Human ineraction

Naturally people are interconnected and marginalised into a system that connects people in the way that they do not want to be connected; nothing is improved for the lonely people by visiting the venues whereby social interactions are meant to happen - in fact it can cause a lonely person to feel more isolated than that of before. Throughout the course of this blog post my intention is to address why forming relationships can - of course - be a very difficult endeavor for lonely, reasonably intelligent people.
Firstly people are the products of their own presupposed shyness or will to be outgoing. What you'll come to recognise within shy people is that of the product of years upon years of being too scared of interacting with other people out of fear of being rejected from social circles (to over-analyse such requires time to oneself and the ability to engage at such a height of thought). Is it surprising how the failure to establish meaningful connections between people is often the culprit of depression? You may ponder upon life and death and neither of the two may seem appealing, life truly only has a meaning if there is something worth your death - however for the recluse that can believe - to some level - that things will improve, their present state of existence should exist in that, relatively transcendent, area between life and death. Quite often it is necessary for the person that has been grounded to shyness by the twist of the pessimistic coil to immerse themselves into a new culture, where one can re-invent their image, before they're able to adopt the outgoing frame of mind. This is because existence at this plane - the human - is only given the substance from within the minds of other people from within what would appear to be the space caused by the collision of heaven and hell; in physical existence there may be a lot of versions of a person per se, but that is only an existence as interpreted by the minds of other people, and the person may be approached by the by-product of thinking. Some people, however, are naturally deluded.
Furthermore to the point people can be deluded into believing that their lifestyles are what brings them satisfaction and perhaps joy at one level or another - the stereotypical, bland middle class lifestyle coupled with the occasional dilatation set in by little pleasures such as purchasing a new car, engaging in sexual intercourse or having coffee with a friend. Such people are neither right nor wrong in what they do, but it does raise a very valid point to my attention - these people are very well conditioned to the prisons for their minds, the social structure has within itself an axis which is a system of related objects - suggestible, seductive yet perishable and potent. To the person who can cast their attention to that which is out with the box this aforementioned truth can be distressing - it extends therefore that your existence is only meant to be geared towards goals that are superficial; can YOU be a unique snowflake in the blizzard? Your heart, it is slowly filling up like a landfill site. However if you wish to live the popular life then you have to be a likable person and that can mean appealing to what most people enjoy (ever envy people who enjoyed sport day at school?), you don't have to patronise if you're naturally a wordsmith (monosyllabic words and not a lot else in a sentence can become uninteresting quickly) yet you need not give a thesis to one as to how they can overcome their cataracts - even if you have a PHD and are a qualified clinical optician. The consensus here is that if you can be humble, warm and approachable in appearance and ever-so-slightly mysterious (few people like the recluse that hardly speaks a word yet is rumoured to read Being & Time and also Descartes) then people should come to you, yes? You could try, but do you ever just walk up to friendly looking people and let ad libbed conversation ensue between you both? Perhaps but there's only a handful of people who have this glow, this charm or this charisma. This glow appears to be an inherent factor, one hard coded right from the deoxyribonucleic acid but who knows? Commitment is a two-way street and both parties must be willing to do their bit if the association is to flourish, and what a way to bring me onto my next point of discussion - love.
Love is basically the act of desiring the whole, as both males and females would wish for - it concerns the neurology of we. Artistically love can be called the movement of the heart, however the difference between the who and the what (read some Derrida if this concept captivates you) causes a split in the presupposed heart of either the male or the female; does your heart shift itself because you fancy someone who is an absolute singularity, or because of what you love about the way that person is through their actions, their personality and possibly their fruition? Whoever starts to love, is loving or is ceasing to love someone else is really caught within the battleground, the void, between the who and the what of the fancied person. One wants nothing more to be irreplaceable and quintessentially attractive to the one they desire, but fidelity can be threatened by the division between the who and the what, of course. Relationships of any category, however, are at the base level the flow of information and energy between two people and love - after all - is a type of relationship. Genuine love derives itself from a person's vast knowledge of their beloved object, whether it is a person, representative entity of a human, at any plane, a music band, a TV show, some fetish or attraction to an inanimate object or a subject at school, but love on the level of a human relationship is a game of two players; oftentimes it can be difficult for socially challenged persons to display the desirable qualities to the opposite sex - as these attributes are crystallized within the somewhat painful chore of appearing confident within oneself. Perhaps if the two people walk far enough, with a decent pair of shoes, then a mutual attraction could occur - but let’s not regret what we were too scared to try. There's a myth perpetrated by the media and it is that of which tells us that "there's someone for everyone." This, of course, is a fallacy; it is like a doctrine of religious belief that single, confused people cling to because they're convinced that all that determination and hard work will pay off, some day. They're always receptive and vigilant towards the possibility that the next man or woman that they meet could be the one, but then again whoever is "the one" now may not be "the one" in - say - five years time from now. Love is something that appears to be disposable, but I blame first world society for that. These days it is all too easy for us to replace our broken kitchen appliances, computers and mobile phones without giving repair even a thought. As we look back to British history and we focus on the anthropological aspects of love, therefore commitment, we can conclude that people repaired what was broken.
In conclusion, to keep it short and snappy, my latest blog post hopefully threw some light on a neglected facet of the human condition. I know my point wasn't really theological on the surface, but I do - however - recommend that you do read Psalm 139 if you're a Christian.
Anyway, I've wrote more than I had an intention to write ;)