Fresh off the Echoing Walls

Dear Chris,

I give you a non-response, a conversation still fresh on my mind and being recounted right now.

During the year, as I am told, I was displaying quite irregular behavior. My functions were quite discontinuous, as I flitted from girl to girl, violating standard rules and regulations regarding the rising and falling of interest in people while insofar treating them not as ends in themselves but as means to that end. This echo of Kant resonated with me and made me question my actions, and wonder whether or not I should re-calibrate them

The proposal has been made that these discontinuities were in fact continuous on a different set of axis, which raises the question as to whether or not I was treating these interests as ends in themselves or means to a different end. Now, I can think of several ends I was pursuing, and it is reasonably true that all of them can be mainly set up with my interests as means, and not the ends.

The ends I was pursuing, was exploration. My little homunculi were not in agreement or aligned, and going all over the place. I wanted experience, not in a purely physical sense, but more in a seeing-what-is-out-there testing-the-waters how-should-I-lead-my-life kind of experience. And it could be agreed that this is using people as means to an end and not as an end in themselves. But now the question is, is this wrong?

Yes of course it is.

But it is interesting how the band judged me so, or so I am told. Quite disapproving of the muck I made, my source tells me. Now, my first response, of course, is "Fuck the band." I mean, people on an individual basis seem pretty dysfunctional to the point that I certainly try not to judge them for all their mess ups and troubles and hope that they don't pass judgement upon me. Which, I am told, they did. And fuck them, but mainly for not intervening earlier and explaining things from a different point of view.

But, the question I pose to myself, is rather if my flitting about (for I did flit about quite a bit weighing perspective interests) is whether there was anything wrong with this, or if in fact I was breaking any societal rules in doing so. Because, I am told, my flitting about was detrimental in the sense that instead of showing a gradual increase in interest in a person, I would suddenly (apparently) switch to them very strongly, and then as soon as I saw it not working, switch away just as rapidly to someone else. Now, this, I am told, violates a general rule by which potential suitors clearly see the other suitors and the ground they have marked off / the people they are pursuing, and therefore go after someone else. I think this just might be complete bullshit, but am as yet unsure.

I mean, this whole painting that was illustrated for me rests on the condition that we are completely rational beings with a completely rational basis for everything we do. Which is wrong. Because I do not currently believe that we can explain and justify away all the feelings and emotions that we have. Quite simply as that.

Thought: the importance of taste in the subconscious in a potential mate. This sounds horribly technical, so let's try again: if you don't enjoy someone's taste while making out, is this a subconscious sign that you should get out, or is it just a matter of their particular chemical makeup? Because if it's simply a matter of your subconscious disagreeing with your choice, then it makes a very good deal-breaker. However, if it is nothing more than chemicals, perhaps it can be worked out or around.


But I've noticed that is a habit I tend to get myself into. I tend to approach people very strongly, but drop them and back out very quickly if I suddenly find that there is a potential that they will become strongly dependent on me. Or I drop my intensity if I find they are not interested. Or, I simply fail to keep the same level of intensity. Now, the question is, is this a problem? Debatable. No, what am I saying. Not debatable. Totally uncalled for. I should be beat with a large stick for such transgressions. I can think of several instances in which this was the case, and I think I managed to resolve two of the three scarred friendships, but the third never recovered, nor do I think it will. But I can see that behavior back in high school, as well, being really into getting to know someone but backing the fuck off at any indication that they may become even slightly dependent, even if I've worked hard at helping them out just previously.

But, back at the event at hand. I failed to treat my interests as ends unto themselves. But what would it mean to do so? Does the way I treated you and Katie count as such? I would think it did, because I certainly came to you not necessarily for your wisdom, intelligence, and comfort, but more for the sheer enjoyment of your company. Of course, those qualities were intrinsic my enjoyment of your company. Now, was I intent on treating all my interests the same way? I mean, from a certain point of view, I was interested in all of them for their views of the world and the way they functioned in it. I was not merely looking for comfort or someone to care for: I was looking for someone to explore with, to spar with, to lead me down new uncharted (for me) paths while experiencing a sense of wonderment at the whole process as well. The question now is whether or not that constitutes as using them as means to an end or an end in themselves.

The second concern is whether or not this is really nothing more than a highly intellectualized and romanticized version of events, which bears little resemblance to the truth, or the way I actually behaved.

Also, my most recent conversationalist seemed very convinced that his Modus Operandi was the absolute correct one and it was a pity that I didn't see it and embrace it as such immediately. A slight, if not overt, touch of arrogance, to which they themselves admitted. The saying "You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" says it all. It assumes a singular MO, a singular truth, a singular system by which all should meld. I do not think this is the case. The "you can't make him drink" part seems to be a condescending pitying that the poor student can't see the light. I have to reject this outright. Rather, I would prefer that this be simply a part of the puzzle that each individual is trying to solve. No one says we are going to reach the same conclusion. No one even says society with agree with your choices. My conversationalist was very clear in this regard, that the view of the masses, of the public, was most likely to be correct, as they have had a lot of practice. While I'll respect collective wisdom, every character I read in my Nietzsche and Taoism class cried out against such conformity and adhesion to society.


But, the concerns raised did resonate with me, and make me think. So they cannot be rejected outright. But now I must go into life with the question: "Am I treating this interest, or these people in general, as a means or an end in and of themselves?" Or should I? I must sleep now. Joe and I are jogging in three hours. Ah, the curse of an overactive sense of curiosity and penchant for conversation.

I will respond to your post soon, because we really should start actually responding to one another, instead of talking past each other. I would like an eventual response to all the questions I've raised, although you must know that I totally understand the necessity of living your life, and would not discourage you from that for the world.

Love, now and always,

Alan