A lukewarm, ambivalent, equivocal relationship, with no definitions, too many unspoken words and too much uncertainty. At its best it is comfortable and comforting in its familiarity, at its worst it's got no reference points or indications that it could potentially grow beyond what it is and become something more definite, or rather, definable - that is objectively. And if I were to describe myself in this relationship I would be nice, agreeable, undemanding, yet at the same time slightly neurotic and sporadically emotional (at least at moments when i don't try to restrain myself), whereas he's calm, rational, level-headed in a non-flippant way, nice by his nature rather than by circumstances. This pretty much sums it all up, and yet to elaborate a little more (although I am not sure why I continue this pointless exercise), I'd give it credit for being civilized to the extent that there are no sharp disagreements or unnecessary arguments, let alone fights, and that our differences are reconciled in a quiet, compromising and complimentary way. It's a polite relationship. Respectful. Considerate towards each others' immediate needs and discomforts. And yet it still is what it is - a lukewarm, ambivalent, unequivocal relationship...

...and the question is, what do I do now, that I am finally able to objectively see it for all it is.

One day it will all be a distant memory, Nika, yet I can tell you now, with the supreme confidence of someone who's gone ahead in time to know, that you'll look back on this life and be so flush with love and admiration for yourself, your journey, and who it made you, that you'll wonder, as I do now, how it could possibly have escaped you then.

Maybe this will help.

Your greater-self,
The Universe

Theorem: Every natural number is INTERESTING.

Proof (by contradiction): Suppose there exist some numbers that are not interesting. Then by the well-ordering principle, there has to be a least such number.  But that would be INTERESTING. Contradiction!

Therefore, every natural number is interesting. ■

Consider a simple two dimensional choice dilemma

Suppose you have two choices, option A and option B, A ≠ B. The constraints are such that you cannot choose both. Each one of these options is equally appealing, yet choosing each will lead to a drastically different outcome. Each outcome, in its turn, is just as appealing as the other, i.e. you know that you can be happy with either outcome. An economist, then, would say that you are indifferent towards either one of these choices, since each choice gives you the same utility (fancy word for satisfaction). Except that in real life you’re not “indifferent” in the true meaning of the word, because (i) you can’t compare these choices, since outcomes are so different that we’re talking apples and oranges at this point; (ii) when you choose A, you will never know what it’s like to have chosen B and vice versa. Therefore by choosing A you have eliminated the possibility that you could ever have B (and vice versa). That does not leave a lot of room for indifference now, does it?

Q: How would you make your choice?