then again, maybe i'm lee harvey oswald

i believe in cellular memory.

the idea is: anything we experience we carry with us our whole lives, because the event is infused in not just our mind, but every aspect of our being. it's why a song can give us a flash of feeling so strong that our heart will tug, if even only a little, when we hear the melody that eased us through a breakup. it's why your whole body can feel happy when a familiar scent hits just the right way; baked bread can revert you into childhood and your grandmother's kitchen. i once bought a brand of shampoo i never had before, and when the scent hit me it was that of one of my first one-night stands; her name was long gone from my mind, but her aroma still existed inside me somewhere and i became aroused without even realizing it.

so i further believe you can never escape your memories or emotions, you can only acknowledge and co-exist with them. in best-case scenarios, you can smile wistfully at happy experiences. in the least, you hope to overcome traumatic experiences; returning to the scene of a horrific event can provide for amazing catharsis, such as that of a holocaust survivor seeing auschwitz through free eyes.

two friends of mine recently went through emotional hell; their seven-year relationship and ensuing engagement ended. the specifics are not mine to tell--it's not my story--but each went on a rollercoaster of rage and sorrow, something anyone who has ever been at the failing end of love can relate to. within the passion of the immediate aftermath, each performed actions they were not proud of and when the dust settled several weeks later, a hoped-for friendship was left close to tatters.

all along, i listened to both sides, and with each friend i repeated a single refrain: is what you're doing helping you heal? actions need no justification, so whenever one did something they were unhappy with my constant question was, "why did you do it?" not as a matter of attack, but to allow them to talk it out. the idea was: the more they talked, the more they would come to their own conclusions.

after all the acrimony that had taken place between the two of them, i was asked for input. the question in front of me was, "i feel like calling her, because i miss her as a friend. should i?"

i responded, "yes."

my friend paused, then let lose a sigh of exasperation and testily said, "goddammit, you're the only one telling me this. everyone, and i mean everyone is telling me the exact opposite of what you're saying."

i laughed, because popular opinion is not always right; just look at the top 10 grossing movies or most-watched television shows of any given year.

i believe we have to honor our emotions, or they will destroy us. it's easy when we're happy, because happy is perceived as being good and sad as being negative--we enjoy happy and want it to last forever. the thing is, the mind and body won't let us get away with such one-sidedness; there's a very clever line in "the matrix" about the first run world being created perfect, "where none suffered. where everyone would be happy. it was a disaster. no one would accept the program." the idea of a yin and yang exists on every level of life; you have to have balance. so instead of being frustrated because you're angry, you have to be angry. you have to allow it to work itself through you, like an illness being purged from your system. when you are sad, it's difficult to embrace the energy of despondent emotion, but if you distract yourself from sorrow with shopping, drinking or activity, it will linger hidden inside you and disrupt your life for a much longer period of time.

likewise, you have to honor your truest emotions, which are sometimes the most difficult to acknowledge. there is a tendency to view things like love and compassion as "weak," while anger and indifference are perceived as "strong." what's sadly humorous is the difference in action between the two; acting out of anger is rarely strong, while acting while tender generally is. after 9/11, america was burning to go to war with iraq, because an enemy was needed to explain tragedy. instead of thinking things through, the mob was riled up and we invaded a country on the whim of men with power. only years later, with our countrymen bogged down in a quagmire of epic proportions, do we realize what folly war was. on the flip side of tragedy, in 2006 charles roberts laid siege to an amish classroom and viciously murdered ten girls. after all had ended, the community humbled the world around it by immediately praying for the man's soul and remaining family, vocally calling for forgiveness for his actions.

when my friend felt the burning desire to contact someone who was so important to him and had been so for years, i encouraged it; the idea we are able to explain away actions done in anger, yet have to convince ourselves to extend compassionate offerings confuses my feeble little mind. maybe it's because lashing out is immediate, while love is a slow, ponderous and deeply ingrained thing. when you act, you pounce. when you think, you second-guess.

my friend eventually asked, "do you know how many people would lose respect for me if they knew i was doing this?"

i laughed yet again; "then their respect isn't worth having. those who would attack another in life simply fear the same emotion inside them."

in the end, my friend went against the tide and did what everyone else told him not to do, and as it turned out, it was the right move to make; those he thought would judge understood all too well what it's like to be confused.

we are all more alike when we admit to having the same emotions as the person next to us. if we can reconcile that on a personal level, then maybe we can start creating a supportive society and do away with the current trend of celebrating the tearing down of one another.