blurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrb

I need some form of self evaluation.

I wish I knew someone like house. That would be way too cool.

I think I sense increased brain activity in my upper cranium. Wonderful.

There should be some definite way of classifying people. Fear, desires, aspirations etc. Something than cannot be empirically measured, if that is the term (I'm not sure it is). Okay i misuse the term classifying. This is not about classification; it is more like qualifying people. People can be easily quantified - age, height, race, weight, sex, eyesight etc. However I feel there is a need to be able to qualify people, Maybe that is the only way we can truly get to know a person, to be able to look past all the things that can be quantified, and to look for the things that can only be qualified.

There is a problem with this, in that it assumes human interaction to be structured. Here I am assuming that people first look at the so called outer layers, before getting to the inner layers. This is the same as saying that each person is an onion, we all have multiple layers, and to be able to reach the inner layers, one must first get past the outer layers. I would think this to be the normal idea. However, I wish to question this. What if people are in fact not onions? Personally, I do not believe that people are onions. Rather, I think people are more like those fortune wheels we spin at fairs or at lucky draws. However, people are not just any wheel, we are tweaked, tampered wheels. What the arrow eventually points to will depend on the person spinning it.

I much prefer this view of people and human interaction. Why? The onion-view scares me a little, because what it seems to say is that if people try hard enough, and if people know how to, they can eventually strip a person down right to his or her core. The onion will eventually be reduced to onion strips. And honestly? I don't want to be a bowl of onion strips. With the wheel-view, what it seems to say is that people can be selective about who they are. The wheel appears to be fair, but in fact it is not, but only you know it. The wonderful thing about the wheel-view is that it can be manipulated, such that you can allow someone to know everything about you and who you are, or nothing at all. However, the wheel-view is of course based on the assumption that every individual section (vector is the more mathematical term I think, but i am most probably wrong) is filled. Which in many cases, I think they are not, which makes using the wheel-view incomplete and thus flawed.

There is a flaw with this whole argument. What I am here trying to do is to use the onion-view to generate the wheel-view, to some extent. Which then means this argument cannot hold, and thus falls apart.

Splat.