shapes and what they mean to me and not to you

by December Diaz

Norms get in the way of a lot of things. Conversely, it is us who shackle ourselves with these norms. Of course, they were in good intention to possibly bring society to its ideal state of civilization — where people live in harmony; everyone, though different, is accepted. But to some extent, these norms limit the way we see things. You can not do this. You can not do that. This can only be this. And that can only be that. And those who think and assert that this could be that are ostracized. At this point in our time, definitions have been changing. But how much can we change these definitions?

I know for myself that I could love as much as I love another. At breakfast, I could love eating pancakes. But at the same time, I could love eating waffles. And no one can tell me that I can only love one. In this consumerist world, I could love Nike, but then I could equally love Adidas. Each one has their own branding and their own style, and each one I could equally appreciate.

Sooner or later, I could be talking about something else entirely, when the restrictions of having this over that and not having both becomes severely strict, as said so by our norms.

The heart is, as it should be, and as I believe it to be, a vast space. Why must we impose hierarchies on it, where the top of the triangle is so miniscule that it can only occupy a single unit? And to think, why was the heart shaped as it is: an inverted triangle with these two curves at the top? Surely somewhere in the internet, which is just as vast as the heart, there is an answer. But I, for sure, don’t want some bullshit answer another person just thought of. It’s the tyranny of the first. If you’re the first to define it, then you are right. Luckily, this is starting to change. And this, I don’t want. Each and every person has their own definition, and some are a lot more unique than others.

For fear of being shamed or possibly triggering people into questioning their already established notions, and also because what I’m asking is surely pretty obvious at this point, I’m not going to clearly state what it is I’m questioning.

Now, it is time for myself to decide whether I should just go with what is stated or to do my own thing. The thing with this subject is that it had been held to such a high standard, possibly the highest, that it is now seen to be something that only one is deserving of at a time. I guess that’s the difference. I can do this with that as much as I could at some time and do this with that at the same rate at another time, but never at the same time, because someone, somewhere in history said that this is wrong. But still. It is much too vast of a thing to impose time restrictions on it. If it happens, it happens. And now I don’t even care anymore if it’s not okay. It is what it is. I’ve already made a lot of decisions in a lot of dilemmas and these I couldn’t avoid because of the tangible restrictions of space and time. This works in a whole another dimension, where I say, things can occupy the same space at the same time. Fuck your physics.