Have you ever been in love?

A favorite band of mine says, "When they swear their love is real, they mean 'I like the way you make me feel.'" I don't think I have found myself at such utter disagreement with this particular band before. I have a girl now, who I am in love with. She is a 5' 4 1/2" tall almost blond actress and singer, whom I have know since before high school. I found myself at an impasse with this band because of the impact this girl has had on my life. I had feelings for her, for a long time before we actually had a "boyfriend/girlfriend" relationship. Yet still, I wished her happiness in every relationship I saw her in. Even though I knew the boy(s) was(were) not right for her. To me, that his how I simply define love. I define it as a selfless thing, and by no means am I saying I am selfless, but I am saying I will do my best to be. That is why I disagree with this mewithoutYou (this is the name of the band to which I was referring) quote. When I think of love, I find a meaning in the word deeper than any attachment of another kind. Although love is affected by the way you feel being around your significant other, the way you feel (immediately) is not a determining factor. Love is not a feeling, it is a lifestyle. One of my favorite quotes (from a yet undetermined source, because of my lack of memory skills) pertaining to love is "I love you, I may be mad as hell at you, but I'll still love you." You don't choose who you love, you simply discover. When you find love, it's almost like they say in the movies. Maybe a little less glamourous, but when you find it, you know. You know because it's no longer about something you want. Love is about finding that someone that it hurts to be apart from. Finding the someone who can reciprocate the burning desire to be in their presence at all times. It is a needy thing, to be in love. It is utter dependancy upon a person, a person you can talk to, a person you can be with, a person you can share a night with, and never feel out of place around. As I said, love is a lifestyle, rather than a thing you can fall in and out of. When you find that special someone, you know that they are right when you will fight to keep them in your life, when you would do anything just for the opportunity to see their face every day. Love is the concious decision to share your life with another person. To be in love is to make provisions for the future, and include the person without a second thought. Love is the stubborn refusal to give up. Love is the decency to see to another human beings happiness before your own, simply because you feel that they should be happy. Love is not sweating the small stuff. Love is loving the person right where they are. Memorizing every scratch and bruise they got along the journey of their life, and filling in their faults with a little bit of yourself.

To end my blog about love, I will end it with another of my favorite quotes pertaining to love:

"You really shouldn't say 'I love you' unless you mean it. But if you mean it, you should say it a lot. People forget."

Jessica - age 8

Okay, I lied, a FEW of my favorite quotes about love.

"Love is when you tell a guy you like his shirt, then he wears it everyday."

Noelle - age 7

"Love is what makes you smile when you're tired."

Terri - age 4

In an Infinite Timeline

The Concept of Infinite

If you can wrap your mind around the concept of infinite, then you understand that everything imaginable will happen in an infinite timeline. The most remote thing you can imagine, for instance the common idiom “when pigs fly”, if you believe in an infinite timeline, pigs will fly at some point in the future, or have already flown in the past. The interesting thing about an infinite timeline is that every choice begins a new splinter in the timeline. In the morning when I go to pick out a t-shirt, there is an infinite number of choices creating new timelines along the way. One choice may be a blue shirt, one choice a red, and one a green. The interesting thing is that in an infinite timeline, the infinite part is defined by an infinite number of choices in each situation in life. Perhaps instead of picking a blue shirt, I take the blue shirt out, light it on fire, and wear the green shirt. This decision affects the rest of my life because in an instance in an alternate timeline where I wear this blue shirt, I cannot be wearing that shirt because I destroyed it. If a series of events happens while I wear the blue shirt, it may happen the exact same way in the timeline I destroyed the blue shirt in, but I will be wearing the green shirt, causing it to be a different timeline altogether. I call these instances “singly displaced events”. Singly displaced events are, as previously mentioned, events happening in multiple timelines that have only one differing factor. When I say Infinite timeline, it holds a dual meaning. The term infinite applies to the chronological length of the timeline, but also applies to the infinite splintering of the universe based on the choices of individuals. Say that every day, 6 billion people make one choice, with only two options. (This is an unrealistic happenstance because I have just discussed how choices are infinite in themselves). If there are two choices to each person, that is already 12 billion separate timelines created in only a single choice per human being on the planet earth. This situation is unrealistic because human beings make more than a single choice in a day, and also because even if a person did make a single choice, there are still an infinite amount of ways in which the decision could be made causing the time stream to fracture and create new time streams.

The Physicality of the Time Streams

I believe that the different time streams are simply different in happenings, not in physical location. This is similar to, say, a two dimensional plane. In a two dimensional plane, lines exist. Because of its lack of the third dimension, depth, separate lines may exist on top of each other, but still be separate lines. When you draw a “single” line on a sheet of paper, who is to say that there is only one line? If you can create something on a two dimensional surface, than you can create an infinite amount of things. The actual physical presence of a timeline is just a “single” two dimensional line. When I refer to the “splintering” of a timeline, I merely refer to the discovery of another piece of an infinite two dimensional line. There is no definite “end” or “beginning” to the time stream. A line, especially when graphed on a Cartesian Plane, is defined as what we know as a line, with arrows on each end. This is the second definition of why time streams are infinite, because as we know, two dimensional lines stretch on indefinitely. This also applies Euclidian geometry to time, causing the idea of geometrical lines to be applied to time.

So what do you think?
Are we living in a three dimensional world within a two dimensional existence?

Post-script: In response to the question about whether or not I believe time is circular (a.k.a. the Déjà Vu Effect)

I believe time is entirely linear, but that similar things can happen in each timeline. Say in one timeline, I get in a car wreck. In an infinite timeline, the exact same car wreck is bound to happen over and over again, making it seem as though the timeline is circular, when in actuallity, the "pioneering" end of the timeline, that is the end that is moving forward, is still at a different place than it was than the last time I experienced this wreck. So the same thing may happen, but because a line does not double back upon itself, we do not have a circular timeline.

Prevent the Failure of History: Approach People With Facts, Not Beliefs

In today's society, when someone dies, they are either heroized or vilified. I realized this upon the death of the King of Pop, Michael Jackson. I watched the coverage of his memorial service, which was closed casket, and realized that when a person dies, people lose all feelings of condemnation, hatred, or any type of negative feeling towards the deceased. Now, I'm not saying we need to air dirty laundry at funerals, by any means. I am just stating that there needs to be truth used when we approach the memory of a dead person, and collect the facts of their life, not smooth over their rough spots. I am not saying that Michael Jackson was a child molester because, in fact, I believe he was innocent. He was, however, ACCUSED of child molestation. Now I know that each person is entitled to their own opinion, but I also believe that it should stay the same no matter what fortune befalls said party. When MJ died, hypocrites came out of the woodwork to say things about him, but mostly his fans remembered him. And by fans, I mean the people that refused to believe Jackson was even on trial. Those that see him still as that light skinned boy in a white suit off of the "Thriller" album cover. This unfortunate process of mourning practiced by his fans seems to leave the impression that Jackson was not an entertainer, but rather a god who happened to grace the earth. While I don't agree with that statement, I am not condemning MJ. That would be like saying that even though Saddam Hussein died, he had many redeeming qualities and should have been kept alive. Bringing up Saddam presents the second point of this blog, however. When people who aren't in such "high" places die, they tend to be vilified. When a convicted murderer dies, people are able to justify it in their minds by saying "Oh, well he was a murderer, and evil, its okay," when in actuality, the man was someones' father, someones' brother, someones' son. Just like I said I was not codemning Michael Jackson, I shall also say that I am not trying to bring about the pardoning of criminals. Entertainers are still entertainers, and criminals are still criminals, I am just trying to bring into the realization of everyones' mind that history is often skewed by the heroization or vilification of people after passing. This is why history seems so cut and dry. In WWII, the Axis were villains, and the Allies were heroes, but my grandfather brought up an interesting point the other day. When the Allies cracked the German code, they found out that the Germans were going to bomb the English city of Coventry. Here is where the heroization of Winston Churchill becomes a little shaky. Churchill is said to have sacrificed the city, knowing full well that it was about to be bombed, and decided to do nothing so that the Germans did not know their code had been cracked. Also, you would be chilled to the bone to find out how much modern medicine is based off of Nazi discoveries while studying in concentration and death camps. Both sides in this war have been called heros and villains, but in the end, all they were is a victor and a loser. This is the way that I believe the studying of the life of deceased people should happen, calmly approached with fact, so we can prevent the failure of our historical records due to inaccurate recording because of the heroiztion or vilification of certain figures in history. All of this work was due to the appreciation of Michael Jackson, and the chaotic events that lead me to create a blog.

Post-script: an explanation of the title.

This posting is called prevent the Prevent the Failure of History: Approach People With Facts, Not Beliefs because I believe that people should meet people or remember people as they were, not as they believed they were. If someone writes a book with evidence saying that Michael Jackson really did molest a child, and presents proof, I will change my opinion of him because I want to remember him as he was, not as the innocent man I believe he is.