I'll try not to get any EMO on you, dear reader. Stand clear, though. Just in case
So very Confused:
- My girlfriend breaks up with me (a few weeks ago).
-We talk, and are mostly back together (maybe a week and a half ago).
-A get-together with friends is organized, and she wants us to act apart (now).
And we're talking SERIOUSLY not together here.
Only NOT QUITE, because I'm still expected to do all the fetching, and fixing, and stuff that boyfriends usually do. Only we're "not together". If she wants us to be 'Friends' or whatever, I really should treat her as I do my other friends (ie. less personal service).
I have been warned (by someone who shall remain title-less) that such WARNING SIGNS are not good, and that I shouldn't spend good effort after bad here. I wanted to hold onto hope, but there is a point where enough is enough.
On the "Friends" note, I really don't think I could do that. I love her, and that's that. It's unfair to her, and I feel it's unfair to me if I have to act as if I do not. She calls foul on this, but then her words are "I could really use you as a friend" (italics are my own). And there's the rub: there's plenty in it for her, but all I can see is something I failed at.
I could use my sense of self-worth back.
HERE ENDETH THE EMO-NESS
I am rather breaking a rule in posting the above, but writing these things down does help put my thoughts in order (at this point you scoff, because my thoughts are by no means orderly in writing. Yeah, well, they're even worse ordered inside my head). To atone for this, I offer some proper food for thought below:
There is an article stub here, which points to animal roots of human morality. The science isn't in the stub (I'll look for the full text, as we have a subscription here), unfortunately, but I'll see what I can come up with.
There is very little logic in separating human emotions, and animal emotions. There is a decided evolutionary advantage if your species is more motivated to succeed. Emotion is a perfect fit for such a factor. The desire to achieve and repeat success is driven by that rush of Victory, and the avoidance of loss is punished by the crushing sensation of Defeat. The thrill of Love may be nothing more than a celebration of genes about to be passed on. Loss may be the feeling of your genes being deemed unworthy by a potential mate. Any emotion has a logical, beneficial function.
With respects to morality, I think it's a question of what is good for the species. Why should that be unique to humans? My dad has argued against this, saying that individual desires outweigh overall survival. If evolution favours the best setup provided through random mutations, than perhaps this balance simply proved most favourable. Adam Smith did suggest that the search for individual success could lead to greater prosperity for all (if memory serves). This raises an interesting point: Is ideology, then, explained by competing genes? If so, what system will be favoured? This is less science, and more philosophy, but the implications rattle the mind a little.
Another thought: Is Brave New World offensive to our senses, because people achieve pleasure through drugs, and shun natural reproduction in favour of selective mass cloning/production? Is our morality offended not by the inhumanity of the system, but by the lack of proper natural selection?
Again, if I'm off my rocker here, feel free to say so. Comments are open to non-members (I trust there will be no SPAMMING)
Until next time, my head will explode in a furious angstsplosion.