I think maybe blame can be assigned half and half to forgetting and ignoring. Not to say it is statistical in any way, but these two mechanisms are both crucially to blame and I think it's less important to get into exactities than to split it evenly so that the clear point is that both are important. So. Something I've been thinking about is whether to acknowledge a primary naratee in this text. That is, use of second person outside of universal constructions. Crucial point is that the naratee is already there; question is whether to acknowledge. Some issues of consequence: this acknowledgment would follow in idiom of songs, perhaps would open up similar creative spaces. Second, should anyone read the blog, which event I am unsure of its likelihood, acknowledgment of primary naratee would invite identification with reader. Might be problematic, maybe not. Could perhaps open up space for discourse, which might drive better writings. Perhaps not. Also, how much characterisation would I create for this naratee, and what would it be. Unsure if the naratee would remain constant. Would make sense that this would be so, but maybe I'd have two or three, like Shakespeare's sonnets, or maybe it would change every time. Could even have a name: such as Diane. Think tape recorders. My uncertainty in this matter is very very evident I don't care to count how many times I've written perhaps or maybe. Haven't yet come to a decision I think I'll just take it as it goes and if I feel like directly addressing a naratee I will. I don't see a particularly urgent reason to prohibit this possibility.
Now considering whether to make this an extra long entry to in some part make up for failure over the past days. Don't care that much, but maybe it will happen. Here is another recurring theme: not making binding decisions. Or even decisions at all; I think even if I made them they wouldn't be binding though. Television might be a problem but I think it's better than playing games. Here is my one argument: I can reference television and people might get it, but the experience of playing a game is necessarily unique and individual, at least to some extent. Besides there is a long tradition of television references which is slightly less despised than making reference to games. On the other hand I'm sure that games are more stimulating but fuck that I get enough from my classes. If I get Alzheimer's someone can kick me. Maybe that can be you. (See here is where the non-decision gets made). Wondering if I'll ever two things, one reconnect with people from highschool (answer: probably only if they contact me), two be able to think about high school without pain (answer: I don't know). I think everything will fade except maybe Rachel. Maybe her too. Hope so.
Now thinking about friendship, relationship, and statistics. For example how much benefit is gained by casting a wide net. Essentially comes down to the relative importance of two categories: prior experience/inherent qualities (undefinable) vs. shared experience. There must be some importance to both. Wondering whether relative importance of either category varies from person to person. Expect it does. No particular evidence, but maybe if I think harder. Well, yes, some people certainly put greater importance on certain preexisting qualities like religion/politics/morality etc., but question remains whether this is really important to these people or whether they would be better off if they did not discriminate. This is perhaps not legitimate because it is in some sense not external to their experience of friendship; assumes that there is some distinction between legitimate and illegitimate judgments. Ultimately comes down to happiness and so-called illegitimate categories may have just as much impact on that. So back to the first question of nets. It is possible, maybe probable that for some it is better to cast a wide net and put in less effort to each relationship, but it is not at all clear that the people who do so are those that benefit. Secondly, casting wide net and putting time into relationships not exclusive given differences in overall sociality. Perhaps clearest aspect is that this distinction still makes shy people at a disadvantage because of proclivities to aloneness. Ultimately justification for aloneness I don't think will ever work. I need to find people and I don't think the question of wide vs. narrow is ultimately terribly imprortant for my life because the important thing is simply to increase overall sociality, whether in wide or narrow focus. Sociality must however be in some way meaningful, so if wide must still make real connections, as in not just like high school.
Interesting final note is that these questions about subjects and determiners I brought up in my first couple posts have continued to shape the way I write this. Would lead one to believe that bringing up naratee in this post will increase usage of that. As a tentative hypothesis it seems that I don't need to make decisions; rather I must merely bring up questions and my practice will eventual answer in the affirmative given that the question is asking the saliency of some aspect in my control. Hmm. Perhaps this paradigm may be expanded elsewhere in my life or even applicable to others. May be somewhat profound or of some importance. Something to continue thinking about.
