Overflowing.
The subject is right.
I wanted to write about primarily operating in stealth mode (I guess that will be tomorrow's topic.) but instead I got all distracted by...initially Joseph Campbell. I went to the library and picked up The Power of Myth and I got eight pages in to the actual...mm, book I guess is the right word. It's more like a mix tape of the video transcripts including content that didn't make it to the actual PBS except in written form.
Eight pages in and I already like Campbell, as in, really like. It already feels like there are things that he just gets like when he was talking about marriage and divorce. It made me excited to be reading it. It was the first time in a very long time that I got really excited reading. Also a bit intimidated because it's very clear this guys knows quite a lot. There are a lot of things he has memorized and when he quotes people very specifically, yikes. I haven't developed that kind of memory; for me I remember where to find the information again and focus on how to apply it once I've familiarized myself with it.
Then, I saw a post a...friend? Acquaintance? made about why intelligent people tend to be less likely to believe in god (whether the capitalized kind or not). Now, the article specifically references atheists but among the material I saw that it was working from I think the term may have been used inaccurately. Should I be surprised? Just because someone doesn't believe in your faith doesn't make that person an atheist. Anyway.
I started writing up a response, which has gotten pretty long. I'm torn about whether or not to post it. It definitely puts me out of my comfort zone.
[ ... Time passes]
I like the original response best but...something kept me from sharing it. I disliked the second, and the third I felt...didn't really make any points but was safer. Bah. I may share the original later.
I now feel like I didn't write anything of value. As a follow up to the last entry that makes me very disappointed. I felt like the last one turned out very well. Better than most of what I've written in a long time.
Speaking of that entry, (I can redeem myself with this one) I remember writing it thinking it was the kind of entry that (then - Am I missing one? I suddenly think I am either before (I think?) or after the rhinolion.)schizoscribe rhinolion wickedbish had said he looked forward to after I reading my teaser entries. He didn't actually like having to wait but liked to see how the thought(s) unfolded (wrinkle-free!).
I also remember the first page I looked at when trying to better define intimate friendships was about friendtimacy (which sounds kinda lame) and did absolutely nothing to help me figure out what would be considered an intimate friendship.
In the last day or so I've also come to realize--I'm pretty sure--that's something I've been subconsciously looking for in a mate. I think that's something Campbell was alluding to when he talked about marriage. If we are in it for the sex to make and raise children then yes, that will likely lead to a divorce once they are out of our lives.
I don't want that. Anyone who answered that the person they marry should be the best sex of their lives is a big red flag for a future divorce because of this kind of thinking. Those who want monogamous relationships make the flag even larger.
I want that connection on both levels. That is what makes for a long-lasting relationship that can stand the test of time.
I want someone who feels is like my best friend, who it feels like I've know forever and we can talk endlessly about anything, who spending time with is a pleasure because time truly does feel like it flies when I am with that person.
But no, that's not the social or cultural norm so it feels like I'm pretty much screwed (no, not like that).
I wanted to write about primarily operating in stealth mode (I guess that will be tomorrow's topic.) but instead I got all distracted by...initially Joseph Campbell. I went to the library and picked up The Power of Myth and I got eight pages in to the actual...mm, book I guess is the right word. It's more like a mix tape of the video transcripts including content that didn't make it to the actual PBS except in written form.
Eight pages in and I already like Campbell, as in, really like. It already feels like there are things that he just gets like when he was talking about marriage and divorce. It made me excited to be reading it. It was the first time in a very long time that I got really excited reading. Also a bit intimidated because it's very clear this guys knows quite a lot. There are a lot of things he has memorized and when he quotes people very specifically, yikes. I haven't developed that kind of memory; for me I remember where to find the information again and focus on how to apply it once I've familiarized myself with it.
Then, I saw a post a...friend? Acquaintance? made about why intelligent people tend to be less likely to believe in god (whether the capitalized kind or not). Now, the article specifically references atheists but among the material I saw that it was working from I think the term may have been used inaccurately. Should I be surprised? Just because someone doesn't believe in your faith doesn't make that person an atheist. Anyway.
I started writing up a response, which has gotten pretty long. I'm torn about whether or not to post it. It definitely puts me out of my comfort zone.
[ ... Time passes]
I like the original response best but...something kept me from sharing it. I disliked the second, and the third I felt...didn't really make any points but was safer. Bah. I may share the original later.
I now feel like I didn't write anything of value. As a follow up to the last entry that makes me very disappointed. I felt like the last one turned out very well. Better than most of what I've written in a long time.
Speaking of that entry, (I can redeem myself with this one) I remember writing it thinking it was the kind of entry that (then - Am I missing one? I suddenly think I am either before (I think?) or after the rhinolion.)schizoscribe rhinolion wickedbish had said he looked forward to after I reading my teaser entries. He didn't actually like having to wait but liked to see how the thought(s) unfolded (wrinkle-free!).
I also remember the first page I looked at when trying to better define intimate friendships was about friendtimacy (which sounds kinda lame) and did absolutely nothing to help me figure out what would be considered an intimate friendship.
In the last day or so I've also come to realize--I'm pretty sure--that's something I've been subconsciously looking for in a mate. I think that's something Campbell was alluding to when he talked about marriage. If we are in it for the sex to make and raise children then yes, that will likely lead to a divorce once they are out of our lives.
I don't want that. Anyone who answered that the person they marry should be the best sex of their lives is a big red flag for a future divorce because of this kind of thinking. Those who want monogamous relationships make the flag even larger.
I want that connection on both levels. That is what makes for a long-lasting relationship that can stand the test of time.
I want someone who feels is like my best friend, who it feels like I've know forever and we can talk endlessly about anything, who spending time with is a pleasure because time truly does feel like it flies when I am with that person.
But no, that's not the social or cultural norm so it feels like I'm pretty much screwed (no, not like that).