Some people are questioning why I’m suddenly reading about string theory. To which my first thought is, of course, that these people must not know me very well.
My behavior can be explained through patterns: I am a curiosity dabbler. When I find something that interests me, I pursue that something with aggressive interest until I feel I’ve completely and utterly dissected, understood, and therefore “conquered” said something. This is evidenced by the studious and constant annotation and quoting of whatever subject I happen to be studying or pursuing. I am simply curious.
For example, my constant analysis on sexuality. Or even my heavy dabbling in makeup tutorials via YouTube. Or my sudden interest in psychoanalytic theory. Or my ongoing obsession with how best to manipulate social media. Or networking. Or video games. Or yadda yadda yadda.
I think that, for the most part, people get so caught up in attempting to define other people simply by what they do for a living, or by focusing on a single hobby that a person has, with the idea that this single hobby or profession completely and utterly explains both who a person is, and what fundamentally motivates this person.
I argue the contrary.
I don’t feel that my molecular hobbies or interests define who I am.
The underlying foundation — the pillar of what I feel makes me who I am — is my curiosity. Or in other words, my naturally inquisitive behavior, and my pursuit to satisfy that curiosity by bringing the fundamentals of certain curiosities into awareness. My deeper psychoanalysis.
The other night, while up at 1:43 AM (thanks to my roomies talking very loudly near my bedroom door about boys or whatever other girly problems they happen to be having at the moment), I flipped on my book light and scribbled out the following entry in my journal:
With the example above and with the several examples you’ll probably find scattered throughout my various works online, one overwhelming pattern remains: My constant desire to understand the why behind almost absolutely everything.
I feel personally rewarded by uncovering the seemingly autonomous reasons behind basic human and unconscious desires. By simply making myself aware of things, I am able to ask: “What should I do with the knowledge of why I do things, or what am I going to do now that I know why I am going to do that?”
I am motivated purely by curiosity and the reward of satisfying that curiosity.
In the pursuit of that knowledge, I happen to end up devouring almost everything at an aggressive rate, and due to this, my constant changing from one area of interest to another seems almost rapid and incomplete to those who might instead prefer to move more slowly. This is understandable. I’m kinda freaky like that.
I relate my hobby for collecting hobbies to a character from the film, The Brothers Bloom, where Rachel Weisz plays Penelope, a woman who happens to spend her free time studying things she likes, and mastering these things.
For me, and much like Penelope (though on a more realistic scale, I suppose), once I’ve had my fill of one particular subject, I usually move on. It is only the things that I remain truly passionate about that I end up sticking with. Reading and writing, for example, while merely existing as a piece of the puzzle within my constant need to dissect and analyze the universe — these two things happen to also be something I am passionate about. And how fortunate that the things I love happen to make me productive, right?
But overall, my very human mind obviously hosts a collection of everything I’ve managed to retain. This is why you’ll often see recurring themes in my work, or suddenly catch me repetitively using a new word I’ve heard, or find me frequently quoting authors, speakers or philosophers that I’ve stumbled onto — all in the interest of retaining this new information.
And speaking of authors I love …
“Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus.” – Christopher Hitchens
By society’s standards, we often relate two things to each other that have absolutely no business being correlated in the first place: The idea that someone who loves pink, for example, must be a ditzy moron (although there are definitely people who prove that). Or in another example, the idea that loving makeup and fashion must mean you clearly know nothing about technology or business development. Or even on a more extreme note (and I mean this only as an example and with no harm intended), the idea that being Black, Asian, or Mexican etc means you’re dirty or incompetent.
I don’t feel that someone’s curiosity for a certain subject necessarily defines who they are. Though on the flip side, a passion for a particular curiosity might define a fragment of a person’s underlying motivations. But in the event that someone is particularly passionate about simply being curious, well … Then you get someone like me.
I’m very much a “don’t judge a book by its cover” sort of person who preaches the idea that one should both enjoy and embrace being underestimated, and that the minor and objective “flaws” that others seem to pin on us are inconsequential in the cosmic scope.
Or basically, fuck what you think you know, and in the words of Hitchens, you can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.
Back to reading about string theory,
XOXO Cheri XOXO