4.19.07

when in love, it is hard to push out of the mind any notion of a mystical world with cosmic or previously-fated elements to it. in fact, love itself seems, to the individual experiencing it, evidence enough of the presence of such things in the world as fate and destiny and alignment; even of the "rightness" of something. love, often so brutally imperfect, is still somehow the standard for perfection to which we hold everything that is subsequently encountered. why is that which we put most care into not that which is most good for us, or the safest bet, or the most comfortable route? in many cases, love itself is horrible for us, sometimes even to a degree which will destroy careers or sleep habits or mental health or physical health. love drives men to drink and it drives women to shop and go on diets. furthermore, if fate were to exist, it would seem even more strange that the subject of someone's love might be someone so horrible for them in so many ways. wouldn't fate function by way of convenience and simplicity and an intent to maximize the happiness of all? obviously it does not, if it exists, and yet the sanctity and absolute gloriousness of fate's most agonizing concoction seems nothing short of its magnum opus in the eyes of the lucky soul selected to experience such agony. it is not chosen; yet once it is experienced, the individual might realize that it is, in fact, what he would choose, were he to have a choice in the matter.

perhaps the individual's motivations are selfish after all. consider this: what if the individual's ultimate goal, sometimes consciously but more often subconsciously, is to be the best person he it can be? paying our solemn respects to the more believable theories encompassed by darwinism might make this seem a more viable possibility. assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is the case: love can serve as a motivator for the act of self-betterment. this would also explain why fate (if he exists at all) does not allow us to fall in love with someone that would be easy to obtain, assuming that fate and darwinism (both of them only gentlemen in our cast at the moment for the sake of speculation and contemplation, and not as a result of evidence or application of faith or belief) both have the betterment of the self as their respective ends, and assuming that fate and darwinism are not combatting forces (which is a scary thought and might lead us to believe that the least able and the least astute might be the most likely to triumph: a suggestion which is depressing to say the least, but a hypothesis for which our modern-day culture would easily provide ample evidence). further championing the notions of fate and also of the more-acceptable aspects of darwinism, we might say this: fate instigates our falling in love with the most difficult and unattainable of individuals, that we might struggle more and, as a result of our struggle, be better human beings. furthermore, fate does not introduce us with situations that SEEM hopeless, so as to not deflate our respective wills to become better human beings. it seems, then, that the ideal candidate for a subject-of-love is that person which causes us the most strife, whom we want the most, whom we are most-easily tricked into thinking we can obtain (with a little work and self-improvement), and whom we are least likely to actually end up with or recieve peace-of-mind from.

this seems a quite believable and quite terrifying possibiltiy. in fact, i would tie love and the prospect of total atomic destruction at the top of the list of things that are most inevitable and, at the same time, most tragic. perhaps love and atomic explosions are, too, of equal force.