Actuarial Outpost
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Blogs > sweetiepie
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

Rate this Entry


Posted 10-20-2008 at 08:55 PM by sweetiepie
Updated 10-20-2008 at 09:44 PM by sweetiepie

we exist to love. it makes us happy, and sad.
it works like the stock market. if you want to love something, you invest yoruself into it. if it goes up, you win. if it drops down, you lose. this is true of anything lovable, which is to say anything personal-- girlfriends, family, jesus, sports teams, music, video games, charity. in the end of course everything falls apart, ala sisyphus, but in the meanwhile, given a diversified portfolio, paying attention to trends, you should be able to expect steady long-term growth, with additional dividends for taking on additional risk.

love, like faith, like the value of money, is plainly imagined. it really doesn't matter if your sports team loses, or if your son (rather than anyone else's son) dies in a car wreck, but love is everything we have, so don't knock it.

also because it is an emotion, Love is selfish. It is about the things that immediately surround you. It forgets the things that are far away.

next to love stands duty. duty also exists for love. duty is that which we must do to make love possible. taking out the garbage is duty-- it is duty toward having a clean house, which is love. wherever there is love, there is duty. where there is no love, there is no duty. Duty is reality. Duty is work. Duty is government. Duty is every sort of heartless sacrifice. Unlike love, which is spontaneous and thoughtless, duty is rigorously over-planned and over-thought.

The funny thing is: unlike love, duty is selfless. It doesn't matter if I'm going to the grocery store for me, or if I'm going to the grocery store for you, it needs to be done either way.

The other funny thing is that duty tries to consume love, and vice versa. I mean it all starts because we want to maximize love. Or as my the last girl I dated called it, "the BJ-to-hassle ratio". At least we say we want to maximize it. But then they get mixed up you know. That girl, for example, had a lot of sense, but she wouldn't know love if it sat on her face. In fact it was because she had a lot of sense that she didn't know love. I mean love forgets duty and duty forgets love.

This is, I guess, because they are both machinations? That seeing one means not seeing the other? That, for either to last, we have to set up a sort of feedback loop that allows them to continue to exist, and that loop necessarily interferes with the converse loop? We are machines after all, we need programming, of sorts. We need to interpret data. hm.
Posted in Uncategorized
Views 2199 Comments 0
« Prev     Main     Next »
Total Comments 0



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.31206 seconds with 15 queries