There is also another time when a very similar set of emotions rises – this is when your partner is leaving you or you find out they are cheating on you. The same feeling of needing to possess, a primal drive to protect what’s yours, a fear of losing something of yours.

Fear is a common denominator in both cases. Fear that the person might not feel the same way as you do. Fear of rejection. In many ways, the chemical reaction that is widely perceived as love or lust for someone is, in fact on an emotional level very close to fear.

This state of mind and release of those chemicals into your brain – testosterone, estrogen – is triggered by something specific in the other person – a piece of clothing, a look, a type of smile, specific sound of their voice, the way they walk. The actual trigger is individual to everyone but the resulting brain chemistry and emotional state is the same.

Recent studies in neuroscience have indicated that as people fall in love, the brain consistently releases a certain set of chemicals, including pheromones, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, which act in a manner similar to amphetamines, stimulating the brain’s pleasure center and leading to side effects such as increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement.[1]

The problem here is that this state and those chemicals are extremely addictive. Once you’ve received a dose, you need to get more and more otherwise you face very heavy withdrawal symptoms, including anxiety, depression and others. This is what very often leads to ‘rebound-relationships’ – by feeding your addiction a new dosage of the drug you avoid the withdrawal. In extreme cases, this can lead to a succession of relationships each few days up to few weeks in length, until each of them runs out of love – fails to produce that chemical reaction any further – and then the addict will go look for the next target, next fix.

How exactly is this any different from alcohol, tobacco or heroin addiction? Extreme sports? Online gaming? They all share, to bigger or lesser extent, the search for repeat of a feeling and the search for the next high.

Let’s take a few steps back. Can such physical connection, such lust lead to lasting relationships? A relationship is a two-way street – both parties have to have a mutual interest in it for it to work. So is this chemical reaction which we call love mutual? The one feeling it definitely wants it to be, believes it to be. How else could they? If they didn’t, if they accepted that the other person isn’t feeling that way, that would immediately lead to realization that they’ll never be able to completely acquire their target into their life, which in turn would instantly lead to withdrawal symptoms described above. A rather typical addict behavior, to distort and change the reality, to see what they want to see, isn’t it? It’s much easier to believe that they feel the same; bask in their presence, turn into a pink macaroni for a while, close your eyes and float in the clouds. Even if it’s for a day, a week or a month.

So we’ve established that this chemical reaction is personal, only within your own brain and is one-way. We also know it’s addictive, it’s rather draining to be in that state for long time and that the other person does not feel that way. All in all, this means that any relationship built upon this is doomed from the get-go since it’s not a two-way street – the one under the spell will always be at a disadvantage, in fear of losing their precious. Usual behavioral patterns for such a person in a relationship include being overly protective, paranoid, suspecting. Side-effects also often include nightmares involving their partner, usually themed around the target leaving them. This is clearly an unhealthy relationship and an unhealthy way to live.

By the way, in a rare chance where both parties would have the same chemical reaction, it would lead to a very high-energy, stormy and powerful relationship yet still filled with distrust, paranoia and suspicion – because both parties would be too much in love, but at the same time also consumed with fear of losing the other person. Again, not a healthy and in the long term very draining way to live. Notice how “fear” keeps coming up again and again?

So what would a normal relationship be like? A normal, healthy relationship would be built upon being comfortable around each other, trusting and relaxed; where all involved parties can be themselves without pretending or worrying what the other person might think about them. There is no butterflies in the stomach feeling in such a relationship. There’s no fear either. It’s a relaxed co-existence.

Now, if you’re going to argue that that’s not love, you’re going to be right on the mark. Because you don’t want to have love in a relationship – at least not in the sense it’s usually understood as the addictive chemical imbalance in your brain. So we’re not going to call that love, we’re going to call this emotion comfort. That’s what you’re looking for.

So the last question remains. Can you go from the initial primal, physical, chemical attraction to a comfortable, relaxed co-existence? The answer is yes, however it requires that the object of the love recognizes that chemical imbalance in their partner and cares enough to help the love-sick person work out and through their problem. Because we already know that you really don’t want your partner to become (or remain) distrustful, paranoid, fearful and suspicious.

If we notice that, if we notice that our partner is deeply in love with us and is exhibiting those abnormal symptoms, we shouldn’t get angry at them, we shouldn’t yell at them; they really can’t help it. Think back to when you were in that position, perhaps in an earlier relationship that didn’t last. Think what that person whom you were in love with should have done to build comfort with you – to calm your fears, to address your insecurities, to make you relaxed – and then do those things to help your partner reach that balance, relaxed state of brain-chemistry. Only then can the relationship become normal, healthy, relaxed and comfort has been reached.

Love is an addictive chemical reaction in your brain, emotionally sharing a lot of similarities with fear. It’s a a drug, an unhealthy and addictive mental state; it is very difficult to build relationships upon that, impossible without a lot of mutual cooperation. Recognize it in yourself and in others around you; conquer it in yourself, then help others do the same.

We all want to leave a good impression of ourselves when we first meet someone, that is only natural. Care must be taken, however, not to confuse ‘leaving a good impression’ to ‘acting a different role’. Very often, the person we imagine or wish ourselves to be and the person who we actually are are two rather different things; our perception of our Self may not always agree with the reality and nature of our being. Here being in tune with our natural, inner self is very useful – knowing who we are rather than what the surrounding society or family would like us to be.

As an example, an introvert guy could learn pick-up art, hit the clubs and score women; it’ll probably be a rather draining experience for him since that kind of behavior focuses large amounts of energy outwards, completely opposite to the natural state of the introvert who prefers to focus his energies inward. Regardless, for a day or two, or perhaps even a week, he can keep up the outward-focused energy before being completely drained. And he might even feel really good about himself having scored women, new social connections and been what he perceived a ‘socially accepted norm’, a socially active person.

Yet, he was playing a role and not being himself. He should know that he can’t keep that outgoing nature and outward-focused energy going forever. What would happen to a relationship started on these grounds? We know first impressions are extremely important. We also know that the first few weeks of the relationship lay the groundwork and largely define the course of the rest of it (be it months, years or decades). So what happens if one (or, God forbid, both) is not his/her natural self during that critical period during the relationship?

Does this sound familiar? “I met this perfect guy/girl, we clicked instantly, love at first sight, as if we were soul mates. But two months later he/she changed and now it’s like I don’t even know him/her anymore…”

Any relationship built on the foundation of lies and deceit is doomed from the beginning. Misrepresenting yourself –  trying to present a version of You which you think the other person would prefer, even with the best intentions – over your actual Self – is a lie upon which you really don’t want to build a relationship on. Furthermore, if you notice yourself doing that or even contemplating doing that, perhaps it might be better to take a step back, review your self-image and attempt to correct the inner conflict between your Self and your perception of your Self before considering entering serious relationships – broken and internally conflicting people don’t make good partners either.

I’m not saying one shouldn’t strive to improve themselves; but recognizing your natural tendencies and playing on your strengths while recognizing and working on your weaknesses might be better than vice versa. With some practice, you can easily recognize people who act naturally, are in tune with their Selves and the impostors who act a role.

Be Your Self.

A software engineer starting a new project first has to dream up the ideal solution to that problem. In the programmers mind, this solution is perfect and is functioning ideally to achieve the stated goals. When subsequently transforming that idealistic vision to actual computer code and connecting it with Reality, there are inevitable losses in quality and only a fraction of that perfection the programmer saw in his head gets translated to the real world. With practice, the amount of quality lost during this transformation may be reduced but it can be never completely avoided.

When dealing with legacy code, be it of their own doing or something inherited from other programmers, the engineer is facing a decision whether to accept the codebase as it is and attempt to make incremental changes to it or to throw it away and start over from scratch.

In “The Paradox of Self-Denial”, Alan Watts notes that attempts to accept, reject or change ourselves are all equally fruitless, as if trying to bite your own teeth, since the part of our self that wants to change our self is the very one needing to be changed. In order to realize the futility of that, a serious attempt must be made at it – because only through the humility of discovering the inability to make any meaningful change to itself can the ego die – opening a doorway to actual progress. Zen Buddhism likens this task of self-transcendence to a mosquito trying to bite an iron bull and eventually realizing the utter futility of the activity.

An engineer can easily manipulate and control an external entity – a piece of code – but we have yet to develop software that is capable of truly meaningful self-improvement.

The implication of this on the surface seems to be that we appear to be ultimately powerless to control or implement changes in ourselves in any meaningful way – and this does not bode well with most of us. Most of us are unwilling to let go of control at that level and simply trust ourselves to the “flow”.

We are not isolated entities floating in nothingness – instead, we are part of an enormous world of other entities, objects, connections and relationships which we would call the Reality. Our subjective Reality is the sum of our environment, the people and objects with which we interact with and this subjective Reality has a major influence on all our decisions, thoughts, feelings and creations. We can either be in sync and balance or in conflict and disharmony with our subjective Reality.

A piece of software also never exists in isolation – it is always part of a bigger ecosystem of other pieces of programs and related applications. There are programs upon which our code relies upon; there are other programs which rely on our program; and yet more programs which are in our general space, perhaps as competitors or partners which all shape the direction our code takes. The engineers observe the environment, the Reality of the program, and make changes to the program to better accord with its Reality so that it would act out its part and role in the environment in the most effective way.

The amount of influence our Reality has upon us depends on our level of harmony with that Reality. As our thoughts and ideas move further away from those of our Reality, the chances of conflict keep increasing. On an individual scale, this may result in arguments, hurt feelings and social problems, while on a society level this often leads to uprisings and even civil wars. By adjusting the balance between harmonizing and conflicting with our Reality, we can control the amount of influence that Reality has on us – ideally trying to match our Reality as closely as possible to our being to reduce the amount of conflict in our lives.

A person who is in constant conflict with his Reality is in fact contributing to the same elements of their Reality that they are in conflict with – effectively creating a closed loop which only breeds further conflict. Instead, by trying to harmonize with his Reality, by first implementing change within himself and then projecting it outwards can the Reality on a bigger scale be changed; it must not be forgotten, though, that Reality is much bigger and has much higher inertia than the individual – so it is easy to get hurt when attempting too radical and disruptive changes.

Sometimes, programs are developed which go against the ‘current’, software which upsets the Reality, disrupts the status quo and otherwise goes not conform. Sometimes, such disruptive technology is necessary to drive the Reality forward and shake it out of some limiting beliefs. However, it is extremely risky because it goes hard against the current and being a conflicting entity, it can trigger a lot of chaos and mayhem. Due to the high risks involved in such disruptive solutions, most software businesses prefer to harmonize and be in accord with the Reality and make incremental, iterative changes instead.

If we accept our Reality as a major influence on all our thoughts and decisions and that for the most part, it is better to be at peace with and in accord with our Reality, then it would again appear that we are still powerless – in that state of mind, in that harmonic existence, it still requires us to relinquish control over ourselves to the invisible hand of Reality – and become merely powerless observers of ourselves. Have we just exchanged the notion letting go and going with “the flow” with the idea of letting go to go with “our Reality”?

The key here is that we have quite a lot of control over our Reality and can choose the elements which it is composed of; by doing so, we can indirectly influence ourselves through the invisible hand of Reality. By choosing to surround ourselves with people with certain mindsets, we let ourselves to be influenced by those ideas and naturally gravitate towards similar thought patterns. By choosing a venue for the night, we make a decision on how we wish to be influenced on that particular evening; which ideas we want to absorb – which elements we wish to bring into our Reality. By choosing a movie to watch or a song to listen to, we bring those into our Reality and let them influence us.

A software engineer can also control the Reality to which his program is exposed to by making strategic decisions on which other programs his program interfaces with, which system libraries he uses and which operating restrictions are placed upon the program. A programmer consciously choosing to develop a program under much more restrictive and limiting conditions – less available memory, network bandwidth, disk space or processor speed – influences the outcome of the final product.

An engineer developing a video streaming algorithm under near-ideal network conditions will create a solution that works in that environment – but not in less-than-ideal, real world conditions; even with extensive QA and testing, the underlying ideas that shaped that program will have very difficult time in a very restrictive network environment. Yet a programmer writing the same program from scratch in an extremely harsh and restrictive environment will make deep low-level decisions which will shape the program in such a way that it will operate smoothly in that environment – and in all better-case real-world environments as well. Therefore, it is useful to develop software in worst-case environment and scenarios – because when you release the program to the world, for the majority of time it will operate in environments which are less restrictive than the one where it “grew up”, giving it a lot of headroom and increasing its overall operational effectiveness.

Thus, by recognizing the futility of trying to bite our own teeth, by seeking harmony between ourselves and our Reality, by making incremental adjustments to our own mind as well as our Reality, by placing elements and components into our Reality which we know to drive us towards our goals, by exposing ourselves to and letting ourselves be influenced by elements which we see in our vision of our ideal self, we have the control to drive ourselves towards any goals we can imagine and be well on the path of becoming the person we dream of being.

For some reason, Jethro Tull never comes up in topics of intricate or difficult drumming; everyone talks about Rush, Dream Theater and other heavier progressive rock and metal bands. One of the reasons might be that Jethro Tull has been even further outside the main stream than Rush and other progressive rock bands; while having a great cult following, they never got “that famous”.

A second reason, perhaps, is that Jethro Tull has had 6 different drummers throughout their 50-year-long career. Only their original drummer, Clive Bunker, during 1967-1971 has received an entry into 100 Greatest Rock Drummers listing but at a low position of 79. Neither Barrymore Barlow (1971-1979) nor Doane Perry (1983-present) receive any mentions; yet listening to albums throughout, there’s still a distinctive ‘Jethro Tull’ style drumming going on that is perhaps what Clive Bunker contributed and all the following drummers tried to the best of their ability to reproduce. Barrymore Barlow carried on Bunkers legacy almost perfectly, but by the time Doane Perry came along the sound has moved further away.

There is no question of Clive Bunkers chops, speed and creativeness as can be seen from this solo, but that’s not why I’m interested in him; there are many other drummers who are at the same level; what I’m interested in, though, is how he constructed drum parts to the songs.

The biggest difference in the early Jethro Tull drumming compared to my other favorites like Neil Peart from Rush is that what Neil does is very structured, logically composed and analytical – which naturally appeals to me, being a programmer and a logical person. However, the way Clive and Barrymore play is completely emotional. You could listen to those earlier albums and actually not hear the drums – because a lot of the times, the drums don’t have their own distinctive part – they closely mimic and follow whatever the lead instrument is at the time – following the vocal hits, guitar riffs or flute movements up and down, both rhythmically and melodically. This is completely different from the “modern” rock drumming and concepts of time, pulse and such. There’s no pulse in Jethro Tull drum parts, no 8th-notes going; more often than not, there’s not even an implied underlying time feel that you can count out or tap your feet to.

I guess “orchestral drumming” might be one way to describe this approach to constructing drum parts; but I prefer to just call it the “emotional” approach, as opposed to “logical, structured”. This is definitely an aspect of drumming that I want to investigate further; while my natural approach might be structured and logical, I think the emotional part adds a lot of value; also, I’ve noticed that when I let loose and just go wild on some play-along song, I have a stronger tendency to try to mimic the lead instruments movements and try to accord with it instead of sitting back and keeping a pulse or even going against it.

To wrap up, this nice tribute to Jethro Tull is definitely worth watching.

“Passion, it lies in all of us, sleeping… waiting… and though unwanted… unbidden… it will stir… open its jaws and howl. It speaks to us… guides us… passion rules us all, and we obey. What other choice do we have? Passion is the source of our finest moments. The joy of love… the clarity of hatred… and the ecstasy of grief. It hurts sometimes more than we can bear. If we could live without passion maybe we’d know some kind of peace… but we would be hollow… Empty rooms shuttered and dank. Without passion we’d be truly dead.” - Joss Whedon - ”Buffy the Vampire Slayer”

Passion is the most important and sought-after quality in any profession. It is also something you cannot fake at a job interview and something that is clearly seen by those around. A person passionate about what they do is at peace – he has found his niche in life – his identity. He understands his inner need to do what he does and he does it the best he can.

Passion cannot be taught or learned – it can only be found. Finding your passion can be a long and hard process or it can be obvious. A four-year old girl saying “I want to become a ballet dancer” can be a sign of a future passion towards dancing; or a 18-year old living with his parents and looking at his computer all night could be a sign of passion towards programming. Yet often, signs are ignored, and the girl goes to study mathematics and the guy goes to sell women’s shoes during the day, both either not recognizing their passion or not acting on it.

If you don’t have passion for what you do, then why are you doing it? Life is too short to waste it on things you don’t care about. “But I have bills to pay! But I have a mortgage! But… But..”. STOP. You are not listening. What you are doing is not worth doing, at least not by you. You are not passionate about it. Walk away from it. Deal with the consequences and go after what you’re passionate about. You’ll feel so much better afterwards. It’s like getting out of a bad relationship – it’ll hurt at first but the feeling of freedom, peace and happiness will come in due time.

Find your passion. Go after it. Trust me – people will notice. People will respect you for that. Everything else will fall in place once you’ve discovered that.

“Keep it Simple, Stupid. Don’t you really love to hear it? K.I.S.S. To me, that often leads to L.O.V.E. – Leave Out Virtually Everything – so that you’re not allowed to be creative or to add something to the bands music because you’re the lowly drummer – the lowly timekeeper. Seems to me what we should be looking for is M.U.S.I.C. – Make Up Something Interesting and Complementary.” – Neil Peart – “A Work In Progress” (2002)

As engineers (or designers, or drummers), we create something in our heads. In our vision, it is perfect and holy in all ways. Then we translate it into the real / virtual world. During that translation, things get lost or adapted to the limitations of the world. So it will be defective by definition. After doing it many times, we get used to those losses and learn to adapt our visions better to the limitations imposed by the real world, therefore becoming better at what we do.

Another thing is when you take your idea and explain it to another person. It gets translated to words (mistakes will be made), and then into another vision in the other persons head (depending on how well he understood your words). That’s two layers of translation.

What micro-management does is perform 3 layers of translation (from the perfect vision into real world), as it’s first transferred to another person, and then to the world. The end result is that the visionary will blame the implementer for not implementing his vision correctly, while in fact this was merely a result of things getting lost in translation.

It is nearly impossible to translate a vision into the real world without data loss with 1-layer (the visionary implements it), yet micro-management has the hidden assumption that it’s possible to do with three translation layers.