Not long after that I had piano lessons. I got distracted and texted my teacher 30 minutes into the lesson saying something like "oh no! im so sorry! i got distracted! can we still have lessons?" and then I apologized again in pretty much every following text in the short conversation. We still had lessons. At the beginning of each lesson we pray. I prayed before I stopped talking, and now she prays. Today, though, was unique, I thought, because she really prayed alot of blessings on me, and made me feel really special. Then, afterward she asked me when I could talk again. I told her tomorrow night at midnight. She said I had to call her right at midnight, and that she would be waiting. I feel really blessed to have her as a friend, and I certainly pray for her as often as I remember to. One or two of the guys in my dorm acted like she must "like" me after that, and it's times like these when I wish I could tell, but I am enjoying being single at the moment. I am not too worried about it.
After that, I walked around campus alittle, and I found a really obscure spot, where I had never thought to go before -- but the view is just great, and I don't think that it gets alot of traffic, so I will be scoping out that spot for the next few days. Maybe I will go there alot more often to relax and pray. That way I wont interrupt people at Spear so often lol. And then I accidentally missed all the Church events that were happening tonight, and I ate pizza. That's pretty much the highlights of my day.
Now, I haven't really thought this one through, but for the past couple of minutes I have been entertaining these two logical arguments. They are kinof "1=-1". The situation is this: imagine person B is being annoyed by person A. Person A is not hurting anyone, and not really doing anything wrong, but he knows he is annoying person B. They get in an argument and these two trains of though occur:
Person A:
You say that you are angry because of what I am doing --that I am causing you to be angry, and essentially, that I am making a poor decision by doing so. However, anger is a choice. Your lack of patience is a choice to be angry. I am not doing anything really wrong, and you are the one causing conflict with your poor decisions.
Person B:
Anger is not a choice, patience is a choice. It is not that I have chosen to be angry, nor that I have chosen not to be patient. Instead, I have simply not chosen to be patient. Anger is instinctive and cannot be removed by choice, only suppressed --and suppression is not an immediate act, but takes time and breath. Therefore, anger is unavoidable for at least the time immediately after it has arrived, and the time it takes to avert is dependent on the actual capabilities of the host. You, knowing what provokes anger, have chosen to put me in a position where I am incapable of feeling anything less, at least for the time being. You have caused the conflict, and you have chosen poorly.
That's what I've got. I figure they are both wrong, but it was a fun argument to invent. I made the arguments real wordy, I know, but I did that to stress certain words, probably most imminent was the word "Chose": "Chosen to be angry"; "Chosen poorly"; etc.. I really wanted to rewrite person B's "not chosen to be patient" to "not yet chosen to be patient" for consistence, but that would allow in a double meaning where one meaning is caught more readily than the other. I realize that without it, his argument seems inconsistent, but it is better for getting my point across.
Well, it's time for bed. I really want some coffee, but I don't have decaf grounds.... ugh, I can just taste it.. I am gonna go make myself some tea before I sleep.
"I hope that I don't sound too insane when I say there is darkness all around us. You talk to me with your voice down so low I barely hear you, but I understand because my heart and yours are the same."
No comments:
Post a Comment