Post by Shyft Trakia-Vorga VahtiDahl on May 28, 2009 13:20:33 GMT -6
With great power comes the ability to survive while remaining neutral.
Many wish to have the power to exist with limitless ability without consequence, though it seems that often only the simple minded are able to come to terms with it. For every effect there is a cause, so how can one exist with thoughts and feelings without the conflict of consequence?
To live without the effects of others due to one as a cause alienates one from all other life. No amount of freedom can substitute strong relationships with other individuals. To sacrifice consequence is to sacrifice stimulation.
Love and sexual desire can only justify a relationship so much. Without trust, friendship is just a routine business relationship. Trust seems to be over looked by observers, clouded by novelty and nostalgia. It is under rated by those who want fast action and a good story.
Lots of people fear trust, as- for the trusted to the trustee- it can be a form of control. There is no betrayal without expectation. Consequence doesn't occur without rules. One must estimate before one can find that they have underestimated. Trust is fragile, but severely under rated.
Dynamic characters come in two flavors: the growing, expanding upon what they are, and the ones that change in opposition to what they once were. That is what people fear most in the subject. Worse than being deceived is watching a friend become what one antagonizes. Trusting the growing type always carries that risk. One can never know when they may cross over.
Static characters are easy to trust, but how different is that from trusting in the programming of a simple machine? Static characters often take the role of supporting characters for a reason: they are easily relied upon to keep things aloft. Supporting characters often come in groups that blend together, how ever.
If people are to be ranked, I'd say that to trust a conflicting dynamic character is worth less than to trust a static character is worth less than to trust a growing dynamic character. For the sake of novelty and nostalgia, the growing type comes out on top. Every thing comes down to particles and formulas or at least some form of mathematical programming, so in order to survive we must deny much of the reality of our existence- but not all of it. In order to beat the system one has to learn the system and play by or break its rules. If one is to make strong relationships, one has to understand every cause and effect.
Many wish to have the power to exist with limitless ability without consequence, though it seems that often only the simple minded are able to come to terms with it. For every effect there is a cause, so how can one exist with thoughts and feelings without the conflict of consequence?
To live without the effects of others due to one as a cause alienates one from all other life. No amount of freedom can substitute strong relationships with other individuals. To sacrifice consequence is to sacrifice stimulation.
Love and sexual desire can only justify a relationship so much. Without trust, friendship is just a routine business relationship. Trust seems to be over looked by observers, clouded by novelty and nostalgia. It is under rated by those who want fast action and a good story.
Lots of people fear trust, as- for the trusted to the trustee- it can be a form of control. There is no betrayal without expectation. Consequence doesn't occur without rules. One must estimate before one can find that they have underestimated. Trust is fragile, but severely under rated.
Dynamic characters come in two flavors: the growing, expanding upon what they are, and the ones that change in opposition to what they once were. That is what people fear most in the subject. Worse than being deceived is watching a friend become what one antagonizes. Trusting the growing type always carries that risk. One can never know when they may cross over.
Static characters are easy to trust, but how different is that from trusting in the programming of a simple machine? Static characters often take the role of supporting characters for a reason: they are easily relied upon to keep things aloft. Supporting characters often come in groups that blend together, how ever.
If people are to be ranked, I'd say that to trust a conflicting dynamic character is worth less than to trust a static character is worth less than to trust a growing dynamic character. For the sake of novelty and nostalgia, the growing type comes out on top. Every thing comes down to particles and formulas or at least some form of mathematical programming, so in order to survive we must deny much of the reality of our existence- but not all of it. In order to beat the system one has to learn the system and play by or break its rules. If one is to make strong relationships, one has to understand every cause and effect.