but everything's my fault

Song currently on endless loop: "Save Me," Unwritten Law

Any of you heard it? I simply adore the introduction; I hear so much of my own depression in the passionate despair. It's psychologically interesting, too, because it brings something I often ponder to the titular fore: "You can't save me/you can't change me." There's such an unquestionable consensus in our society that any attempts to change others are, at best, foolish and often even offensive. I mean, just look at how people criticize us for sending out missionaries. Or how Lacie got so upset about the vegetarianism debate. And the only difference between us is Perceiving/Judging, which doesn't seem to fully explain it, though I can understand why she would consider her conclusions more sacrosanct. Perhaps my openness to redefinition is actually indicative of my character disorder, actually; i.e., I don't mind changing my opinions because I don't feel guilty for having originally held false ones. Hmmmm, I can definitely see neurotic/judging and character disorder/perceiving correlations, now that I consider it, but I don't think it goes far enough to explain ideological emotionality. Nor do I think this is just about Thinking/Feeling, either; Lacie's a thinker, if a weak one.

Indeed, I think perhaps the best paradigm in which to capture this distinction is that treated in Why Marriages Succeed or Fail. The author asserts that there are three types of stable marriages, namely apostles, prophets, past--rather, namely volatile, validating, and conflict-avoidant. Validating, of course, is the stereotypical healthy marriage, one in which every comment starts with "I feel" and ends with "but I see how you could feel that." Volatile describes those unions fraught with anger but equally brimming with affection, and conflict-avoidant pairs are the antipode, relationships based on an agreement to disagree.

It's quite a fundamental characteristic, I think; though Lacie and I did a fairly good job validating, my tendency toward volatility and her predilection for conflict avoidance are both fairly evident in retrospect. Indeed, I should quite support the addition of a fifth letter to Myers-Briggs typing: Volatile/Avoidant. The letters aren't taken yet, happily. I dunno, though; perhaps it can be explained simply in terms of TP. If that's the case, then the normal advice to seek one's opposite in P/J is poor counsel. Thoughts?

Mmmmkay, I think it's time to introduce Jen. We met in comments on Marshall Hunt's entries. She's a Utahn living in Spanish Fork and currently attending UVSC to be close to family, planning on transferring next year. BYU's definitely out, but she's considering U of U or ASU, being a geography/linguistics double major and knowing that they both have excellent geog programs. She's also been accepted for transfer to Harvard and Yale, though. Got a 32 and a 34 on the ACT. 5'6", British Isles blood. Speaks Spanish, French, and ASL.

Yeah, though, that's just the glossary entry (speaking of which...expect the framebeast to reawaken shortly). More relevantly, we appear to be unprecedentedly compatible. She's an ENFJ (like Toasteroven, w00t), which is one of my ideal matches, and though EJs kind of intimidate me, her Feeling softens her admonitions very nicely. Honestly, she's just *so* sweet to me. For example, the other day I mentioned how nice the rain outside was, and she joked, "Well, if rain makes you happy, we'll live in Washington!" Sigh, it's SO nice to have someone consider my depression as inviting amelioration rather than scorn. Perhaps that's just because I haven't worn her out yet, but I feel very much that I've found someone unparalleledly loving.

Her mind's rockingly flexible; she has far more talent for adopting different voices in writing than I do (a weakness on my part that tends to irritate me). Likewise, she shares my rare combination of faithfulness and countercultural cynicism; it's always refreshing to me seeing someone pensive rejoice in the Gospel, and I enjojy many such moments with her. By countercultural, I certainly don't mean that she's weird; on the contrary, she's precisely the snowskating, guitar-playing, aggressively normal girl I need to help shed my "well, if society doesn't value me, then society blows" anti-normality attitude. She just has the instinctive opposition to Utahn conformity of any normal intellectual.

Something sort of gave me pause about the whole thing the other day, though: I was talking to Geneva, and she mentioned, "Wow, we sure get along well when we're interested in other people." I agreed, adding, "I especially like the part about having time apart so I can outgrow my poutiness and when we're both single again you fall madly in love with me." We laughed, but it had enough verisimilitude that I stopped for a moment and thought to myself, "Friend, aren't you perhaps being unfair to Jen, using her to kill time?" After a moment's reflection, though, I realized that, notwithstanding the number of absolutely amazing girls I've considered of late, I'd rather have Jen than any of them. She's darling, quick-witted, affectionate, and quick to open up to me for discussion of her preferences and ponderings. Bloody well comely, too. It's really *quite* nice to be able to say that confidently.

Hmmmm. Not going to force a transition here. I've been thinking lately about how Dr. Laura Schlessinger contends that one of the stupid things people do in relationships is wanting a parent in their spouse; e.g. men wanting their wives to mother them. It meshes very nicely with the concept from Emotional Intelligence of self-nurture, the idea that we learn how to regulate our emotions from our parents' soothing words. I'm definitely experiencing that of late; it's wonderful to feel myself start to grow unstable and hear from the deepness of my subconscious not "Fool. You pompous cur, thinking you can wrestle with real philosophy," but "Shhhhhh. It's okay, bud. That's not important right now," like a mother quieting her son's anxiety as she tucks him in before his first day of school. Perhaps this is the core of the advice to find yourself before finding your soulmate.

Reader involvement section! We had a fun little exercise in morphology & phonology the other day decoding jargon into common proverbs. See if you can provide the translation for one or two.

"Pulchritude possesses solely cutaneous profundity."
"The temperature of the aqueous content of an unremittingly ogled cooking container does not reach 212 degrees Fahrenheit."
"Individuals who make their abode in vitreous edifices would be advised to refrain from catapulting petrous projectiles."
"All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous."
"Where there are visible vapors having their province in ignited carbonaceous material, there is conflagration."
"A revolving lithic conglomerate accumulates no glaucous bryophytic plants."
"Freedom from incrustations of grime is contiguous to divinity."
"Missiles of ligneous or porous consistency have the potential of fracturing my osseous structure, but appelations will eternally be benign."
"Surveillance should precede saltation."
"A plethora of individuals with expertise in culinary techniques vitiates the potable concoction produced by steeping comestibles."
"The person presenting the ultimate chachinnation possesses thereby the optimal cachinnation."
"Eschew the implement of correction and vitiate the scion."