Thoughts.com Blogs - Nature of People

View Blog

Nature of People

A wise person that I know, his pen name is "RORAQ," once told me that when one is forced into a corner, your actions directly define who you are. With all due respect to RORAQ, I think that ALL one's actions define their person, not just in a trap. At first glance, you'd think that when in a trap, your actions would be further from your personality BECAUSE you are stressed and panicked. Once panic sets in, one does NOT know what one will do. Where is the extent of your own control before instinct sets in? RORAQ argues, though, that when you aren't focusing on being "civil" and living to the standards of our "brainwashing" society, merely struggling to survive, your very essence becomes noticable. You become a purer, less influenced form of yourself--Relying more on the instinct of humans rather than just . The only way to know what another person is truely made of, says RORAQ, is to test them. That's why he is always a jerk to everyone he meets at first, that is why he teased my homecoming date and future boyfriend (Zach). It's an interesting philosophy, but only if the world would give you the chance after they pass your "jerk-test." Besides, it's full of holes, or I'm a horrible apologetic. X(

Well, I think that I've been pressed into a corner with this stupid Latin Document thing. And I've found a way to get out of it.-- I called Pete, not crying until I started to tell him the events of my day. In a nutshell, the conversation went something along the lines of, "Zach and I are fighting with each other, and I don't ever want to see or speak to him again. I want to be deported to Arizona or New Mexico." The truth itself, in essence, was slightly twisted. Zach and I WERE truly fighting. We had another fight. We generally do that. :( I was toying with the idea of telling Zach, "Well, it's over. I'm never going to see you for a very long time. Because I won't be here ever again. I'm sorry, Zach, but I'm gone. It was nice knowing you. I'm sorry that our friendship had to end this way, but I'm never going to see you again," and walking away forever. But while this short and dramatic speech would give me a sick, sadistic pleasure, I LOVE MY HIGH SCHOOL! Why, oh, why, let one stupid ex-boyfriend ruin my life? This would PROVE exactly what Pete said-- that Zach had a hold on me. And he doesn't, and he never will again. (Even though he makes me cry hyperbolically every other day.) :( No, this was NOT the truth. I was not leaving, or planning on leaving, or even telling Pete that I wanted to. I was playing the evil game of "Deciet." Pete was so suprised by my burst of tears and my quick "change of mind." He said that if it was what I TRULY wanted to do, yes he used those words, he would make the official arrangements. I responded with something along the lines of, "I'm tired of fighting with that self-righteous poltroon! I want to get away from him forever! I hate him!"

Yes, I used the word "hate." The acid of the soul. The WORST felonious crime of the heart. I didn't mean it. I mean, yes, Zach is self-rightious. He is incredibly cocky, condescending, etc. BUT he is no poltroon, and I do NOT want to get away from him forever. AND Most IMPORTANTLY, I don't hate. Not even Zach. I DO NOT even DISLIKE Zach. (Side note--Zach IS capable of hatred. But it is under question as to whether or not I am capable of such a crime of the heart. I don't think that I am, but I've never done it, so I wouldn't know for sure. It's one of those things, like a theory. A theory cannot be proven, only disproven, according to Chemistry class.) I do not hate Zach.

Another side note that came up during our fight today--Zach said that I don't understand him as a person, his quirks, personality, and HIS FEELINGS. I hope he didn't read the above paragraph. While it denies many of the lies and evils I told Pete over the phone, it's still a bitter, acidic paragraph that indirectly insults him. Come to think of it, does Zach ever think of my feelings? I KNOW I think of his feelings, especially when I told him (at Calvin Park in January, before Monopoly) as gently as I could that I did not even like him until after homecoming. Before that, he was merely a friend. BUT it could also be debated whether or not Zach cares about MY feelings. He insults me, my intelligence, my quirks AND CREATIVITY. He insults my views, my lifestyle, and the very ESSENCE of my being. I won't illustrate this, but he does verbally attack me on quite a few occasions. Read the other blogs; and I will tell you about the latest attack--today's fight.

With the words of hatred, anger, and lies, Pete took the bait. He said, tentatively and almost meekly (people are usually not suprised when I spout off. It's a personality flaw. I get angry, I rant, I get over it. Zach never stays to listen to the rants. He runs away, generally), "Are you sure you don't want to just let the situation cool and see what becomes of it? I mean, it costs a lot of money and energy and time to relocate someone...yadda yadda..." I nearly jumped for joy. He was not sending me off across the United States! I mean, he didn't even have any reason to waste all of that "Time and Money and Energy." He thought that my proximity to Zach was a security risk, and if I "hated" him, he had nothing to worry about. I did not have to be launched across the US on Continental.

I told Pete that I'd keep him updated on the Zach situation. But I won't. I'll drop it, and I won't be dropped in Arizona or New Mexico. But that leaves the question--Who am I? What have I become, where I lie to my superiors to get out of punishment? It may not be a crime of the heart, and it may be a crime in mere desparation, BUT it is a crime of something else. What it is, though, I'm not sure.

This is what I think: A=C and B=C, therefore, A+B=2C. A, B, and C is as follows;

A.) When I put Zach "in a corner" when I asked him if he wanted to break up and that it was his choice, he grew angry, distant, vengeful, argumentative, and BITTER. (just to name a few of the applyable adjective.) If the above, "when forced into a corner, your true character comes out," is true, that means, underneath Zach is an angry, vengeful person. I mean, I see the vengeance. He wants to argue about everything under the sun, from liking Stalder to my opinion on the opinions on the world, to my inhibition-less persona. He has a crime of the heart, hatred of Samantha. I learned about it. He doesn't seem that great when "forced into a corner."

B.) When I was put into a corner, I am an insidious liar and use the "hate word." I use deceit to get what I want. Even though some of the story was true, I manipulated it in a way to suit my needs. :P

C.) The above "B" cannot possibly be who I am. I have trouble viewing Zach as a bitter, angry person; it is safe to say that the above "A" cannot possibly be Zach. These qualities may correspond to something that he has DONE, but that doesn't define his personality any more than my lies making me a liar. Just because one fails a test does not make that person the high school dunce. If Cheney shoots one of his friends during quail hunting, that does NOT make him a professional assassin. If you trip over your shoelace, that does not make you a klutz. The examples may go on.

Making a mistake does not define the nature of people. Getting out of a jam, or at least actions IN one, does not define your character. Unfortunately, though, it does show one's weakness of character. I feel defeated. I am a weak character. I bent to the pressure, and lied, to save my skin. I twisted the situation, in manipulation, to save the heartache of leaving my life for another.

Zach says that he has poor reading comprehension. I hope he doesn't read this. I don't think he'd be able to follow it. He probably wouldn't see my plot against Pete, and using our fight in my favor. He wouldn't understand that I didn't mean what I said to Pete. Nor would he understand that he hurt me. He never does. Besides, it has a bitter note to it, bitter against him, probably because I'm still mad at him about our fight.

Hey, I promised to fill you in on the latest attack against my character-- It's not Brian anymore, or my take on the world, or my lack of lifting a wet finger to the wind, or any of that.
Now, it's my creativity.

It's APUSH CLASS. AP United States history. APUSH. The AP exam is in 37 days. (And instead of studying, I'm blogging?)
The assignment was to get into small groups; put in order the various political cartoons of the Depression, New Deal, and FDR; post them on the board; and tell the story to the class.
Kristen and I did not feel engaged in the group. I can't speak for her, but I felt that many of our cartoons were out of order. I spoke up, but they were engaged with the belief that our group should put the OPPOSITION to the New Deal at the end, rather than interspersed throughout. (Opposition is ALWAYS interspersed, never at JUST the END of a story.) We accepted it, though, toying with the idea of "SUCCESSION from our GROUP!"
No, succession is not illegal in APUSH class. XD But still, treason is not good.

(Mrs. C finds it humorous that I prefer to work with Zach when we always argue about an APUSH concept. But really, it's the debate that keeps me in his group. He doesn't go around saying, "Yes, Dandelion, let's just put your answers up. They're probably all right." It drives me nuts when people just "expect" answers from you. Like you're being used. I don't want to be used, I want to be utilized.

With Zach, we argue about the answers. It's not a "whatever" thing, but a finding a truth. Trying to see which answer is the better answer. Pitting one form of logic against another. It's GREAT. And I need that reinforcement and encouragement that assures me that we are right because Zach and I argued about it, and FOUND the answer through debate. We tried other roads, and determined them to be less than satisfactory. We use logic. Logic is good.) Back to the story...

While Zach was orchestrating the group, ordering the cartoons in the strange way that they were, Kristen and I decided to get engaged. "Zach," I asked, "Can I do the first cartoon?" I didn't exactly agree that it was the first one. Was it that the first thing that everybody did, was "Burying that Hatchet?" I think not. :S But hey... I could create something that would make it perfectly believable.

Zach said that it was fine, and that I could do "whatever." He was trying to get rid of me. He had more important things to discuss at the moment, and I was interrupting one of his debates with another group member. Granted, when I barged in, I did not realize I was interrupting. But the fact of the matter was that, I was.

Well... Telling me that I can do whatever I want is NEVER a good idea IF you want CONFORMITY! I tend to think OUTSIDE OF THE BOX. I do not go with the flow, almost ever, as I march to my own drummer. I do what I do. AND NOT what anyone else does.

Kristen, my coconspirator, and I created a PERFECT beginning for our Political Cartoon Chronology. Everyone else was like, "Ok, this is Roosevelt's whatever, blah, blah, something about something that Roosevelt did during the depression." They weren't very dramatic, and they sure were OBJECTIVE. We decided that we were to get creative.

It was our turn. I read the beginning of our story, the first panel of the political cartoons. "Once upon a time, in a much less prosperous United States, the American people were suffering. In this economic turmoil, the democrats and the republicans decided to bury the hatchet of petty controversies." It was BRILLIANT, and a tad humorous.

My group was astounded. I don't exactly understand why they were astounded. I asked if I could do the first cartoon, and I did just that. Just because we were creative and worded things in a more fable-like way does not at all mean that we changed the assignment. I did what I wanted to do, and accomplished the task at hand with a different flare. THAT IS NOT A CRIME. (Poo to boringness and blase. Do not be boring. Have some FUN!) I did exactly what I said I wanted to do. The suprise was MERELY in my presentation, NOT in what I did. :P

But it still debonked my group. And it really peeved Zach. (I have the dire urge to call him a conformating clone. But I won't. I think I'll stick to the term "boring." If Zach wants a boring presentation, that is not what he'll get with me. You are not boring, Zach. I don't date boring people, and I certainly have not in the past. That includes you.) We had trouble taking off after that because no one knew what to do next. (WHY?!? *shrug*) Gee, Zach, in all of your planning, what was going on over there? For crying out loud, Mrs. C had to ask three times for our group to get started (NOT exaggerating.). I was hoping we would go up to the board because I wanted to point at the pictures. But I was the only one who got up, so I sat back down. And read my spiel. After I went, and much hesitation from the group, two other members attempted to follow. They were saved by the bell.

Everyone found my beginning humorous. EVEN Mrs. C. She said that I do not have very many inhibitions, and told me that she thought it was GREAT. I felt happy with it, except for our sputtering out. Something tells me that I should have written the entire thing. But then that would have made Zach even more angry.

As I went to lunch, Zach was angry. The conversation was a blur because I was holding back tears as he attacked me and my creativity. He faced me and said, "You don't work well in groups, do you?" Gee, Zach, I did exactly what I said I was going to. JUST BECAUSE it was different than everyone else's does not make it WRONG! Everyone thinks we started out well. I'm sorry you weren't ready for it. BUT YOU CANNOT IMPOSE LIMITS WHERE LIMITS ARE NOT IMPOSED! Somehow, the line fit into the conversation, "Maybe you SHOULD leave our group." And that turned into "And maybe you should leave our lunch table." Because I was causing him "stress" at "Lunch, which is supposed to be a peace and calming time." I asked him if he was kicking me out, and he said in a mocking, sarcastic tone, "I don't know. Maybe I should ASK the people at our table. (In direct referrence to conferring with group members during APUSH). Or maybe," he gave me a challenging, mocking glare here, "that's too much public opinion for you."

You must admit, those lines were not only powerful, but they were witty. Wit is one of his very attractive qualities. I am hesitant to admit it, but I smiled here. I don't remember anything important about the rest of the conversation. He said something about how I never listen to him, because I didn't about taking up the French Horn. We had a conversation about that and because I argue with him, he thinks I don't take into account what he says.

I went to French Class with tears welled in my eyes, but they weren't coming down my face. On the way to French, I saw two of our group members. I told them that Zach didn't like my entrence, and asked if they thought it was wrong that I wrote that "without group approval." THEY said it was cute.

I silently, hiding behind a stack of books and a curtain of hair, allowed the tears to stream down my face during the duration of French Class. I was hurt. I got creative, and Zach figuratively slapped me across the face. I didn't feel I did anything wrong. I merely didn't tell my group what I was going to say. They knew I was going to say SOMETHING, but they didn't care at all what. Until it hit them like a pile of bricks. Or a very funny nursery rhyme.

I went to Mrs. C and told her the whole story, and consequently was late to Chemistry class. After weighing our options, she thinks that I should just ignore him and go into my group as if nothing happened. She said that she thought he was being a baby about the whole thing, from switching seats to this. I told her that I though he switched seats because of PEACH (reference to the NHS story), not because of me. I also told her that I don't even understand how he could have not liked it. Merely because I didn't tell the group exactly what I was going to say? IF, IF any other person were to have pre-meditated their lines as I had, they would not have shared them with the group anyway. Merely because I had mine premeditated and written down, it's a crime? They KNEW I was doing the first panel. They just didn't know HOW I was doing it. Apparently, in Zach's logic, that's a crime. :P

He ruined Chemistry for me, too. He habitually ruins quite a few of my days. I am ALLOWED to be upset, though, right? Am I allowed to let this jerk ruin my day? He HURT. Bad.
He never cares about my feelings though. He says that he is a "realist."

He once looked up the "accepted" definition of nerd. Well, I just looked up the definition of "realist."
It is a PRAGMATIST: somebody who only considers things as they are or appear to be, and avoids ideals and abstracts. Gee, Zach, what a boring way to think. No abstracts? No love? No faith? No hope? No bravery? No pride? No curiousity? NO IMAGINATION. No beliefs, no fantasies, no thoughts.

What a horrible world to live in. In my world, I work up to my ideals. If he has no ideals, than what of getting good grades? What of ANYTHING? What's the point in struggling against this world? What is the purpose of life, if you can't make any difference in it for the better? How can you make ANYTHING better if there is no ideal in which to strive toward?

What a horrible way to think.

And he hurt me.
He won't apologize.
He never does. He didn't in our last two big fights, or the proceeding two smaller ones.
He's too proud to apologize.
I don't know if he cares.
It doesn't matter.

As for his realism, he hurt me.
But do realists believe in pain? Is pain real?
Hindus don't believe that pain is real.

I think that it is.
Zach hurt.
Whether he cares or not, whether he believes it or not,
he hurt.

Goo.
Please give me a hug.
I'm sad again.