My eye bags are huge. They're disgusting. And yet I continue staying up until 2 in the morning for absolutely no reason.
Every time after my Rational Social Choice class, I come home and sit on my bed with my laptop and do absolutely nothing. It's so tiring, coming home after that class, because those two and a half hours spent concentrating and trying to comprehend what's going on are extremely tiring. Really. Today's class was interesting though, and I kind of understand, but when we got to that funny graph with the indifference curves and the 45 degrees line representing the judgment continuum I was all, What the fuck? What the hell is x and y? Where the hell did z' come from? I understand what it represents; I just don't understand how it represents that which it represents.
So. Confusing. I hate anything that ostensibly has the slightest thing to do with mathematics.
Evidence was rather boring. I really don't like going for lectures because the LT is too crowded and I don't know, I just don't like it. And uh, yeah, I'm wondering if I should bother going for Friday's 9.30 AM lecture because the lecturer is that certain Contract lecturer. But I suppose the upside is, it'd be funny.
I think the whole single-peakedness and value restriction thingy makes quite a lot sense. Basically, it says in a society of three individuals, unless there is a judgment continuum along which they formulate differing positions, you will have an unstable society. The point to this continuum is that we agree on the issue that we're disagreeing on. Take as an example the age-old censorship debate. Society is stable if we can all agree that the issue at hand is the degree of censorship that should be present; but if one person deviates from that and thinks that the issue is whether society would gain anything from censorship, then we get an unstable society. There's this complicated proof involved that brings in letters and graphs which I won't go into because it's freaking confusing, but even without all of that, it makes a lot of sense. Two people agree on something, but someone else comes into the picture with something different to bring to the debate and destabilises everything.
The problem, of course, is that when we're trying to make decisions in society, the thing that we're trying to decide on is multi-dimensional. There isn't merely ONE angle to the picture; there are many angles, many perspectives.
And that really sucks. Because it's not just a problem that plagues society; it's something that we have to deal with as individuals as well.
But I don't really know what I'm talking about so never mind that.
I'm a bit worried about the 15-page research paper I have to hand in in October, which is 100% of my grade for this course. Because honestly? I have no idea what the point is, what the overarching theme is. And until I figure that out, I don't have an opinion on anything. And until I get an opinion, I don't have a paper.
Hopefully something reveals itself to me soon, or I'd be royally screwed.
Somehow, I still feel a bit empty. I made this choice with my own interests at heart, but it's not really about his absence from my life per se; it's about how everything is just over, just like that. And it's strange, and it's something I still can't reconcile, something I still can't figure out, incomprehensible twists and turns and random surprises. Unpleasant surprises.
Maybe I'd feel differently if I had someone too, but is it supposed to work like that? I don't know how it's supposed to work. And my biggest fear is to get involved with someone else, just to find out that I'm still in love with my ex.
Oh, fuck it. What does it matter.
That aside, something else bugs me, albeit vaguely so, but that doesn't matter either.
I think these are words to remember in times of desolation, desperation, and depression:
O ME! O life!... of the questions of these recurring;
Of the endless trains of the faithless - of cities fill'd with the foolish;
Of myself forever reproaching myself, (for who more foolish than I, and who more faithless?)
Of eyes that vainly crave the light - of the objects mean - of the struggle ever renew'd;
Of the poor results of all - of the plodding and sordid crowds I see around me;
Of the empty and useless years of the rest - with the rest me intertwined;
The question, O me! so sad, recurring�What good amid these, O me, O life?
That you are here - that life exists, and identity;
That the powerful play goes on, and you will contribute a verse.
O Me! O Life!, Leaves of Grass, Walt Whitman
Dead Poets Society misquoted the last two lines. In the film it was "...the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse."
Whoever wrote the screenplay deserves to be slapped for making that crucial mistake.
"...and you will contribute a verse" (emphasis mine) is so much more forceful, uplifting, and inspiring.
I still love poetry, I still love Literature. It remains rock solid and dependable when all else fails.