There is an episode of How I Met Your Mother where Robin and Ted tell Marshall about this relationship theory which says that every good relationship has a settler and a reacher; the reacher reaches for someone out of their league, and the settler settles for someone below theirs. The whole episode revolves on Marshall trying to get Lily to admit she’s the reacher but the latter, who thinks the opposite, does not want to answer to avoid hurting her man’s feelings. The theory didn’t strike me as particularly earth-shattering, and I always thought I’m sort of a settler because, eherm, modesty aside, there is a sub-specie whose members reach for me and think I’m quite a catch. Ganun eh. Hahaha.
Although I did settle once upon a time (it led to disastrous results as expected), I swore I will never ever settle again. So I started looking but gave up after a few tries. It’s so difficult, going out there and trying to find people who will love you for your quirks, and whose quirks you will love in return. I kissed dating goodbye, so to speak.
But here comes a person who is exactly that. And she’s asking me if I’m settling with her because of my previous declaration against dating. Boohoo. Me and my big mouth.
I vehemently denied the charge, of course. Why look further when I've found what I've been looking for?
What were you looking for?
The question reminded me of a line from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged (of all places!): “Love is our response to our highest values, and can be nothing else.”
You love someone because that someone “reflects your deepest visions of yourself,” Rand says. You love someone whose “value” approximates your valuation of yourself. So if you think you’re a catch, you will not settle for someone who’s not. This analysis sort of invalidates the Reacher-Settler theory adverted to above. Reaching in this case is not for someone out of your league but for someone within yours, albeit hard to attain. How then does a reacher decide that someone is The One? Will acknowledging that a person is the embodiment of your most fundamental convictions be tantamount to settling? If that is so, I’d be happy to settle.
And to you dear one, a song.
I wanted to post the version from 500 Days of Summer but JGL’s moves are distracting. LOL.
Three weeks into my new job and I’m going nuts. The work is easy if you shut down your emotional alter ego and just decide everything based on the rules. The job entails settling conflicting claims of land ownership (Pasok pa rin sa title hehe).
The question that has been hounding me for weeks is -- How do you know the truth?
Well, as an administrative proceeding, the standard of proof is substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. But what if in the course of the proceedings, a piece of evidence was lost, one that would spell the difference between ownership and trespassing? How do you know if the record as you got it presents all sides of the story? What is adequate? How reasonable is reasonable? How certain are you that your conclusion is just and fair?
Haay. Nakakabaliw ang mangarir.