... And yet its weird ...
though ... a Perfect landing - or - THE - perfect landing. I have so basically come to an end where I can say - once more but now with more backup and elaborative quality - that emotions are confusing because the own mind lacks the understanding to, well, split them up.
It is though a very specific set of emotions. At first Love may only be conceived as one bulk of sweet tender bliss - nothing more spacific than "joy" - and at this point its all relative already. Depending on whom you meet - well - that may be the end at all, give or take. But speaking of a certain interest, that already changes 'bliss'. The "far end" would be a confusion between individual "attractors", while an "attractor" here isn't necessarily a specific person although it would probably begin that way. Holding these individual 'conclusions' to the own head and "looking into the world" there is this darkness. Anyone might be bliss, sotospeak. I'm going to put it here as a side-track to this writing - that there is this woman, lets call her, CK, who is one of those people to me who "yields" that attraction from me - but ... how it behaves with her will be elaborated alongside the rest.
At first the own heart will need a Shield - or - Filter. It is just a conscious step 'more' ... uhm ... instead of only beholding the emotion and reacting to it, the additional step is to check if the emotion is 'settling' within the own 'self' rather than just being attractive. Hereby CK now doesn't.
The emotion may break into the own heart, naturally, and the own self would naturally also resonate to it, embracing it or whatever, naturally as well including all the parts of enjoyment, but is still rejected from the inner circle.
This attraction is now not 'one of a Kind'. Well - it may be due to the very specific individualities of the very specific individual combination, but well ... lets move on. CK, done!
I've come to think about a lot of attractors in my past, and while I would find an interest in it I began to think of it. "Act 1" was that I've been deriving my ideas from fantasizing. I thought of someone who attracted me and reflected about how this contact may become as horny as conceivable by me. So basically one might say that I was writing pornographic stories and started to think of structures that could be implemented/used/applied to make it somehow pragmatically comprehensive or to otherwise support such things. At some later point I figured that those attractions though yet resided outside of what is now considered the inner circle - or 'core' - thus the logic conclusion is to make room for 'just fun' - so, instead of generally rejecting the entirety of it. "Act 2" was that I took my ideas from emotions that would simply 'click', regardless of the individual in mind, though yet being certainly 'forced' to at some points regard them as hypothetical 'main stay's. Eventually I would there so look at what I made up of it and got confused.
So there was CB, one example where I basically had a geometric concept and she did work with an open spot, but, I was severly confused between the emotional whole, the emotional attractions individually and - well - possibly that it wasn't all that right after all.
During all these experiments individual attractions came to play 'main parts', sotosay, in which a fantasy would revolve around that individual. This is what I might take as "Act 3", which is "Act 1" but now being more forcefully interesting 'the core'. Thus an individual whom I wouldn't find a proper synergy with wouldn't make it into a main part. While there not paying much attention on the round-about, well, I would yet include whoever would come to mind. Some of those got relevant to me later, which is what I may call: 'the Awkward Angle'. Someone who has so been put to the side-line made a "comeback" - like - Gillian Anderson. The story with her is basically so that while I was thinking around the name snapped to my mind and I thus thought of what would work. I didn't have the energy to really be interested in it, but, it would continue that way. The name would just re-appear, but finally it snapped. That however still not in terms of anything romantic, at first and for most of the time. Here the own mind is dependent on knowing the proper conditions, since, well, a 'less significant' relationship is just so that it is not 'universally good'. Then I also have to 'warn' myself because at this point, though the picture is complete, she might yet just be a placeholder and how that turns out in the end ... well ... is a nut yet to be cracked.
It sounds so easy to say: Look into your heart, apply that filter! Well, then yea, I have to suggest - well - that I'm just too doubtful to see what should basically be obvious.
After all, well, I was 'forced' to plug my smart-phone into my Laptop to go online and to browse for some images for apparently a person was yet missing in my collection. After having that done, I got to just sort all the different significant attractions together, and well, in the end, I could sort them all into one scheme, nobody left out, but, one spot remained empty - which is - well - what would need to be the case because after all, that woman I only know as Lady Samantha, still would need to fit in somewhere, and now - its complete.
What is to be noted about it is that from the perspective of looking for attractions, well, things turn out shallow. Looking into the previous part one might tell. There is only Kink, Passion and Marriage - done. An additional problem is what I might call 'Phasing'. Phasing is to say that 'the Core' is furthermore 'supposed to be' separated into different layers of significance. Or, for more proper terms: Within a scope of core attractions that is to be balanced it is just inevitable, well, so it stands out in the end, that some do just have very small significance. Thus the person would appear to be 'centrically important', but in that basically still seeming to be less than someone else. Katsuni for instance weighs less than CK and CB combined, but still that "central bit" is there. So, starting to scheme of some circular layout it becomes - I suppose - nearly impossible to find the right geometric figure to even just get started with. Then there is 'emotional overlay'. So for instance it happened that familiar attractions took priority of sight while mixing with the individual misconception. So for instance the misconception of 'significance' or "value" where one would think to measure someone by the impact of the attraction. So, it gets unclear if I'm unspecific.
Amanda Tapping now feels different than before. The thing is that the attraction would make me figure the ways of how it would be, thus eventually taking positions that are basically "reserved" sotosay, which is definitely weird, but the word is 'spouse'. Thus, lets start with the four primary relationships that I can elaborate on:
1. The One
2. The Spouse
3. The Partner
4. The Forced One
The Logic regarding the first three can be conceived from the previous writing, the logic of the fourth has been introduced within the writings regarding the 9th Seal (Israel Codex/Enlightenment). So, we may say that these are generally just emotional conditions when regarded neutrally. As written: The deeper a relationship grows into a certain direction, the less space there is for other things. Thus, if the own passion is to be experienced - even there so it is already complicated. Looking for that one that stands outside, well, there is the Partner. Spousing however - once starting there - would already alter the significance of said partner and thus now the as 'spouse' identified individual wouldn't be as apparent as that anymore. But well.
You might have seen the "spreadsheet" ...
A few words about the Spreadsheet Logic/Realism
As of course the question could arise: Is it complete? What does it hold up to? How can it be regarded sure or certain or anyway referencially significant? Well, I can't answer that from the top of my head other than by saying, well, the point is yet that it will have to be "stress tested" sotospeak. What is certain to me is that it allowed me to sort my different things out.
Some parts may seem samey when just reading the explenation - like - looking at 'the Lover' one might say that the same can be found true on essentially any other definition. It may at some points also be flawed as I wrote the descriptions in context to my own emotional comprehension as related to the perceived individual. What matters is that between a variety of different, individually significant factors there is now sense to me. Madonna for instance, to me 'the Loved Force', is only attracting me - period - as some others as well - though is the attraction different.
As guiding line we may say though that the own self is a non-solid entity. That means that as I for instance have a Kink which can be idealized in certain ways, there are already various partnerships that would be considerably ideal. Because this kind of phasing is already a fundamental problem, there needs to be a solid foundation - in which context there is 'the Forced One'. As the individual is thereby 'defined', fixed, 'the Forced Love' and 'the Loved Force' as two sides of the same coin can be 'certain'. The one interests me to embrace the 'product that is me', while the other is interesting from being that product. As the logic advances there is now the 'ommitment', say - once there are ways to balance a possible extreme of that alignment, it can become more extreme. So, here the idea is to dare moving away from holding a relationship on a neutral point - or in other words is the relationship improved by moving away from the neutral.
Similar does it fare with the Partner. As the 'idealized' True Thing in the sense of a teenie-romance it doesn't hold up to various more abstract yet true to the own self forms of a 'natural relationship'. So on the very left there is what we might also call 'Passion Spouse', but is that wrong because the passion and the marriage aren't to play the significant role. It is rather the hypothesis of a partner in regards of a wedding in which terms the individual has to fit to the own self in a very specific way, which already subtracts from the 'pleasancy' of the simplicity. Or so. On the other side there is the at all less partnership oriented partnership - so - more like the cliche of an affair yet not so ... superficial or 'intolerant'.
How these come together is now still beyond me, but, certainly we must begin on the central line. Here 'the One' is condition heavy. 'The Spouse' is context heavy. 'The Partner' and 'The Forced-One' so remained, where I can agree that within a stressful life 'the Forced-One' is the more ideal way to go - saying - here the relationship can be held relatively superficial. To start a balanced life though it is inevitable that 'the Partner' is the evident best way to go when possible.
| The One | Monica Bellucci |
| Spouse | Amanda Tapping |
| Partner | Megan Fox |
| Forced One | Britney Spears |
| | |
| Mum | Katsuni |
| Dad | Gillian Anderson |
| Brother | Natalie Portman |
| Sister | Alicia Alighatti |
| Mystery Partner | Angelina Jolie |
| Lover | Lady Samantha |
| Partnered Stranger | Milla Jovovic |
| Partnered Spouse | Catherine Zeta-Jones |
| Spoused Partner | Pamela Anderson-Lee |
| Strange Partner | Heidi Klum (uncertain) |
| Springing Love | Mariah Carey |
| Loved Spring | Sonya Kraus |
| Forced Love | Cindy Crawford |
| Loved Force | Madonna Ciccone |
* Note: It seems that the vertically aligned images follow the rule that the 'outer' ones do not appear as realistically bonded with.
Which means: Important: There are no Gender implications. Where it reads, at Brother for instance, that the person is giving, well, that isn't what is written there! Sacrifice is a synonym to Giving, and ... well ... it is to be understood in terms of the own emotions and nothing worldly. The worldly aspect may add a certain flair or flavour to it. So does 'yielding' not say that "she" is submissive or so. It means that she is 'yielding' emotional attraction, for instance. The problem is to keep the formulations as neutral as possible.
The two Worlds
Well, two worlds is a bad play. Yet there is inside and outside. When thinking 'inside' the idea is basically centered onto the individual while 'outside' does depending on the own stuff stand in context to the context the individuals are contextuall contexted in. Both do arguably play a 50:50 role to the individual, where so there is the idea of the own self unfolding without any loyalties, free of everything - at least in hypothesis - or the same once more within some form of something. A simple 'real life' example could be that one has a wife - the Partner - then he/she meets the Partnered Spouse and boom, betrayal, illoyalty, devorce, tears, sadness, regret, broken life, game over. Or he/she finds some Kink, keeps looking around in some darker corners, finds a domina/sub, devorce, exagerated pleasure, crash, catastrophy, game over. Or maybe attending a party, meeting someone, going to the toilet, forgetting to lock it up, ... etc.. This isn't to advocate illoyality - it is at first, when approached productively, a roadmap to see what life may hold in stores; Or a chart to see why concepts of Love are so different. It all depends on the individual background. I've had them all without having any of them ... well! No catastrophy, but, is it therefore the better alternative? Game Over anyway!
(btw.: The two "empty" fields ... aren't only 2! Technically maybe if there had to be 4x5 respectively, well - but it isn't so that all on the 'the One' line for instance do in any way relate to anything concerning 'the One'. So I personally understand it as 'air', as life is changing, open, dynamic - and not (to be) narrowed down to a scheduled automated mechanism of ways to go. That doesn't say that there is any attachment, it is more so, the un-attachment.)
The greater conflict so is that as an individual we only have one inside and one outside - effectively. In that sense each partnership is its own individual 'inside', more or less, while some depend more and others less on an outside. Yet what matters is that the outside does, when asking for the own individual pleasure therein, happen to be the more or less basic and refined structure. It is the own individual emotional plane or the filter through which we objectively behold emotional belonging, independent to individual emotional attractors.
Introducing Real Life ...
As of yet - well - seems difficult, but, to certain degree possible. In terms of my Lover I know that - assuming that its real - there is a certain mutually recognized awkwardness in parting ways, including a very dominant urge to stick around and the corresponding potential to a given period of 'love-sickness' that is fed through confusing circumstances that break the ideal of mutual attraction and synergy. This 'imbalance' is matter of fact supposed to be somewhere - my oppinion - as a polarized relationship does in general tend to exist within some form of tension.
This tension is expected to be natural and in way a product of the individuals individuality - equally a prime reason for not betting on 'the one and only' to be a thing, aside of who is 'the one and only' at a given point in time - more or less - ontop of which there is the Partner.
I assume that within each of these alignments it so happens that at some point the relationship gets stuck as it would tend to move into any of the possible directions. An occurance has 'brandmarked' my mind though to think of my Partner as who is most important, first of all, next to which I'm forced to believe that there is no structure or organization to speak of. The individual is the individual, and not a slot on some card-board table.
It so seems to be "Act 4" to close the book and understand how to keep a relationship tight rather than spinning around blindly following arbitrary impulses that need to be supressed in favour of the presence. At least that is the general idea I'm having now as next interest. As it all does though yet confuse me, 'the One' is 'the One', where it may be the individual or the emotion that makes me feel most comfortable there.
Stardate 55290.23183