Heero Yuy's Personal Log
I believe I'm starting to understand what Professor Henley meant. Wufei said something the other day that got me thinking. Simply put, there are some answers that cannot be taken out of a textbook, and many of those that can, might not be correct.
In mathematics or physics, there is almost always one definite answer to the problems, one where the textbook reply is correct all the time - with the possible exception of theories or hypotheses. In all matters less clearly defined than absolutes - which includes oft rewritten history - there are viewpoints to everything, and they are often personal. Given that, the textbook answer is no more neutral than its authors and editors are, and when the 'truth' is a result of a compromise, it is often quite bland.
In that specific example - the history book is probably correct in broad terms, but nuances are often lost, or set aside. Was the printing press invented in Europe, or in China? Both lay claim. Both are right, and both are wrong. The basic technology of both woodblock and movable type emerged in China, but it was with Gutenberg's independent innovations that it started a renaissance that shaped the world to come.
Perhaps a better example - who was the first to discover America? Christopher Columbus? Leif Eriksson? Celtic monks, or Chinese explorers? Or should we award the title to the first people who crossed the Bering land bridge in the distant past?
Any take on history is tainted by your preconceptions, by your heritage, by what others have told you is the 'truth'. If you trust the one telling you, why check sources? Why get another opinion?
I presume this was my flaw - by simply copying the textbooks, I adopted the authors' views as my own, rather than look at the source material and form my own opinion. In history, this might not diverge so much, but in less fixed subjects like literary analysis or philosophy, rehashing the words of others will give you nothing.
Perhaps, then, this is similar to the term 'love'. The very concept is simply far too individual to be interpreted within a set of absolutes, never mind that any one person can feel several versions of it. There is familiar love, love as in friendship, proforma love, platonic love, 'true' love, 'good enough for now' love, 'death or lawyer do us part' love... The list is close to infinite.
No wonder the others balk whenever I try to get their views on this - it is simply too personal unless it is shared, and save what I hope is friendship or at least mutual respect, we do not have that.
Perhaps Trowa was right, the problem with love is to become aware of it, notice it. I for one can't claim I've ever been caught up in anything remotely similar to what the TV dramas portray, not as part, not as target - save perhaps Relena's affections of old, or incidents like with Melanie Jenkins.
For that matter, I've trouble understanding the appeal of sex. I realize love and sex are not the same thing, though the coexistence is presumably a healthy sign. As in most cases, I stick to theory ahead of practice, to gather some insight into what I endeavor into. In this case, that would call for pornography - but like that Jane Doe kiss, it has no real effect on me.
I have no medical opinion to back it up, but perhaps I suffer from impotence. During my time with J, I had a rather impressive drug cocktail as part of my daily routine. My strength, quick metabolism and endurance didn't come by entirely naturally, even though training was part of it. I don't believe any of it was directly harmful, there were no steroids or such. J might have been an old, sadistic bastard at times, but he would be too cautious to let his 'perfect weapon of vengeance' go to waste by becoming a dumb bruiser more in looks than action.
As in all cases not absolute math or physics, there is another obvious explanation, though.
Perhaps my problem is simply with women - if not the way Wufei and Duo depicts them.
Rashid has requested our help in cleaning up after the sandstorm. Quatre tried to object, but we voted him down. It would only be fair to contribute something back, after being allowed to stay here for nearly a month. The Maganacs are his friends also, so why should they work, and we not? Perhaps there is a difference in love at play here - family versus less intimate friends.
-end file- Yuy, Heero