Analyze These

[Sampaguita]

About the single mother thing... I don't know what I'd do. I'd like to think that I'd deal as best as I could and love my child no matter whose it was and the circumstances surrounding the birth. But I really don't know.

I'd really want the man that I love to be there every step of the way-- just like Angela said.

Speaking of Gilmore Girls, could someone please fill me in on what's been going on with that show lately. I haven't really watched since Rory shouted "Go be somebody else's dad" to Christopher.

This got me thinking about what I want out of life. I want a career in academia at a prestigious university and to be as widely published (if not more so) than my mentor-- as a music and cultural critic. I want a husband that I can actually have an intelligent discussion with... Beautiful, healthy, and happy children... A comfortable lifestyle... to be happy...

Look at me-- being prosaic.

[Angelamyte]

if you want hilarious recaps of any of your favourite shows..go to www.televisonwithoutpity.com

..gilmour girls is there.. ;D

[Mandragora]

Okay, okay... just one of my favorite questions, quoting from "Vanilla Sky", as Julia Gianni (Cameron Diaz) asks David Aames (Tom Cruise):

"What is happiness to you, (insert your name here)?"

I think... the time I remember being happy WHILE in-love was like this collection of the little things... you know, he was driving, I was on the passenger seat, and he let me choose the station or the music; our conversations on the phone that seemed to go nowhere but you still refuse to hang up; when we talked about particular songs, and then those crazy analyses... then all of a sudden it was gone, and then I wanted this closure, but then I find out later on that he went out on a date with this girl and they saw "Tomb Raider"... and then the next day he was telling me that I was like Lara Croft.

But NOW, I guess, happiness for me is spending time with a good book with great music, going out with my sister or friends and discussing 'the future' and the fact that 'the future' is now up to our ears, falling in-love with a marvelous film, being underwater, climbing up a terrain... and companionship without that much expectation. Sometimes it can boil down to a small thing such as a very funny comic strip (Ah, Mother Goose and Grimm and Snoopy and Friends! Dilbert!)

I guess the hard thing about being IN-love is the demand or desire for reciprocation. Loving plainly, without the complications, is easier... but then it's never easy because as humans BEING, we are in this eternal search for the 'real thing'.

But isn't THIS, I mean, where we are now, the 'real thing'?

Oh I should stop, if not, this is going to turn into an essay or a rebuttal to the likes of Bridget Jones. But mind you, I like Bridget Jones. She's pathetically mad.

[MsPoet]

Mandragora said:

"What is happiness to you, (insert your name here)?"

But isn't THIS, I mean, where we are now, the 'real thing'?

Ahh, Mandragora---there you have it. It's not that we are completely alone----we are, instead, complete, alone---or alone, complete.

I read somewhere that happiness isn't necessarily an ongoing state. "Contentment" can be an ongoing state, but happiness generally isn't. Which makes sense to me, when I consider times I've been happy:

~~when I read of OOTP's release date last week
~~when I finish a poem
~~when I'm painting, and I stop and really look at it closely
~~when that one song (a commercial--not a car commercial btw) comes on the tv and I have to get up and dance to it

The 'trick' is---to not realize *now* what made us happy in the past---but to remember now that we *did* realize it then, as it was happening.

:)Donna

[Mandragora]

Yes... SEIZE THE DAY!

As of now... I just want to get that stupid degree, which I doubt I will practice anyway. Now is not exactly a happy state, especially in the midst of confusion. But well, being neither content nor happy... it's like being in suspension, and restlessness can be utterly draining. Sometimes it feels better to stay in bed! Argh!

It's sad, in a way, that I am happy with what I read, listen to, and see in film... I am happy with the medium and the message across... but sometimes when it leaves you it feels empty and your own thoughts echo in your insides, and the flesh feels getting eaten away... but you're still supposed to be composed!

Oh well, speaking of tricks, one that I know of is simply to keep breathing despite the winter of discontent.

Great, now I am doing Richard III... my kingdom for a horse! My effing I-don't-know-what for an effing I-don't-know-what either!

[Sampaguita]

OMG!!!!! I just saw the ghost of a lingering (unrequited) love while watching the latest episode of Dawson's Creek.

It was the moment when Dawson took control of his rebellious underlings and threatened to fire everyone. God, I miss Buddy!

How do you know when you're waiting for someone?

(not that I think that's what I'm doing with Buddy)

[Mandragora]

Waiting is probably one of those states where you are not only suspended in air, but you are also heavy with the burden of your thoughts on hopes with the matching internal conflict. It is a vacuum-state; you know where you want to go, but you cannot just take the initial step to move.

It also makes you feel light because of the prospect of something new or a new direction. But you refuse to move. Why? Because of that 'what-if' hanging and hovering over and about your head!

I am starting not to make sense

[dulcinea]

yeesus. i disappear for a couple of weeks, and suddenly we're getting into deep intellectual conversations?

nice ;D

if i may weigh in - and i think that could be a bad idea, but i shall do it anyway - i don't believe in love whatsoever. basically, love is just a product of the level of thought we've achieved as human beings. But don't forget that, aside from the brain, humans are still animals (sorry to anyone who does not believe in evolution... just my opinions here), with the basic needs for food, water, shelter, and procreation to advance the species. procreation has nothing to do with a good mind, or a kind disposition, or any of the things love is so strongly based on - it's all physical. love is a construct that we've formed around that fleeting physical attraction to support a woman's need for shelter and support immediately following the birth of her children (at one time), since human children must be raised for so much longer than animals.

now i bet most of you will be thinking "nuts, man. she's been burned. at least third-degree." but honestly, that's what i believe. all burn-scars aside.

[Mandragora]

You have a point there, Dulcinea, though while reading it I started picturing images out of National Geographic ;D Love has always been based on needs, it's that classic "I love you because I need you" thing and turning it around sounds romantic but quite questionable. Looking at love in black and white boils it down to level two of human basic needs: the precursor to THE basic needs.

That's what I figure out about Elisabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy... Lizzie will soon HAVE TO marry and someone's offering a matrimonial bed in a beautiful and large manor. Why not? The chase is fun, there's a prize somewhere; for the winner, self-assurance, and the loser, the consolation of experience. It's dog-eat-dog, dog-chasing-his-own-tail.

But then, I want to believe somewhat that IT will happen because love, whatever that is, has brought life to mankind, from the good things to the bad. I believe that the greatest music and literature and art and architecture is pretty much based on love, even on the mere question of its existence. I want to challenge the whole concept of love and juxtapose it with reality.

In the case of romantic love... I think, personally, since that I am pretty much used being alone most of the time, I want to have a love that will not question the essence of individuality but instead stress it. The statement, "You complete me" - eclahvu is something that I do NOT agree on... my reasons for loving is not because somebody completes me because if that's the case, I'd probably be a wobbly creature minus the spine, which I am not. I want love to highlight my beingness, NOT point out my weaknesses and then have it like my salvation. Maybe love is the only redemption, but I believe no one else will redeem you except yourself.

Yeah, cynics, cynics, cynics....

[dulcinea]

oh, but that's not cynicism, that's the truth. if you need someone else to validate your own sense of self, that's just sad. it's impossible to truly love someone if you don't even know yourself.

and i want to believe in love as well. oh, do i ever. i love certain people - my family, more than anything. my closest friends. my dog (heheh). but no feeling of romance has ever come close to the sheer, overwhelming power of that emotion - so is it really love? could it be possible to be too close to your family, because it sets up an unattainable vision of what love is?

i like to think that i don't need anyone. as such, i don't find myself *wanting* anyone a lot of the time, since wanting something i don't need is basically just a craving, which i consider weak.

whoo. wanna talk cynicism? yikes.

[Mandragora]

I just HATE Valentine' s Day... not because I am bitter about it, which is I am NOT, it' s just so SILLY. Why can't they just serenade each other on other days? And why do they keep playing those stupid lovesongs? I mean, I don' t mind hearing Tuck and Pattie and EBTG and Norah Jones, but WHY do they always keep playing that utterly high school songs "King and Queen of Hearts" and "Got to Believe in Magic"?

Augh, it's like there's this pressure in the air you have to have a Valentine... think am gonna start an Anti-Valentine's Day Movement in school, nyahahaha

[dulcinea]

it's funny, my high school always did candygrams on valentine's day - it was like a dollar to buy one, and "cupids" from student council or spirit club would hand them out during classes on the 14th. you could even request to have your message read out loud. always good, mortifying fun.

but my point was, my dad teaches at the school, so he would always send me one to cheer me up because valentine's day is such a miserable day for the perpetually single. all these girls with candygrams from their boyfriends would circle around me and say "oh my god, who got *YOU* a candygram?" and my face would go all red and i would have to say "my dad."

i never understood then how they could be jealous of me. but if i could go back in time, i think i would feel smug rather than embarassed.

[MsPoet]

dulcinea said:

basically, love is just a product of the level of thought we've achieved as human beings......procreation has nothing to do with a good mind, or a kind disposition, or any of the things love is so strongly based on - it's all physical.

Hmm....we ARE getting into deep intellectual conversations, aren't we?

Dulcinea, I agree that love is.....level of thought we've achieved, yes...there's something to that. However I don't think that procreation is all physical. It's interesting that you should mention what procreation is (in your opinion) because recently I've been considering what procreation is.

I think we've had it backwards.....love isn't due to procreation; procreation is due to love. In my (metaphysical/scientific etc) viewpoint, and what continues to be clearer to me everyday, is that we are all connected; there is no separation. Physicists are continuing their efforts to further explain the quantum connectiveness.

Thus, procreation is about (re)union. It's about getting back the self. It's about experiencing spiritual joy/release....not the need to procreate, but to (re)unite.....another way to look at it, of course, which just occurred to me now...is that the two coincide......it could be said there's a need to procreate because it involves the joyous experience.

This new view has made me look at things a little differently. Think of how many blatant sexual images are everywhere. It seems over-the-top (which much of it is), yet----it's spiritual at its core, this search for (re)union, the search for self.

(Hey, I didn't start this discussion-thread. LOL)

:)Donna

[Mandragora]

Aw come on, at some point I knew we would be discussing something like THIS (uhm, intellectually stimulating discussions?)... but then, I am not disappointed.

You see, at first I was here in this Message Board to have the scoop on Christian, but as time goes by, we're getting deeper than the usually discussions on Christian's talents, face, intelligence, etc... I mean, we can't forever talk about THAT, right? I quite wish though that Christian would join us at some point, not for the purpose of getting celebrity-struck (I am starting my work with REAL actors and celebrities, and I do not get 'struck'), but of course, it would be nice to get to know him more at this level. I think Christian is as human or even as silly as we are, he's not just some pretty face who plays this evil guy or this wimp or this deranged character who always gets killed in the movie.

I have visited other message boards, but considering this message board is for an actor, this MB is something. I mean, try going to MBs of The Spleen and other political MBs. When I started this thread I was quite thinking of having this one feel like a bar where we girls are virtually discussing things with thingytails in our hands and heads... oh well, just like when one gets drunk, it can range from the craziest to the utmost profound.

ANYWAY.

Why are we perpetually single again? I have to admit, I HAVEN'T committed myself to anyone at all (a guy once told me I am this girl in the glass box)... but WHY? Is it pickiness? Well... yeah, but I can defend that. But then, to all the other singletons here, why? Hasn't anyone hit us in the head? Would you want to be hit in the head? Enlighten us

[MsPoet]

Mandragora said:

Aw come on, at some point I knew we would be discussing something like THIS

But then, to all the other singletons here, why? Hasn't anyone hit us in the head? Would you want to be hit in the head? Enlighten us

Oh Mandragora, I didn't mean that comment of mine cruelly. Not at all.

As for me, a singleton, hmm....a reason is I AM very picky. I go out a lot by myself, but I am not going to go up to a guy in the grocery store just because he is visually attractive. And um, I figure if he doesn't notice me, then there's no point to it----I think that rationale has to do with the fact that the guys that really have meant something to me used to follow me around right after we met.

Also, here's another reason: the last guy I saw that I would've talked to was standing in line in front of me and my parents at a movie. The fact that I was with my parents wasn't the issue; not at all. The issue was that he was on a freakin' date. He was cute and had great hair and I saw him look at me. But he was on a date.

Here's another: lol....
How many young women do we all know that would settle for ANYONE? If everyone wouldn't 'settle,' we'd have a ton more singletons than there already are. Geez, think of the concept: quality being required!

:)Donna