wow how superficial is this post.

I should be attempting to do some of the absurd amounts of homework given, but nahh. well todays post is about superficiality, having had a discussion with someone about it earlier in the day. actually there were only a few lines about the subject matter but hey, my brain turned it into an essay. so. what is superficiality?? zz im almost too lazy to think about this.

su·per·fi·cial ( P )
adj.

1. Of, affecting, or being on or near the surface: a superficial wound.
2. Concerned with or comprehending only what is apparent or obvious; shallow.
3. Apparent rather than actual or substantial: a superficial resemblance.
4. Trivial; insignificant: made only a few superficial changes in the manuscript

wow dictionary.com my best friend.
anw the only definition of significance is the 2nd one. theres some thoughts swimming in my head about it. so i will just attempt to make some sense out of them. im not saying im correct or anything btw. just trying to sort some stuff out. give ur opinions, if you find them valid in enlightening me, and the other people who read this blog (not alot, but do it anw ><) In the first place is there such a thing as a superficial person? taking the dictionary meaning and applying it to relevant context, a superficial person would have a shallowness to him(i will not /her not because i am sexist but because i am lazy) so the only thing to him would be..general appearance, mannerisms, preferences, etc. and his thoughts would all be about what hes gonna wear, what hes gonna say, etc. so basically his life would have no depth. but is there such a person? it is a fact that everyone has more or less been through quite abit of life. surely people would have gained something, some depth from it. is it possible that they could emerge from their pasts as shallow people? it is also generally accepted that people(try to) reveal only as much of themselves as they want to, be it their past or their thoughts. so some people who look like they are nothing more than walking talking pieces of flesh, may actually have some level of depth.(i say some because i do not know enough people well enough to qualify this statement). How is depth defined, anyway? does being able to philosophize about the world, or write poetic sounding lines, or being able to look like you know alot more than you let on constitute depth? or is the volume formula applicable, surface area* depth = volume, where everyones volume is the same? pfft. i honestly have no idea. if that were the case then would superficiality and sincerity be related, where how superficial you are depends on how much of you you present to others? how is identity derived, anyway?

so if there are no such things as superficial people, then there are only superficial relationships. by my definition it is one where each of the people involved in the relationship chooses to involve only a part of him in it. (i.e. he'll ask you hows your day, what homework there is, but really doesnt put himself in the interaction) if that even makes sense. i do not say 'chooses to reveal only a part of him in it, because it is given that there are very few people one can completely make himself known to. besides, if the complete picture of you was shown to everyone the phrase 'getting to know you' would be irrelevant wouldnt it. its possible to not reveal much about urself, but still involve yourself in the relationship, i suppose. its not how much of yourself you reveal, but how much of you you show. or is it.

So. anw. superficial relationships? relationships are by default superficial. they have to start out on the surface, because like i said no one shows himself in his entirety. so they have to start out superficial. then some relationships progress and grow deeper. but the superficial aspect of it has to be kept, i guess. the world itself is largely based on superficiality, and you still ask people routine questions like 'how much you get for test' even if youve known them for years and years and you know you can trust them with all your darkest secrets. so relationships still have to function on a superficial level.

haha so theres basically no conclusion. relationships have to function on a superficial level, and then with some people theres another layer, and another and another. but i dont suppose these lower depths can be explored with essays. relationship matters like this cant be, shouldnt be, defined with long lines of argumentative debates with self. these come from the brain(or at least the part where logic and all that stuff is contained). that place processes things too superficially. as i have discovered in the course of writing this.

funny how ive never really tried reasoning all this out till now. doesnt make things very much clearer btw. oh well. its food for thought. that you'll probably chew and chew and never get it down to small enough pieces to swallow lol.

i hope i din offend anyone with my views/the publication of my views. or muddled thoughts. 1st non-boring-narrative post, so well i wouldnt rly know..