There was something in his voice just then, maybe I was imagining it, but it seemed to me just a hint of...anguish in his voice. I thought..maybe, just maybe it's the one I want to hear. He continued, "This song is about a girl in Winnipeg who broke my heart a long time ago." Then I knew. It was indeed my favorite song of all. Then Burton said, "Is she here tonight? Is she here? (Pause) I guess not." That was the bit that hit home. He sounded so hopeful, so excited when it occured to him that this girl, who had broken his heart forty years before, might have come to see him play. Anyway, I sang along as loud as I wanted, and that, singing along with Burton Cummings to Timeless Love, was one of those elusive moments of perfection. Since then Timeless Love has made more sense to me, and I have understood why it is my very favorite song. It is a testament to tremendous happiness and undying love even in the face of crushing despair. Despite everything, love prevails over darkness. That's why.

2. Carolina in my Mind is the ultimate escape song. It is #2 on my list because I think it is James Taylor's most beautiful song, masterfully crafted and sung and no matter where I am or what is going on, it takes me away to my Carolina. The song provides me tremedous clarity, bacause in times of stress or disappointment it reminds me of my perfect world, the world I imagine and strive toward. It reminds me of what I am working towards. The imagery in the song is stunning, I really can see the silver sunshine on dark winter nights. "Watch her watch the morning come, a silver tear appearing now.." gives me a crystal clear image of something I hope to see in the future. The song describes itself beautifully with the line, "Whisper something soft and kind.." That's what it does. It's a whisper reminding you what you consider most valuable.

3. My Own Way to Rock reaches #3 because it is very much a song that defines me. I remember reading the "500 Greatest Songs" article in Rolling Stone a while back, and noticing something in the way they described The Who's My Generation. The words they used were "The Who's immortal fuck-off to their elders". In the same way, My Own Way to Rock is my answer to people who think they know how to run my life better than I do. I welcome debate, criticism and suggestions, and honestly do take them into consideration, but at the end I will be the one to decide how I live my life. Some people won't like it but I don't care. If I want to write melodramatic garbage in this blog then I will. If I don't want to do something, then I won't. If I want to believe in something then I will. And as the song says, "I've got my own way to rock, I've got my own way to roll, and when you're walkin' that walk it's good for your soul". That's the main thing that got this song to #3, but there are some other contributing factors as well. Again, Burton outdoes himself in this song. The way he sings it, the drawn out syllables, the random piano stuff, the added sentences that don't make sense, it all speaks to someone who's having a lot of fun singing this song. Even the album version has the feel of a live version to it. That sheer passion never fails to produce a smile from me. Finally, the song includes perhaps my favorite piano solo in all of music (Its only challengers coming at the end of Bob Seger's The Fire Inside and from a couple other Burton songs). The skill is incredible, and when I saw it live and he drew it out (It's a tad short in the album version) it was simply amazing.

4. Something in the Way She Moves is at #4 because it was the first song I can remember that really meant something to me. I think I was about 10 years old, not even close to the age where girls became cool, and the James Taylor Greatest Hits CD was in the CD player of my dad's car. I remember listening to it and thinking, even then, that's the kind of girl I'm going to marry. The line, "It isn't what she's got to say, but how she thinks, the way she's been. To me the words are nice the way they sound.." was the line that stuck with me. Ironically, I didn't much like Carolina in My Mind at the time, I would always skip from this song, Track 1, to Fire and Rain, Track 3, and miss Carolina, Track 2. This song was my favorite James Taylor and my favorite love song for most of junior high, and I will always hold it in the highest regard.

5. Truly, Madly, Deeply is #5 because it is the purest love song I know. If you were to ask me what love is, I couldn't give you a better answer than Savage Garden does in this song. It is #1 on my Top 25 Love Songs, as it should be. I think that when I meet a girl who is accurately described by this song, that'll be the girl I want to marry. As long as she's cool with it. lol.

So, as you can see, Golden Heart has some work to do if it's going to crack the top 5. I think the key is that I couldn't yet tell you what it is exactly that I love about Golden Heart. I know some things, but I couldn't give you a definative answer as I have done with the current top 5. I think it will take more time to do that. Then maybe it will have a chance of getting somewhere between 2 and 5. It's a great song, but I can't see it having the strength to dislodge Timeless Love. I'll finish with the lyrics, as I usually do when the post title is a song title.

Golden Heart

She was swinging by the bangles in a main street store
A while before we met
The most dangerous angles that you ever saw
She spied her amulet

And she took a loop of leather for around her neck
And that was then the start
The most dangerous lady on her quarter deck
She found her Golden Heart
You found your Golden Heart

Then we swirled around each other, and the thread was spun
To some Arcadian band
I would stop it from swinging like a pendulum
Just to hold time in my hand

And you shot me with a cannonball of history
A long forgotten art
I'd be turning it over as our words ran free
I'd hold your Golden Heart
I'd hold your Golden Heart

Nothing in the world prepared me for your heart, your heart
Nothing in the world that I love more your heart, your heart
Your Golden Heart

And every time I'm thinking of you from a distant shore
And all the time I sleep
I will have a reminder that my baby wore
A part of you to keep

And I'll send you all my promises across the sea
And while we are apart
I will carry the wonder that you gave to me
I'll wear your Golden Heart
I'll wear your Golden Heart

Nothing in the world prepared me for your heart, your heart
Nothing in the world that I love more your heart, your heart
Your Golden Heart

Introspection

Having written my last three posts on very big issues, I felt like it was a good time to go back and write a more personal post. Personal post. That's a little bit of a paradox, isn't it? I am, and have been for the last several years, a very open person. The way I think demands that I rationalize my beliefs and actions. Consequently, I have no qualms about telling people almost anything they want to know. If I can rationalize something to myself I should be able to rationalize it to others, and therefore my life is pretty much an open book. I also realize that debate is perhaps the best way to refine your own beliefs, identify flaws in your reasoning, and to make yourself a better person. My great hope for the last three posts I have written is that someone will read them and challenge me on aspects of them. The ensuing debate would be tremendously valuable to me. However, recently I have been wondering whether I am a little too open. I have realized that anyone, even someone who doesn't know me, could carefully read my facebook profile and this blog, both of which are publicly and universally available, and they could really understand who I am. Not just superficially either, but the real Blair. A total stranger could get a sense of who I am at my core. I feel as if other people have this exterior persona, the thing that I see from my friends, the things they write on their facebook profiles, their interests and what they do, their personality etc. But almost all of them, and in my closer friends I see hints, have this carefully guarded "core self" that they rarely show to anyone. It contains their emotions and motivations, and what they truly believe. I don't think I have that. Actually that isn't true, I do have it, but the range of what it encompasses is very small, there are only a very few topics on which I would deflect questions and avoid discussions. My "core self" will never be shown to anyone except the woman I love. Therefore, I think I a missing a layer. I am missing the layer containing beliefs, thoughts and emotions which many people keep reasonably private, sharing perhaps only with a couple trusted family members or best friends. I know this middle layer exists, from conversations I have had with people. Trent has it, Lyndsey has it and Larissa had it. Those three are the best examples because in those cases I felt like I've seen a little bit of it, just the very tip of the iceberg before the vault slammed shut. In other cases too, I have been able to tell that the wall exists, even with people I know less well. I have seen it in many of my friends, but didn't realize what it was until I observed it crystal-clear in Hayleigh. I am not sure whether this wall is a "middle layer" as I have guessed, a section revealed to a very few but still distinct from people's deepest selves, or whether the deepest selves of others just encompass a much wider range and are perhaps a little more easily accessable than mine. The latter hypothesis is given credence by the examples of Amit and Vincci, both of whom I believe have an ethos more similar to mine. In both cases, however, I think what they keep hidden is more, if only slightly, than what I do. The question that comes out of this is this: Do I need to be a little more introspective and keep my inner motivations a little more secret? The reason I think this might be advantageous is that it keeps people guessing. There has to be effort in order to discover who I really am. It keeps others involved and you aren't as boring that way. You can seem more spontaneous, because people are less able to discern your motivations. It gives you a bit on an air of mystery, and gives others the feeling that if they want to be privy to your secrets they will have to earn it.It also protects you in some instances. Bassil said something to me about this once, and for all his faults, this was something that made me think a little bit. He was referring to a situation in which I got burned, and was pretty upset about it. So what did I do? I told the person who had hurt me exactly what I felt. Everything. I let her have it. Bassil was of the mind that I should not have told her, and that telling her conveyed an image of weakness and emotional fragility which in turn caused me long-run problems. Although I don't agree entirely with him on this, he does raise a few good points. I will have to think more about this topic, but I feel like I may try to be a little more introspective in the next little while and see if I like the results.

The Silent Visage

Monday night was a great conversation, as previously mentioned. It's been a while since I had a good long conversation, where anything goes. I had forgotten the simple joys of uninhibited discourse. I learned a lot, about myself as well as about others. It was odd though. I've had similar conversations before with women and all of them have turned out one of two ways. Either one person or the other has been let down by the revelations of the conversation, or we've ended up making out. I guess this time was an exception. Maybe it was just indifference on one or both of our parts. I feel like it was because I didnt get a reaction as I have in the past. All I got was so much matter-of-factness that I may as well have been talking to a vulcan. lol. I dont think that is a bad thing, it is just intriguing. Never have I been so hopelessly unable to gauge an emotional response when talking about something as blatant as what we thought of each other. Maybe there wasn't one and that's why. But even if a girl I was totally indifferent about said what was said, I would most certainly betray something, even if it was only my indifference. Maybe that's why it was so easy to speak candidly, because I was less afraid of being judged. The initial rush was still there, when the tide of the conversation turned I certainly revelled in the anticipation, but at the moment that is usually the moment of judgement, where you discern the other's true intentions, the emotional level just flatlined as if we were talking about what we had for breakfast. The rest of the conversation was great too, and the second major thing that intrigued me was why it was so easy to talk about all this stuff. I am pretty open about my opinions, but that was the kind of conversation I would have with Lyndz or Trent or Amit. Completley open. Given the length of time that we've been "friends," per se, that was strange. She mentioned that she is an easy person to talk to, but the question is why. I hinted above that it is partially because she seems like she won't judge but I'm not sure that's all of it. It could also have something to do with us being kindred spirits in some sense. For example, her enjoyment of list-making allowed my to freely confess all my normally too-nerdy-to-talk-about list making adventures. Similarly, discovering that she once owned TIE Fighter made me much more able to talk about my sci-fi based nerdiness. Maybe talking about those interests, which I usually moderate except for the sake of humour in normal conversation, established a level of trust more quickly than usual and allowed the free exchange of information to move to other areas. I also think it had something to do with genuinely believing in the confidentiality of the conversation. My usual assumption is that if I say something to someone, usually it will find its way into the domain of general knowledge. There are only a few people with whom I trust information I would rather not have generally known. In this case, even though my gut feeling was not to say some of the things I said, I felt like what I said, even the things that might have been a little mean or off-colour, were in safe hands. I may be proven wrong in the future, but that would just be so..unlike her. I think. As mentioned, she's a tough one to read. I suppose that's another reason why it was such a good conversation. I don't really have a clear sense of who she really is at her core. Over the years I think I've seen a lot of different faces, and so she remains somewhat of an engima. From this angle the conversation was intriguing in the same way as a well-played game of bridge (which I have been trying to teach myself recently). I would play a question, and observe the reaction in an attempt to discern the hand she was holding. It wasn't easy, but that's what made it so fun. Overall the exercise wasn't a success, although there were some hints, her fundamental self still remains a bit of a mystery. It will be a great challenge to continue. I know that will sound strange because I have previously attested to the openness of the conversation, and it may seem paradoxical that I was stymied from this angle. However, the factual openness of the conversation contrasted with, at least on her side, an extremely well-fortified wall defending her emotions and motivations. It wasn't something that could be solved by "Ask me anything." because there wasn't a question that I could have asked, other than, "what are you feeling right now?" which would have been somewhat of a strange thing to say I think. I must confess that one of the ulterior motives of this post is to furthur this line of inquiry. Anyhow...that was the conversation that was monday night. A truly terrific bit of wordsmithing. Hopefully it isn't the last.

The Long Road

This post is supposed to be about long-distance relationships and whether I think they are viable or not. I'm not sure if that's what it's going to end up being about, but that's where I'll start. Having two "homes" for at least the next two years means that unless I end up swearing off women, which is unlikely, that I have a fair chance of ending up in one of these situations. I used to think that long distance relationships were silly and impractical, but since I have gotten to know people who have dealt with said relationships I feel as if I have moderated my position. That said, I still feel like you should never enter into any sort of long-distance thing without a certain commitment. People often say that for long-distance to be viable, some substantial groundwork has to already have been laid in the relationship. I don't entirely agree with that, in the sense that you have to have been dating for a long time. Obviously you can't decide when you fall for someone, that's up to fate. I think that the prerequisite for a long-distance relationship is mutual willingness to commit to the timeframe. You don't have a LDR for it's own sake, the idea is that at some point it will no longer be an LDR. For example, if I were to start dating a girl now, we would both have to be quite sure that we would be willing to date the other person for a minimum of 9 months, plus some time to actually reap the fruit next summer. I think it is difficult for people to internally commmit to a lengthy time frame such as that on short notice, but it certainly isn't infeasable. Larissa and I were only good friends for two months or so before summer, and should the opportunity have been afforded me then, I would have been willing to commit for quite a length of time. In that particular case I knew after only a couple weeks. I think cases like that are rare, and it is rarer still for it to be reciprocated, but my point is that the time you know someone beforehand is not as important of a factor as some might think. As in any relationship, the key to an LDR is trust. It is even more of a key in that case. LDR's will not work unless both the people have complete trust in the other's fidelity. This, I have observed, is the downfall of many LDR's. The second key factor is communication. In an LDR, communication is key to maintainting a strong bond. Probably 90% of the LDR's I have observed have either succeeded(to this point), or failed bacause of one of those two factors. I guess my conclusion here is that in my case, for the next two years, if I find myself in a potential LDR, 100% trust and 100% communication have to be deal-breakers. They both are already important and are in the top 10 on the test, but there is a difference between the levels of trust and communication I would normally require and the 100% that I believe is neccesary to an LDR. Speaking of communication, I had a great conversation yesterday which I feel derserves some words, but since it is on a totally different topic, I feel like it needs its own post. Maybe I'll do two posts in one day (woah) or maybe I'll wait till tomorrow. We'll see if work picks up here. Plus I have to think of a good title. Coming up with post titles that encompass the content is one of my favorite parts of blogging. The next post will need a good one.

Playoff Time!

"Here lies a city's heart.
There in her hill lie
her green bones.
Quiet under the clutter
of houses and streets.
And there, in her rivers
run her veins
That long ago
powered her mills.
Her long limbs reach
to the moors
But
Here. Here lies
her throbbing heart"

Calgary's heart is beating faster.
We're ready.
Go Flames Go!

Chess Men

I am sitting in economics, paying attention to the extent that I can with Salmasi being his usual monotanous self. It is striking to me that in economics there are a number of laws that define why people do things. People are chess men to be manipulated. The firm adapts its policy because it percieves that people will react a certain way. It is precisely like a well played game of chess, where you move your pieces in anticipation of what the other person will do, maneuvering yourself to take advantage of his or her actions. Chess is a zero-sum game..you can only gain at the expense of the other person. Economics, on the other hand, is a non-zero sum game between producers and consumers. Both parties gain from interaction, and although each may benefit to different degrees in different transactions, there is a net gain in utility. In a capitalist system, people will not buy anything that they percieve to have less utility than the money they are giving up. Similarly, companies will not produce something if they cannot produce it for a value less than that for which they can sell it (P>AVC) This leads me to think of an interesting theory of development, wherby the rate at which a society develops is based on the net percentage increase of non-zero sum interaction in the society. I wont go into that thought, because I just thought of it and havent had time to think through the implications. What I wanted to discuss are the interactions on the human level. The interactions I have with my friends, family, associates etc. Are these interactions rational? Do people unconciously use the people they know as chess men? Are their interactions zero-sum? what implications does this have? I believe that the way I interact with others is fairly rational. However, I have observed some very irrational actions in others on a consistent basis. Why is this? Is what they are doing somehow rational to them? Class is over..but ill have to think more on this. Philosophy is so interesting.

Quantum Ladder Theory

Ladder Theory has been bothering me lately. For those of you who aren't familiar with it, check out www.intellectualwhores.com/masterladder.html. The crux of the problem is that the theory makes sense. It logically explains a good portion of some very interesting questions. The theory provides explanations about how men and women have different outlooks when it comes to the type of relationships they can have. It also provides a theoretical breakdown of the factors that promote attraction on both the men's and women's side. It's a hard theory to deny or refute, because it is easy to see myraid examples where it seems to apply perfectly. However, there's something about it that doesnt seem quite complete. There are a few anomolies here and there, some of which the theory tries to explain (Religiosity, Loyalty etc) and few which it doesnt even touch, (The Casablanca Phenomenon, the Summer/Ana Conundrum..ill get to these) Mitch provided one possible explanation, that the ladder theory explains why people are attracted to one another and the mechanics of "ranking people" but makes no attempt to explain the actions people take based on their attraction. If you look at the various stes of explanations for why people act the way they do, you will find some common ground. It has to do with each individual's system of beliefs and values. For simplicity, let's call this Moral Compass Theory. I would define Moral Compass Theory as stating that the actions people take are based on how well they percieve the likely outcomes a a given course of action correlate with their individual beliefs, values and goals. Of course, people dont always make the "right" decision, but this can be easily explained two ways. Firstly. people arn't omnicient. Their perception of the likely outcomes of any action they take might be wrong. Secondly, everyone has a different "Moral Compass" based on their experiences, religion, upbringing and any number of other factors. Therefore, it is difficult to judge anyone's decision as right or wrong. However, the fact remains that people take action for a reason, and that reason has to do with a number of internal and external factors. Now it become apparent that these two theories describe different parts of the same system of interaction. Ladder Theory does a good job of explaining why people are, or are not, attracted to each other and how women and men differ in that regard. Moral Compass Theory is convinient to explain why people undertake specific action. The problem lies in reconciling the two, as they dont appear to be compatible. For example, a guy might meet a woman who was extremely attractive to him, who he believes is interested in him and who is likely to sleep with him, and has a number of other good qualities. According to ladder theory, she would be placed near the top of the ladder, perhaps in the section "Would Actually Pursue" and if he was offered sex he would definatley take it. According to Moral Compass Theory though, a different answer might be arrived at. If the said woman was married, underage, a different religion, a woman who slept around, or if the said man was married, extremely religious, related to the woman or any other of hundreds of scenarios, many people would find that the response that aligned best with their "Moral Compass" would be to turn down the offer of a relationship/sex. Now we see how the two theories can appear to contradict each other. My goal here is to provide an explanation that reconciles the two theories. I got this idea from Mitch's physics analogy, and since I'm not nearly intense enough to reconcile the Theory of Quantum Mechanics with the Theory of General Relativity and come up with a Quantum Theory of Gravity, I will instead attempt to blend Ladder Theory and Moral Compass Theory and explain my Quantum Ladder Theory. My theory goes like this. When two people of the opposite sex meet, they quickly form opinions of each other based on an individual's framework of attraction (either the pie charts presented in Ladder Theory or using another scheme such as Blair's Perfect Woman Test, I will discuss this in more detail in a future post). A person will then give everyone they meet two ratings, one concerning how much they are interested in a physical relationship and another concerning how much they would like to be friends with the person. For men, these two ratings are intrinsically linked and almost never differ by a significant amount. This is why Classical Ladder Theory shows that men have only one ladder. If a man likes a woman enough to be her friend, he will also like her enough to have some sort of relationship with her. Women, on the other hand, often display large differences between the two ratings. A man can be low on both counts, in which case the woman will not hang out with him, he can be high on the relationship count and low on the friends count (which in classical ladder theory would mean he is on the "good ladder" and is probably a rich and good looking investment banker or an outlaw biker), he can be high on the friends count and low on the relationship count (on the friends ladder in classical theory) or he can be high on both counts (a very rare case which usually results in the woman being swept off her feet and being madly in love with the guy). Once a person has obtained a sense of where someone's counts are, they put them on a ladder. The addition to the ladder will be on the form of two statements, "I want to have a relationship with so and so" and "I want to be friends with so and so" Again, it it important to remember that for men, the location of the two statements on the ladder will be very close to each other but for women the two might be very far apart on the ladder. In Quantum Ladder Theory, everyone has only one ladder, and on it, in addition to all the statements (friend and relationship) of every person of the opposite sex, the ladder also includes all the value statements, goals and beliefs that a person uses in to make decisions in Moral Compass Theory. All of these statements are ranked in order of importance and intermingled with the statements about the opposite sex. When a person considers what action to take with regard to a certain member of the opposite sex, they consider where the person is on the ladder and what statements are above and below that rating. This theory explains the same things as Classical Ladder Theory and uses the same explanations for what happens in relationships where one person's rating is higher. It covers all the bases of Classical Theory, and addresses the problems inherent with it. I will run through some of those now, and how Quantum Theory deals with them.
1. Religiosity: Someone who does not believe in sex before marriage will rank people the same as everone else, but when considering action, for that person the Belief that "sex before marriage is wrong" is higher on their ladder than the Statement, "I want to have a relationship with so and so" This constrains the person from acting on their relationship statement. This does not affect the friends Statement, as the two have nothing to do with each other. In this case and similar cases, Classical Ladder Theory is wrong when it says that men cannot be friends with women without sex getting in the way, because in this case, a man will not act on his relationship Statement because it is constrained by his religious Belief, but he is free to act on his friends statement. The man will still be attracted to the women , but will not act on his attraction because of the constraint. This allows for stable friendships between men and women.
2. Loyalty: This is very similar to the above case, but here someone's Statement "I want to have a relationship with so and so" is constraned by the Value statement "Stealing another man's woman is wrong" or by the Belief "So and So's friendship is beneficial to me and if i steal his woman I will lose that friendship" or by both. Classical Theory's assertion that the people your friends are dating are not really your friends is complete crap and doesnt make sense.
3. Drunkenness: being drunk impairs your mental faculties and makes it much harder to judge where a given relationship statement, belief or value is on your ladder and thus often causes people to do things they wouldn't otherwise.
4. Exes: People are your exes for a reason. Often there is some sort of belief generated by a breakup that constrains one from acting on the relationship statement you have for that person.
5. The Casablanca Phenomenon: In Casablanca, Rick gives up the woman he loves to Victor because his Goal of "Defeating the Nazis" is higher on his ladder than his Statement "I am in love with Ilsa and want to have a relationship with her" This is an example of a situation where two statements are extremely close to one another on the ladder, and drama is created by individual events that affect the position of the two statements relative to one another. As the movie progresses, events cause small changes in the position of Rick's statements on his ladder and thus affect his actions.
6. The Summer/Ana Conundrum: This is a situation such as Seth has with Ana and Summer or Archie with Betty and Veronica. According to Classical Ladder Theory, either Summer or Ana would have to be higher on Seth's Ladder. By observation we can tell that's not the case. Instead, The four statements, "I would like to have a relationship with Ana", "I would like to be friends with Ana" , "I would like to have a relationship with Summer" and "I would like to be friends with Summer" are all very very close to each other on Seth's Ladder, as we would expect by the fact he is a guy and the fact he seems equally interested in both. The reason he is unable to choose is because although a guy's friends statment and relationship statement for a particular girl are intrinsically linked and close to each other they are not at exactly the same point. Ana's friends statement is higher than Summer's on Seth's Ladder, but Summer's relationship statement is higher than Ana's. Because Seth is male and unable to seperate his friends statement from his relationship statement, he finds himself in a bit of a pickle.
7 One Last Thing: Classical Ladder Theory has a mojor problem in the fact that it is static. You put someone on a ladder and they stay there. Quantum Ladder Theory is neccesarily a dynamic theory. Every experience one has changes one's ladder very slightly. Values come and go, Beliefs are confirmed or rejected, Goals are achieved or revised and Statements, either relationship or friendship, move slightly as one continues to interact with the person. This is illustrated well in the Casablanca Phenomenon, and also provides a second explanation for the behaviour of exes.
I feel that this theory is better than Classical Ladder Theory and solves all the problems that had been really bothering me about it. I know im a big nerd, but this was fun.

Assumptions

Hey Capitan, if you were in GATE, Mr. Holland would be telling you to question your fundamental assumptions right now. I'll give you a list of the ones you've made that have no basis is fact.

1. Just because I have emotions I automatically cry all the time..this is just wrong, if you actually knew me at all you would know that I'm pretty much the most rational person you will ever meet, and that even when things don't go my way I can almost always see the other point of view...I hardly ever get really angry or upset..and I dont cry easily.

2. I think you're a coward..well I really dont know whether you are or not, if you read carefully you'll know that the words I used were "in case"

3. I wouldnt be able to handle talking about these things face to face or if I knew who you were..again, just wrong, I always look for constuctive criticism and ways to improve myself, and my self esteem is just about as solid as you will find everywhere, which comes from a base of rationally justifying the way I am and the ways I act. So no, I wouldnt have a breakdown.

4. That you're a mysogynist...again, there is nothing in my entry about you, its only about the way I think. I said that certain lifestyles wouldnt do anything for me, but I never implied that you thought one way or another about any of them. The only direct thing I said to you was "If not..have fun with what you call your life, and when you realize that you have lived a life without significance, don't come crying to me" I only inferred that your life would turn out to be insignificant because the fact that you're trying to convince me of certain things so passionatley that I guessed you are having some identity issues with your own life. If I guessed wrong, I sincerely apologize, but I make assumptions too.

5. That everyone thinks the way you do..Han Solo and Ahhnold may not be admirable in you books, but there is a reason they are so famous.

6. That having garlic sausage for breakfast is a bad thing.

7. The heyday of romance was in the 1800's..again just wrong..check your history..what is the highest-grossing movie of all time? An idealistic romance that came out in 1997. The greatest romances of all time? 1600ish, 1939, 1942....and a bunch from ancient mythology which has enjoyed a massive resurgence in the last 15 yrs or so. As life becomes more mechanized and regular, I think that people will, and are, looking at romance again as a way to give meaning to their lives. Free Love deal was all 1960s and 1970s.

Ok..well thats a good start on the assumptions...I think Holland would be telling you to write some post-modern self-reflections by now. Having said that..the things you suggest girls like are about the most accurate things you have said yet.

Humour? (PS you spelt it wrong unless youre an american) I figure I have perhaps a more subtle sense of humour than others, but its certainly there.

Mystery? Theres's no mystery with someone who a girl knows is gonna screw her over. It only comes with involved relationships.

Being kept on their toes? Ask any of the girls I have dated, and even some of those with whom it hasnt worked out. If I like someone, they've gotta be on their toes. If they're not sharp they are way less attractive.

Excitement? Romance is way more exciting than pretty much anything else I can think of.

Originality? By your own admission I am not the typical management guy. I consider myself quite unique (see oneandonlyblair.blogspot)

Independence? I think I think I can handle that. "In love the paradox occurs that two become one and yet remain two"..one of my fav quotes..you cant give up your independance..

CONFIDENCE? I can't believe you'd even question that one...I will say one thing about you that I have no way of verifying but I am nonetheless sure is true. My self confidence is better than yours.

Finally, thanks for your advice. As you know if you know me, I love a good debate. You also might want to know the last time I got out-debated was talking to a man named Mark Hopman in April..and again I'm guessing, but i'll wager that he's smarter than you. So by all means, take your best shot. I'll obliterate you. How's that for near arrogance?

Hey Capitan Majed

Whoever you are, if you want to have an intelligent debate about the way I run my life, by all means tell me who you are and I would be more than willing to explain it to you. In case you're too afraid to do that, ill give you a short run-down.

Some people may consider things like romance to be old fashioned, but in my books it is a hundred times better than running around drinking every weekend and screwing hapless management sluts just for kicks. For me that would be so hollow and unfulfilling as to be completely useless. I would have more fun spending one day with a girl I loved than I would in a month with six or seven girls who meant absolutley nothing.

My blog entries are personal, and I'll admit, often a little melodramatic, but thats just the way I choose to write them. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it.

As for being an insult to men everywhere, I think you should consider how many of the great men of history are great because of how much they drank or how many women they scored with. The great men of history are great because they followed their dreams, and did not renounce their values and ideals in the face of external pressure. If that doesnt convince you, i think you should look at two of the great representations of our culture..music and film. Thousands of men in the last century idolized people like Rick Blaine in Casablanca and Han Solo in Star Wars. Both were romantics at heart. Even the very face of masculinity, our good friend Arnold Schwarzenegger, usually goes on a destructive rampage for the sake of a girl.

As for my music, which you claim is terrible...if you can give me someone who can play a piano better than Burton Cummings, put you to sleep or calm your nerves better than James Taylor, crank out a 10 minute rock opera better than Meatloaf, write better love songs than Lonestar, Elton John or Savage Garden and stand up to Mark Knopfler or Jimmy Page with an electric, then i might agree with you. Until you find bands that can do that, you can shut up about my music. So if you actually have anything else to say that might be relevant..by all means go for it. If not..have fun with what you call your life, and when you realize that you have lived a life without significance, don't come crying to me.

Where is Carolina?

I'm feeling pretty weird right now. I wasnt sure what it was at first, because its not something that has happend to me recently...but I think I have it pinned down now. After not feeling it my entire first year away from home...i get back home..to calgary..an awesomely awesome place as always..and I'm a little bit lonely. Of all my close friends..only Trent have i seen a satisfactory amount. The people I was looking forward to seeing here...amit, mitch, ray...my high school friends..i have seen little or not at all. The things I get out of talking to those friends...fun times, good memories, intellectual debate..have been strangley absent since i got home. I miss people from McGill...when you live with people for eight months they become somewhat of a regularity..and not having even talked to them much...there is a bit of an empty spot there....Mark, Kristen, Derek, Cowboy, Larissa, those names headline the list..but it goes on. Anyway..all that contributed..and it was accentuated today by the fact that lyndz and I will continue our long running tradition of living in the same city for one year..followed by a bunch of years apart. All that is annoying..and is made more annoying by the fact i cant seem to adress the problem effectivley. People are busy..even when I talk to mcgill friends i run out of things to say..and I myself have little time for the endeavour..it seems like i do nothing but work, track and physio. So..as I often do when im feeling weird..i threw on JT's Carolina in my Mind (#2 song of all time) and flew away to my own little perfect world..my Carolina. the only thing is..im not quite sure where carolina is right now..it's often at the lake..but right now it sometimes is in windsor, and sometimes in Montreal and sometimes back to normal in northern sask. We'll have to see where it ends up..but it will be somewhere good..and im glad to say this..something not too far from real life (within reach anyway). Now its my job to carpe diem and make it happen. Cheers to all.