Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Presume the Death of a Relationship before it happens.

Objective Collapse is just a quantum theorist’s means of clinging to the belief that romance is still attainable in Western culture. Classical novelists and observational psychologists alike have spent the last twenty-four hundred years obsessed with this most elusive of human experiences. Tellingly, in all that time neither field has had much that is novel to say on the topic. Still, we continue to buy their lies with pieces of the very souls we are trying to save.  Lies perpetrated by those who tell us that there are only eleven basic human emotions and their counterparts, twenty-two words with which we encompass the entirety of anthropological history. Contrast this with the forty-eight emotions classified by the Human-Machine Interaction Network on Emotion and it becomes clear that, like the rest of existence, love obeys the natural language of the universe.

So, embark on a superposition encompassing the three possibilities extant in our calculations.  The former two determinants, polarized by the belief of 73% of Americans, exist only to describe, relatively, the third. In order to force a resolution (wave function collapse) of this physical system which will satisfy either eigenstate, it is essential to first observe the Rational State Apparatus that is always functioning at a conscious and subconscious level.

  • Solitary, approachable, but skittish twenty-seven year old seeking tattooed, stable male.  Plus if he makes me laugh, prefer local, sorry but only white guys because i am only attractive to them.
  • A partner who is physically attractive is: A. Mandatory B. Very Important C. Somewhat Important D. A Little Important E. Irrelevant
  • My ideal partner can spit all the words to the Fresh Prince song
  • HIV Positive.  Over 50.  Looking for partner of similar lifestyle.  No drama, crazy ex’s, tats, tobacco use, prison record, young children, or really excessive anything….  Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
  • Thirty-five year old  male looking for a nice female with own residence who would like a long-term relationship.  Race, Age, Looks not important! Recently laid off with no prospects.  I’m nice, white, fit, no kids!
  • Dudes of the Bay: My ladies and I will be out in the Lower Haight this weekend and I am looking to stack the chips for my two best friends to meet some guys actually worth talking to. Speak English and have a job.  Email me if you are interested, with a pic, and I will give you details.
  • Disabled bisexual male looking for help decorating.

If you’ve ever marveled at the difficulty present in trying to find a romantic partner that lasts, you must admit the odds are fairly daunting. It isn’t any wonder that more than three fourths of single Americans have experimented with online dating. Simply answer a few hundred questions about your sexual habits and whether or not you like cats, and the return key will instantly provide a list of “matches.”  You can even respond positively to questions like “Would you ever eat something out of the trash?” or “In a certain light, wouldn’t nuclear war be exciting?” and still be someone’s 96% match. Of course, matchmaking profiteers are not the only ones who opine that the difficulties in finding “true love” can be surmounted. The website http://www.lessthanone.com/ is another great example. Their premise is that, given a population of 800,000 and a 95% attrition rate of those who can be considered “available”, there is half a person out there who’s soul is calling to yours. If these factors are the only paradigm from which a relationship can be viewed, encountering that perfect someone should be a task that grows exponentially easier as population and ease of communication increase.  After all, Schrödinger need only have opened the box to receive his answer.

Untitled

99% Match = superposition 1

95-98% Match = superposition 2

0-94% Match = superposition 3

1 is the impossibility of a perfect match. 2 is the deficit with which we’re realistically willing to settle. 3 is the understood plausibility of relational termination at some point, be it a week after meeting someone or fifty years into the marriage. What the graph fails to show is that superposition 2 will close the gap towards 1 as the box is opened.  If that sounds like a good thing, remember that superposition 1 is impossible.

The absolute certainty of our third eigenstate, in light of the cardial trauma implied by the physical state, can be determined early on in a relationship. A/S/L, occupation, interests will never trump the following conversations:

“Then I started thinking about the real me and the compromises I’m willing to make and the things you love doing. I’d watch the way your eyes light up at a Fritz Lang film and would want to become an expert in all things Noir, even though I know I won’t. I like asking why, shopping, concerts, antique stores, and Randall Shreve and the Sideshow.”

“You read a lot. You might be smarter than me and that might bother you, or us in the future.”

“People need sanity. Being in a constant state of existential crisis, debating the myth of progress and death isn’t going to help us put food on the table.

“I just can’t convince myself some days that you will always have the patience, tolerance, and desire to deal with me and my bull shit and contradictions and masks and lack of punctuation. And I’m a bit neurotic.”

These conversations are what dating is designed to discover. Why, then, do they not occur earlier in the relationship? The above chart recognizes the plausibility of receiving a passing grade as inherently low. By assuming superposition 3 before every relationship starts, it immediately corrupts the interaction. This can be educational in that it opens our eyes to how selfish we are. Why does the dissenter continue? Keep the sex, keep the distance, see their cat, avoid their parents, avoid friends, impress friends, pretend; imagine:

If every expectation is a percentage lost and we lose them before we begin, why do we attempt, why do we pretend to love?

The Alphabet

A. Your couch – We acted responsibly even as the embers of previous loves drown, faltering in the depths of superposition 3.

B. I decided to be honest with you after 3 years.

C. It is dreadfully obvious to everyone how I adore you.

D. I ended things with the other person.

E. I realized you were never going to commit to me, other than occasionally, physically… So I gave you an out and swore I’d never tell. (We’d still be friends at the least, and could make the occasional eye contact that held more than your current relationship of four years does).

F. You fucked us over with your inability to keep a secret. Naturally, the social bubble in which we exist was torn asunder. Needless to say, we were in trouble.

G. I decided you were worth the trouble.

H. You still wanted to hold me at arms length. Sentiments, visits in the night, and promises to escape.

I. You talk endlessly about us.

J. Your words slowly lose value as I realize words are never actions.

K. I’m left alone, except sporadic shallow sentiments, again kept on a leash.

L. You make plans… Plans for those plans and a few more for those plans.

M. You tell me that you love me. But, you hide it from others.

N. The holidays come and go.

O. I spend them alone.

P. You said I could kill you if you didn’t find me by the New Year.

Q. I give up.

R. I’ve never been able to kill me.

S. So I assume you’re going to have to kill yourself.

T. If this is love.

U. I understand the inherent destruction before it starts.

V. Yet it is inescapable:

W. The Tragic Hero

X. The MacGuffin

Y. Plot Coupons

Z. So we call it love anyway, when in reality it was merely an excuse for a tangent in a life of tangents. Who really ever finds their way into superposition 1 or 2? Why open the box if we can pretend we know there is nothing in it? Why open the box if we can lie to ourselves and pretend it may still live?

The most detrimental part of this theory lies not in the plausibility of the graph, the pathetic declaration that ‘I am not that shallow’, nor those still dreaming, but in the fact that superposition 1 or 2 has to be met twice. Congratulations, you’ve found your “other”. Add three years to discover that they are still searching for theirs. If you refuse to accept the reality of superposition 3, there is only one option. Lie until you have to back out.

Content: DS
Execution: MS

Loving You Is Killing Me

Advertisements