fink.

i've been thinking about the word 'think' a lot. just today susan dromisky, our ballet teacher, was saying how thinking is really important because you just can't go with how you feel- because just following your feelings in a relationship lands you nowhere and makes you plain stupid, which is pretty true. just going with our sensory reactions doesn't work because we're built with imaginations and critical minds, and it's hypocritical to say that it's better for us to go through life just by senses. because where has that brought us, you know? all of human history has been the attempt to bring feelings under control and utilising them most effectively. government, for instance, is about solving problems and presumably doing what's best for a group of people, even if you don't like all of them and think some people should never have been born. because how you feel about someone isn't necessarily and in fact is rarely the 'right' way to feel about someone, is it? everybody has redeeming qualities, surely. but then it's not really possible to go through life just thinking, either, since we're kind of all mishmash integrated into a full body, and we all have minds and personalities. if you want to get metaphysical, we have souls, too. even if we don't, most people imagine they do, and you know, the mind is quite a powerful tool. but it gets all its information through senses, and what is a tool without its components? the process that creates the tool? and then it struck me just how clever the englishvillage (not sure which) pronunciation 'fink' is, both think and feel at once. but if you can connect the two, does that really make you a fink?
there's my irrelevant thought of the day.