Have you ever thought about...

happy new year to all!!!

2007-01-01T04:06:00.000Z

We're not quite there yet, but my loved ones already are enjoying the first hours of 2007.

I hope this'll be the year that the world finds its way

to peace,

to end the hunger,

and realise that money isn't everything.

Love,
xxx

...loneliness?

2006-12-25T15:55:00.000Z

And the difference between alone and lonely?
I have believed for a long time that we're all alone. Whether on a deserted island, in your house with your family or in the middle of Manhattan's rushhour: Nobody can look into our heads, nobody can look into our hearts, we all have our own individual struggles that many people may share, but whoever says "I know how you feel" is lying, because they simply don't. Can't. In my book, we're all individuals and responsible for our actions. That's alone. Not unhappy or miserable or sad or suicidal or extatic or happy any other value attached to it, simply on your own, in your own company.
Loneliness on the other hand has negative values attached to it, at least in my understanding. You think nobody understands you, the world's gone crazy, because essentially your own company isn't satisfying your needs anymore, emotional and otherwise. I have also believed for a long time that once in a sentimental relationship, both feelings of alone and/or lonely would subside because there would be someone there to share my struggles with. Problem shared is a problem halved, joy shared is joy doubled and all that. After many months of relationship with this sensitive yet totally unemotional guy I've realised that my idea of a perfect relationship did involve using the partner as an emotional crutch. I admit it, and I'm now trying to move past it and grow. I shouldn't need him to be happy, I shouldn't let his moodswings influence how I feel. We're two individuals who happen to live together. In the past year I've actually done a lot of growing and soul-searching, come to think of it, but that's a good thing because I'm learning about myself and that helps me feel less alone. He's a good teacher in that respect, as detached as he is, because I'm left to draw my own conclusions.
Since we've moved over here, my emotional needs have been off the chart. I've been feeling sad and lonely for many weeks, communicating clearly that I need more of my partner's attention. He's giving me what he can when he can, but it's not nearly enough so I've given up asking. He truly believes everyone is responsible for their own feelings 100 % and that in turn he is in no way responsible for anyone, not even/especially not me. So what is this teaching me? I am learning that I mustn't depend on him to help me through this bad time. I have to take care of myself, put myself first. I never thought I could feel so lonely in a relationship. And the time of year doesn't help.

...women in society today?

2006-12-21T00:33:00.000Z

Just finished watching Mona Lisa Smile, I'm a bit behind the latest movie releases, I know. What struck me as fascinating though was that I'm still struggling with similar bullshit situations that those girls and women did 50 years ago. Am I really using my education to the fullest? Am I not wasting the few braincells that heavy partying doing my university years have left me with by simply setting up house? Do I have the right to be content washing my man's laundry despite of my degree? Have we as a society really evolved past the point of sexual discrimination? Can you honestly say that there's no man or woman in your circle of acquaintances or family who doesn't smirk at the way you choose to live your life? Without even big guns like religion coming into it, being single and in your 30s is still something of a stigma, isn't it? Well, only if you let them make it that, I suppose. Keeping up with the Joneses, trees and their apples, throwing stones in glass houses - we as a society will never stop judging others, and we may as well get used to it. Our grannies and our mothers fought for us to have a choice, and here's lil ol' me too confused by what's on offer to make up my mind what it is I really want.

...cycles?

2006-12-11T03:01:00.000Z

She lay wide awake in her bed, eyes searching the ceiling. Her significant others' breathing was deep and steady. She let her mind wander. What had happened? Was there one moment that maybe if she thought back hard enough she could pinpoint when exactly things, she, had started to change?
It all started like a fairytale romance, hell, like any new relationship, really. They were in love and not afraid to show the whole world, friends, colleagues, their respective families - everybody should know that this one was it. They went out on dates, for meals, stayed in to watch TV, made plans for the future. And most of all they talked, talked, talked and made love, love, love.
17 months down the line it's less talking and certainly less love-making. But, they still went out for meals and movies, didn't they? And they were still making plans for the future, talking about getting married and buying a dog, weren't they? So why was she crying all the time, feeling all left alone? True, he was the one bringing home the bacon while she was left to her own devices at home. But she didn't mind it that much, she even got to like the ironing. Plus he was supporting her plans of further study, always asking her what she wanted, sometimes in an exasperated tone, but still, and going out on social calls although he hates that kind of thing, but knows how important those outings are for her. He really truly is a good man, she thought. He loves me and I love him.
So, this anxiety must just be part of the natural cycle of a relationship. The cycle she's been through a few times. The cycle everybody knows. The happy-in-love-phase followed by the settling-down-phase followed by the seeing-your-partner-realistically-phase followed by the do-I-really-want-this-phase? followed by the here-I-am-single-again-ready-for-the-next-one-phase. The little nagging feeling she had with all previous relationships and the flaws she found in her partners had so far always gotten the better of her and sooner or later she'd find herself single again. In the words of Quim Monzó, looking to create the kind of closeness she just gave up with someone new, someone exciting. Circle of life, right? It's a biological fact, after all, that human couples are something like genetically programmed to stay together for only about four years anyway. One to love and build a nest, and another two or three until the baby is out of the diapers, weaned and ready to take care of itself. Make that seven years if the couple have two kids. And, since they didn't have any kids, they've had their year of loving and nest-building, so it's no wonder thoughts are moving on, right?
But I don't want to move on, she thought. I want to follow that other road, the one that I've heard so much about. The one where two people stay together because they love eachother, because they have plans together, because they don't want to go through life alone, searching for that next possibly better-suited partner to build a life with, chasing the what-ifs. The road they call "growing up". Which has multiple lanes called "taking responsibility" and "making compromises". Not to be confused with the roundabout of expecting the perfect life in the perfect house with the perfect job and the perfect partner, cos that doesn't exist, honey. It's simply not realistic to expect things to always go well, days always to be great from start to finish, and partners always behaving like you would want them to. They do that for awhile, but then, invariably, tides turn. And that's usually a good thing.
She went back to a little comforting phrase she had come up with years ago: time is merciless. She'd do well to remember that the happy occasions won't last forever, but neither will the sad ones. Time will go on, whatever happens. So, she decided to live in the present and make the most of the happy moments and not worry about the sad ones. I'll break that cycle, she thought; time to exit the roundabout and go look for that road.
And I'll be happy.

...change?

2006-11-28T15:25:00.000Z

it's been a few months since my last post, hasn't it? well, i can explain...
we moved.
basically all described in the below post has happened - we're across the atlantic now. he's working, i'm at home and waiting for my distance learning material to get here. for now i told the cleaning lady she wouldn't have to come again since i'll be doing it all myself, let's see how long this'll last. i find i don't actually mind cleaning or ironing that much, but i'm realistic enough to know that this ain't gonna last forever! so basically my day consists of reading, surfing the net, chatting away, cooking lunch and doing the housework. i've even managed to go walking two times last week, let's see if that'll be a regular feature before i call myself an exerciser though.
we've been here almost six weeks and it appears things are slowly falling into place. the house we have is alright, we're about to get a car, finally, we know where to shop for which food, we even got more or less used to the climate.
you should have seen me over the weekend though, i was so frustrated and ready to move back to europe. because the other thing from the below post is still true too - i still don't have any guarantees that this relationship is going to last forever, shock horror surprise. i still get annoyed with the boy, and it's over things i know, you know? if i know that he's unemotional and comes off as unloving, why do i get annoyed? if i know that he does love me and just doesn't know how to show it to my satisfaction, why do i get annoyed? i guess it's because i tell him time and time again exactly what it is that i need and he still doesn't give it to me. i mean, i understand guys who are exasperated with their women going into huffs all the time because the guys don't know what the girls want. but not in this case - i'm not expecting any mind-reading, i communicate my needs clearly. and can i be blamed for getting annoyed at having to communicate the same thing over and over again? i don't think so! what pisses me off is that we have similar situations all the time and he doesn't remember what i told him the time before. why do i talk if he doesn't listen? or worse, why do i talk if he chooses to ignore what i say?

...why?

2006-09-03T02:14:00.000Z

Another sleepless night and no end to mental diarrhea in sight.
My head just won't stop!
My life is on its way to taking the shape I've imagined in my wildest dreams. Loving boyfriend, no severe health worries (touch wood), supportive friends and a move to an exotic, new and interesting location on the horizon. On the plus side, once the move's completed I'll have time and the economic resources (thanks to my man's generosity) to follow one or two distance-learning courses that have tickled my fancy for years, on the less-plus side I'll be totally dependent on the man whose only proof of commitment has been the continued demonstrations of his feelings for me.
And for some reason, I can't even quite put my finger on it, I'm missing something.
Only two weeks ago, I was tempted to write a post on why I think relationships work or don't work, namely that it depends on how much patience you can muster, how much independence you bring to the table, and how much respect, and love, you have for the other person as a whole. In my opinion there's always something that'll piss you off about any other person, so the sooner you realise whether or not your partners' oddities are seriously getting in the way of your big picture, the better. As a society, I think we're pretty quick in giving up on things and on people. Once you find someone you can care about, it is my belief that it's worth your while checking out twice just how much you'd let go of once the inevitable "do I really need to put up with this?" thoughts come creeping out of the woodworks. Always helps to remember their positive features, why did you like them in the first place, and a good long hard honest look at what they're putting up with from you. Cos chances are, you're odd, too. So, keeping all this in mind, I thought I had the answer to the riddle how to make things last between you and your man: love him, tell him so, and learn to accept and appreciate his way of showing you the love he has for you, without trying to make him jump through romantic hoops that are just not in his DNA.
But now, I find myself worried at all the changes we are facing as a couple. Roles will be rather traditional, the man bringing home the bacon and all, and the woman being at home - but without the brood to take care of. Does the lack of offspring make me superfluous? No, because this particular man doesn't want offspring. But he does want me in his life. At least, for now. And apparently I won't even have to feel bad for taking his money and using it for my education and past-time.
I don't know folks, I want to see all this as the crazy super positive development of unlimited possibility that this life with him is, but I guess I'm just a bit scared. I don't want to change continents without having thought things through thoroughly. (try and say those last four words out loud, and fast, tee hee.) Because if I just go with my gut feeling and think everything's going to work out fine... then I may be faced with a hypothetical problem I haven't got a hypothetical solution for! Shocking! This is a big life-change though, so all sarcastics aside - I wonder where I'm going, cos I kinda can't feel my legs.

...war?

2006-08-09T11:24:00.000Z

I have, and I'd rather everyone was at peace.

Ceasefire Campaign

Since our politicians decide to continue fighting for money, oil and power in the name of furthering... what? seeing their names in the history books to come? Maybe this'll help. Should this link not work, I've also put it among the links on the sidebar.

...equality?

2006-08-01T14:31:00.000Z

Wow, it's the first of august... here's to the rest of the summer! Is it hot where you are? Do you feel sweat trickling down between your breasts and on your back? Do you have to shower at least twice a day to feel slightly fresh?
We haven't had internet connection for a few days, not sure what the problem was, but we're back! Yeah. I didn't really have time to go online anyway, since my course finally started, which means of course that my afternoons are now filled with a lot of reading and research and having discussions with the 24-year-old who teaches the class. Please, don't even get me started. In any case, from what I can tell so far, the world of an editor is an interesting one. It is certainly filled with loads of information about the book market, buying habits, reading habits, competing niches, marketing challenges... It's quite amazing to see how many stages a book goes through before it lands on a shelf in a shop, or at a kiosk, a warehouse, or anywhere else, for that matter.
Having this kind of purpose in my life again (walking briskly to and from the school, folder in hand, ipod in ear, smile on face) made me realise that in the long run, I will need a job that I'm interested in and that I enjoy in order to feel good about myself and my place in life. No more being an assistant just because I know how to do it and it pays the bills. That's just not going to cut it anymore, I want actual job satisfaction.
So when my man started taking action about finding employment on another continent again (instead of making his former lifelong dream of an entrepreneurial business come true here where we are) I understood him. I got it. I mean, his sights are first and foremost set on the money, but all the rest is there, too. So if he feels that that job in the States is going to make him happy, help his career, give him a sense of self-worth, something to be proud of and motivation enough to get out of bed every morning, then he should definitely go for it. And I'll support him in every way I can.
Of course, if he wants me to move over there with him, chances are we'd have to get married, for Visa reasons. I probably wouldn't be allowed to work though (or possibly just as an assistant as that's my area of expertise, but I don't want that) and would spend a lot of time alone, what with him away in the office all day. Plus I would totally depend on his money, which is a weird feeling at the best of times, seeing as I've always had some sort of income since I was 18.
All this uncertainty brought me back to the whole thinking-about-the-future business, and the wondering about will I want to be legally bound to someone who is adamant about not having children, when I'm not sure if maybe I'll want some way into the future. So, you know, same shit, different day. Which is basically what I had been carrying around with me for about a week or so, because I didn't want to put any additional pressure on him, plus nothing's even certain yet. No job offer finalised or anything. However, instead of holding it in til there was something definite to talk about, I asked him a couple of nights ago about what was on my mind. Namely, was he prepared to be legally bound to me if he knows that possibly I'll want children in the future.
I'm sorry to say that we didn't come up with an answer then and there, but we did establish that we both would like to be together and stay together. Forever, if possible. So we got that confirmed again and kind of talked about the future. And by talked, I mean I got the feeling off my chest that it's all my decision and my responsibility. I mean, there's two equal, supposed adults in this relationship, so I don't think I'm asking too much when I try to make him see my position.
Or am I?

...feelings?

2006-07-24T06:49:00.000Z

Something I've been wondering about - in a relationship, are the two people two individuals or two halves making each other whole? Many is the argument that convincingly shows just because one is in a relationship doesn't make them give up their identity, their personality, their uniqueness. Fair enough, I agree. Other train of throught would be, if you're in a relationship, you share everything with the partner, agree on compromises, which conequently makes you give yourself up, to a point, to be completed or re-filled if you will, by the partner. I can also see the reason in there, because if I'm not going to share my life completely with anyone else, what's the point of having the relationship?
So when my boyfriend said to me the other day that he's not responsible for my feelings, I was taken aback and am still trying to make sense of the statement. "You make me happy" and "You make me sad" and "You make me laugh" and "You make me angry" and "You hurt my feelings" are phrases that should simply be stricken from the vocabulary because they're not correct, because nobody can "make me" or tell me how to feel. I agree that people are responsible for their actions and their thoughts and that they have a certain influence over their emotional reactions. For instance, if a stupid waiter pisses me off it is my choice whether I let it bother me or simply laugh it off. Fact remains, the feeling of annoyance is always there, my power consists of deciding on how to deal with it.
I don't think it works that easily for discussions in a relationship though, because obviously my boyfriend is the closest person to me on the face of this planet, and whatever he says or does will affect me in some way or another. It is also my firm belief that emotions by my definition (I see them as coming not from the brain but from some other place, possibly linked with the genetic makeup, not exactly sure and certainly not entirely explicable) cannot be influenced. This a "however" to the above example, cos granted it should be possible to rationalise oneself into feeling less annoyed or more at ease, depending on the situation.
How am I supposed to argue this with him though? Or at least convince him that my position is valid, too? Where's the compromise? The message that he wanted to send was one of support, no doubt, because he's that kind of guy. The message that I received was one of "you're on your own kid, deal with it." Which made me wonder about the whole "why are we in relationships in the first place" shenanigan that is the last two or three posts. Worst thing is I can't even talk to him about it, because it's all pretty muddled and unclear in my own brains - no chance of communicating properly until I know what my whole point is. Let me try and break it down into easily digestible chunks:
I always have some kind of feeling.
I have the feelings I have and I can't explain them because they're not rational (duh).
I have feelings as a reaction to a situation, a comment, a movie, a book, a conversation.
If it's acceptable to say "whenever I hear this song it reminds me of a very emotional situation which brings tears to my eyes, in effect, this song makes me cry", then why can't I say that a person, through comment or action, make me cry?
What's so wrong with taking responsibility not only for your own feelings but also for those of your partner, friends and family, in short, those you care about?
But in that case, where to draw the line? I don't want to be held responsible for the feelings of that waiter telling him to shove it when he pissed me off.
Dilemma!

...PS

2006-07-23T15:12:00.000Z

Many people enter relationships for many reasons. Because they're lonely, because their friends have them, because it's expected, because it seems right, because they want to, and sometimes because of love. Whether this love be of a romantic, platonic or passionate nature, I think it's fair to say that feelings have been known to change. What may start out as platonic love may slide into passion, romantic love may fizzle into friendship.

So what was Shakespeare thinking when he wrote his sonnet number 116?
(...) Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O, no! it is an ever-fixed mark,
That looks on tempests, and is never shaken,
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error, and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

Spur of the moment, realistically speaking. Or are we really meant to believe Billy felt like this (for the same woman, mind) until he died? Be that as it may - who cares? I mean, who am I to judge? And would it really be such an enviable situation if the love remained romantic like in those first few months, without evolving? The main thing should be that he felt this way at least at one point, right?
The longevity of that particular love will have depended then as it does now, on the continuous commitment of the two partners to themselves, their values and their future plans. Show me a relationship that is working without even the slightest glitch and I'll show you two people in denial.

...romance?

2006-07-22T22:17:00.000Z

Hollywood lives off it, every girl dreams about it, some men possibly find themselves afflicted, but is romance really something people have in their lives? We've been living through the age of enlightenment, the age of reason and logic for the past couple hundred years now - are we preparing to go back to choosing our lifepartners with no concern for our feelings? What I'm wondering is, what is peoples' motivation when entering a relationship nowadays?
When you arrange a marriage, you can be fairly certain that factors like economic resources, level of education, religious background and other relationship-endangering issues that would usually come up only after a certain amount of time, possibly when it's too late, have been taken into consideration. So what's wrong with thinking things through and enabling as much as possible the smooth-sailing into the sunset for two people? What's marriage if not the guarantee of companionship into old age, anyway? The good-on-paper guys and girls have a level of security going in their favour, don't they? Everyone knows the sex eventually goes away, so what's left is someone who you want to talk to and discuss your hopes and fears with before you go to sleep, right? If you're really lucky both partners remain independent, have a life of their own, and feel fulfilled. All we need is to like and respect ourselves as well as eachother, and less of this "you completed me when you said hello" rubbish.
So why am I still hoping for the occasional thoughtful, loving, caring, romantic gesture? And shouldn't it count when he brings me tea to bed, where I lie devouring yet another novel (set in the english countryside)? I know it's completely unrealistic to expect thoughtful, loving, caring, romantic gestures on a daily basis, so if anyone has a tip on how to de-romanticise my neurons, I'm looking forward to comments.

...kids?

2006-07-16T12:03:00.000Z

Imagine you're in a relationship where you love your partner and your partner loves you back, at the same time. That's already a miracle in itself this day and age, right? What with all the weirdos and bitches out there. Why then, I ask you, does life have to be so unfair to give that partner a different view from yours when it comes to having children? It's not like there's a possible compromise, like a half-kid, is there.
In my case? I don't want children now but will probably want to try the whole motherhood experience in a few years or so. After all, it is the one thing that our bodies are pretty much genetically programmed to do, apart from society rubbish and most, if not all, of my friends having their own families too. To me, it's just the natural way that people leave their parents to find their place in life, a partner, and create their own, new, family circles. How those circles are made up is up to every individual, obviously, but I'm seeing him and kids in mine.
And my partner sees me, but sans the kids.
So, based on Monica dumping Richard for not wanting kids and Carrie discussing the same thing with her Russian, I couldn't believe that I was going to have that same dilemma: why should I dump a guy I love for a kid I'm not even sure I want? And, in the long run, will he love me enough to make up for the fact that I was never a mother? I could always see him as my child if he chooses to behave like one, but that's beside the point. It's not even like I could argue with his reasons either (although they seem selfish to me and I think I'm allowed to get upset about that), because they're how he feels and, let's not forget, I agree with most of them at this point in time. The difference, I guess, is that I'm open to change and to grow up, take risks and face the responsibility of a son or a daughter, or at least consider the possibility. And my partner is not.
For now, I've decided to wait and stay with him, until I really hear that motherhood call and we can discuss this in earnest. The problem I have is what if he won't change his mind and I'll have wasted all my "good" years - I hate uncertainty, remember? Also, will I be able to really put this issue aside and not worry about it and let it affect other areas of the relationship, because that wouldn't be fair. And, also, will I be able to shut up my feelings of honesty, and how it feels like a lie staying in this relationship if I'm theoretically already kinda prepared to place one foot out the door.
The conclusions I've come to is that I need to see more grey and less black-and-white, and that I can happily stay in this relationship because any time spent with him will never be wasted, and last, but not least: any reproach I have for my partner is just a reflection of emptiness and boredom in my own life. If I think there's something missing I'm the only one who can fix that. Until that fix has the shape of a baby I will enjoy my life and live it as I see fit.
Now I only need a little more time to not be upset anymore, and I'd love your comments. Those who are mothers - is it really all it's cracked up to be? Those who aren't - are you by choice and happy? And the guys - is there really no give in you? Thanks! xx

...insomnia?

2006-06-25T04:24:00.000Z

It's almost 5.30 and I'm still not asleep. Actually lay down at about half past one for an hour or so, drifting in and out of thoughts til a particularly vicious moskito made me retreat in a huff into the living room... damn those insects. I know they're useful in nature as a whole but not in my bedroom, surely.
I tried to snooze on the couch, and since that wasn't happening either I spent something like two hours watching TV. The music channels but also news on Sky - 200 english football hooligans, I mean, fans were arrested after throwing chairs and stuff at celebrating German crowds. What the hell is that about? Too boozed up to realise they'll be missing the game they flew over there for, duh! Sky also saw fit to show a short segment about how Condoleezza (sp?) may be the Republican's candidate for the 2008 elections, possibly being up against Hillary. Not sure what to think of that since I don't know either of the candidates or what they really stand for, but I would be more weary of the C for being so close to the W... but what do I know about American politics - fuck all.
I'm annoyed at not being able to sleep, can you tell?
Anyway.

I just don't know what it is that's keeping me awake, god damn it. Every day I have unfinished thoughts and tasks that float in and out of my head all the time, but usually I manage to push them back until I fall asleep (and then, sometimes, they come back with a vengeance to haunt me in the form of bizarrely stupid scary dreams). So what now, is it the heat? The biting blood-sucking insects? The fact that I didn't do my yogalates today? Grrr... I guess instead of rambling on here I'll just go read some blogs or continue reading the coaching manual I got. Except I don't think I'll properly process any information I take in now, so light entertainment: here I come.

...marriage?

2006-06-22T00:21:00.000Z

It was my birthday a couple of weeks back and I got an email from a friend asking whether my guy took the opportunity to propose. The issue of why proposals of marriage should happen on either birthdays, anniversaries or bank holidays set aside, I wrote back that no, he did not, and that coming to think of it: I didn't think my guy's the kind of guy who would propose anyway.
As I wrote that down taking in how right and true that statement felt, I couldn't help but thinking: what if he asked - would I even say yes?
We've been together a year next month, however, we fast-tracked the whole thing. For example, other couples I know waited a couple of years before moving in together, we did that after four months. But does that mean our "courting" period should be shorter too? There's supposed to be a timetable for this sort of thing, right? Well, ours is nonexistent but I still don't know if this means we'll get married some day.
Another point I made in my head was the question why it's always the woman (i.e., me) driving herself round the bend trying to analyse feelings and wondering about the "what ifs" of life... it seems things started with that girl taking a bite of that fruit after she was told she shouldn't and things haven't changed since. So, out of innate curiosity, I actually talked to my guy about it. Yes, radical concept, but I can only recommend it. He said that indeed he wasn't the type to propose, if he wanted to talk about getting married he'd come and talk to me about it, so that was that. Reassuring to know I was right about my assessment of his character in this respect, and I gotta say, it made me love him a bit more. Plus I'd hate the surprise of having a question popped that I don't know the answer to.
I'm not sure I agree with the whole "marriage is just a bit of paper" argument, but granted, when he asked me what difference a marriage certificate meant to me, I answered: more hassle and paperwork if we break up. Wow, what a bitchy thing to say, I'm sure he'll never even talk to me about it now... and kinda proving his point about the paper-bit, too!
I guess we'll just have to see where life takes us, who knows, I might figure out an answer if he discovers a way to ask a question.

...security?

2006-06-17T00:19:00.000Z

Why is it that I'd like to know what's going to happen? I spin gazillions of theories in my head about possible outcomes to present and future circumstances full well knowing that I have zero influence on 98% of them. "Making plans" is the ilusion of preparing myself emotionally for a situation that may or may not manifest itself - and even if it does, chances are I'll still be surprised and wondering how to deal with it now that my former worst nightmare is, in fact, reality.
According to Hofstede, different people have different anxiety levels when faced with uncertainty. People from the southern hemisphere, allegedly, have a more relaxed attitude and tend to take each day as it comes, whereas people from the north are less likely to smile in the face of change. Now, I hail from the north originally but sort of pride myself in having blurred the stereotype at least a little around the edges after having lived abroad for so many years, and yet... some things never change.
Since I have my private pension plan I'm less stressed about the issues surrounding unemployment/ aging society/ there's not going to be anyone around to contribute to the pot that is supposed to be paying my pension by the time I'm old anyway. Of course there's life insurance (which I've not contracted as yet), but it only kicks in when we die, right? To lessen the pain of the ones left behind or some such. Has anyone ever thought about coming up with a life insurance, financial or emotional, that can be enjoyed while still living? Or is that aka friends and family?
There's no insurance or security for life if you actually intend to live and make the most of it. Maybe now that I've written this down I'll find a way to roll with the punches without driving myself round the bend before anything's even happened.
Have a good weekend all! xxx

PS to ...nice?

2006-06-02T00:56:00.000Z

Found this image on www.paullowe.org
Have a read, I for one agree with his idea about all of us living in individual realities.
Sounds like Anarchy? Maybe. But if we're all happy that can't be too bad, right?
xx

...nice?

2006-06-01T23:27:00.000Z

I've been reading magazines lately about how to enrich my life. They all seem to be telling me similar things, no earth-shattering new findings, all simple and logical enough pointers. Breathe deeply every day, make time for yourself to relax from daily pressures put upon you, love yourself, forgive yourself, listen to your inner voice, learn not to regret the past because you can't change it anyway, learn not to be anxious about the future because you cannot see it anyway, instead, live in the moment, enjoy your life, be thankful, surround yourself with love, give love and you will receive it, make lists of things you are greatful for, think positive, confront your fears, take life head-on, smile in the face of sorrow.
Now my question is this: Are there really people out there who think that being mean and aggressive and violent makes them a happy person?
Well, I guess there must be, otherwise how do you explain the billions of trees being cut down for providing paper to print issue upon issue dealing with how to build selfesteem, find love, be happy, release tension, etc etc, all regurgitating the same simple basic idea of "be nice". I'm not saying reading those thoughts about being a better person don't make you feel great when you see them in print, black on white, because for me, it was a relief thinking: there must be some folks, like me, reading this and starting to feel good about themselves which in turn brings them to being nicer to others, reflecting on their behaviour and possibly even spreading the word. There is hope for mankind, maybe, if enough people read this stuff and decide to give it a go and find it works - we may just make it as a race. After all, if everyone takes care of themselves, all people are taken care of, right? And if everyone tries to make this world a better place starting with themselves, then eventually all people should be happy and that would mean an end to war, right?
Ok, I'm definitely too blue-eyed and naïve and possibly just plain stupid here, because obviously in matters of money and politics "being nice" just doesn't cut it.
Maybe we're overloaded on information. Science is making leaping progress every minute, we're able to explain most processes in the human body, how the world was created, what happens when atoms split, why lemmings throw themselves off a cliff, how the brain influences our state of happiness. What we don't yet know is who killed Kennedy, why the chicken crossed the street and how reliable our scientific progress is. All experience has shown us is that you just have to wait long enough and today's theories will be revealed as tomorrow's nonsense. The sun revolves around the earth, our planet is flat, margarine's not good for you, you name it. Does that mean today's "be nice" will be tomorrow's "who gives a damn"? To be honest, I feel like the latter sometimes already, especially when I'm making an effort, then look around me and notice I'm alone. How much longer til frustration gnaws its way through the niceness to the cynical core I'm sure I have inside of me?
Will it be worth giving in and being like the rest of them: egotistical, only out for personal gain, making money, having power? Or is it saner in the long run to believe happiness and relaxation will grant us serenity, a healthy body, and a fulfilled life? I don't know about you, but I'll be trying to be nice, granting me the odd cynical moment only when I absolutely need it. That should keep me in balance.
:-)

...moral philosophy?

2006-05-22T16:58:00.000Z

I had a one-day trip recently where I knew I'd have to spend much time in airports and sitting in a café by myself, waiting. Naturally, I bought a novel to pass the time. I'm glad to say I almost finished it that same day, because I enjoyed the story telling and the on-and-off-again philosophical musings of the leading heroine. The novel is The Sunday Philosophy Club by Alexander McCall Smith, if you intend to read it may I suggest you stop reading this entry now as I will tell you the end.
The story is of a woman, editor of a philosophical magazine, witnessing a young man falling to his death in the concert hall. We get to know her, hear about her love-life (virtually inexistent, but serves as reference point for some philosophical musings), learn about her need to lead a moral, good life and the resulting curiosity and sense of obligation to find out whether the young man really fell to his death or was, indeed, pushed. As I said, I liked the story-telling and especially the Edinburghian scenery, but I was rather unsatisfied with the ending. Take a hint, this is your last chance to go and read the book without knowing what will happen. ;-)
Of course she finds out that the guy was pushed. She has her suspicions throughout the whole novel, finding new theories and meeting new possible suspects in every other chapter. Still, I wouldn't call the novel action-packed or creating great tensions or suspense, as other criminal novels might. This ending comes more or less expectedly, she goes and talks to the guy who she knows was at the scene and had lied to her before. She finds out that said guy indeed did push his friend, but that push was neither on purpose nor intended to end in the way it did, in short: it was an accident. Tragic, but "true". And what does our heroine do? This is the bit that left me with a furrowed brow: She decides a) that her moral obligation is fulfilled, and b) that since the pusher convinced her of the accidental nature of the tragedy, it is unnecessary to inform the law enforcement authorities of the new facts concerning the case.
Now, is that moral? To blatently ignore rules set up by a democratic society based on laws? Is it really for the heroine to decide whether the pusher has received all the punishment he needs? Wouldn't that be for a court of law or a jury to decide? Plus, she hardly knows the guy! I mean, what if the pusher wakes up one morning and decides he can't live with the fear of being uncovered, and ups and kills our heroine? Just because she decided at this one point not to report him, doesn't mean she won't change her mind, right?
In other words, is our moral obligation to the individual or to society as a whole?
I learned from that novel that it is perfectly acceptable to ask questions one doesn't know the answer to, so this is exactly what this post is. I wouldn't know what I would do in a similar situation. Say a good friend of mine confesses to murder, would I report him or her? Or would I believe in the years of friendship and trust my instinct if it tells me that what happened was an accident? You know what? My gut instinct now tells me I'd report them. Not because I'd love them less or not trust them anymore, but because I wouldn't want to know something that I can't share with anyone. I mean, I'm alright with keeping the little secrets, but big stuff like this would be weighing too heavily on my troubled mind. What if somebody else found out, would they construct my knowledge as accessory to murder? So, in real terms, would I just be wanting to save my own skin by blabbing? Very likely, but not morally reproachable, I would hope. Well, I'd also hope that my friends know me well enough never to put me in a position where I'll have to choose between them or my own conscience. Let this be a warning to yous, and a promise, I'd do everything in my power to get you the best possible legal representation.

...society?

2006-05-22T16:16:00.000Z

I imagine I'm a bit behind in all this and may not have the best informed point of view, but that shouldn't get in the way of publicly thinking about it out loud, right?
The other day I saw an episode of The Apprentice, a show in which Donald Trump, Capitalist Galore, gives young admirors the possibility to learn from his experience, if I understand the concept correctly. Well, in this particular episode, two teams had to "buy low and sell high", at the end of which the losing team had one of their members fired.
Donald fired the docile team leader, who did her best under the circumstances, accepted her mistakes and took responsibility without making a scene. He did not fire the woman in charge of finances, although money was lost, neither did he fire the woman who - in my humble opinion - made a complete fool of herself screaming and swearing at everybody about how she was going to get the axe. Donald's reasoning was that the team leader didn't stand up for herself to fight.
Now I'm sure there's a valuable lesson in there somewhere, but the question I asked myself was: is it really so desireable to live and work in a society where whoever shouts the loudest wins? Yes, mistakes were made all round and yes, it's important to believe in yourself and stand up for yourself when you think you're being wrong done by, something the fired girl chose not to do as outspokenly as some of the other team members.
What I don't understand is that there was absolutely no mention of her team-building skills, how she involved everybody to secure support of and motivation for the decided course of action, or in other words, her emotional qualities. On the contrary, her team members even stated they would have expected her to take a more severe approach to leadership and not run everything by them. Had she acted the other way round I'm sure the same people would have complained about not feeling involved enough in the decision making process! I mean, if all you really want is someone else thinking for you and simply telling you what to do, may I suggest a career in the military service? All I've ever heard and read about successful management and productive businesses has always involved team work and united efforts!
Have the values of Human Resources Management really not been able to leave even a small a dent in the strategic end of the table in the highrise boardrooms of Trump Towers? Or would that have been bad showbiz?
This little issue could be broadened into reviewing more general aspects of the capitalist society we live in, and what other models could possibly appear more appealing. Unfortunately the other models, and I'm thinking about Marx here, didn't seem to work too well for all involved where they were being implemented. A long time ago I had a conversation about the eradication of the middle class and its dangers, really frightening stuff. And this, in turn, makes me think about man in general, his (and her) intricate need for more. Better, faster, and some more on top of that. We're all greedy, baby, we all want to live well. How can I blame anyone for ambition? As Trump's show made abundantly clear, ambition is something we all have. Some are simply willing to take it that one step further, and the society we've created views those with more respect than those who choose not to go over dead bodies, for information, for money, for power. I'm still dreaming about a world without money, can you imagine that?
Anyway, I guess each and everyone of us has to make up their own minds about leadership styles, how to deal with failure, and whether we're comfortable in the limelight or prefer positions behind the curtain. Guess where I'm standing.
xx

...bad habits?

2006-05-10T00:01:00.000Z

Almost a week's gone by since my last post. Amazing how time flies, isn't it?
Another truly amazing thing is that no matter how good my intentions of doing this (e.g. regular, daily blogging), that (e.g. sticking to the daily points allowance, excercise, clean the house), or the other (read the politics section of the newspaper and not just the funnies) are, I always find myself going back to those darned "bad habits". Here's a list of my favourites, in no particular order: I sleep in late, I eat all my meals in front of the TV (and they all involve chocolate), I surf the net for information of pure entertainment value, I read and send emails, thus procrastinating any form of useful activity that could actually get me a job/further my knowledge properly/help others, and I love to play Solitaire, can do it for hours.
This is the daily time-wasting bad habits I'm talking about, not the big stuff like giving up smoking (I've referred to it before and will link back to that article as soon as I can figure out how that's done) or spending weekends in the pub watching sports or biting your fingernails. The latter, incidentally, is a habit that I had kicked about 6 years ago and that's now come back with a vengeance, no idea why. Am I nervous? Ya think? Hmmm.
Actually, forget I mentioned the weekend pub sports-comment, that shouldn't qualify as a bad habit, I take it back. Greasy breakfast and a pint while watching Rugby - nothing wrong with that.
So yeah, this is me, procrastinatoresse-galore. I'm wasting my life away. It's not like I haven't tried to change, either, and not just as new years' resolutions (complete bollocks, never work).
Diets are obviously a good example; I set out to change my eating habits, which I successfully do, but unfortunately only for a limited period of time so no real long-term effect can be seen. The weight I lost last year stayed off all of a glorious 3 weeks before piling back on.
And the eating in front of the telly - everybody and their mothers know that it's bad for you because the brain gets too many different stimuli and can't receive the stomach's signal that it's full so you overeat and end up going back on the diet... vicious circle. So I tried eating my meals at the table for awhile, but somehow that just didn't stick. Are we so seriously over-stimulated this day in age that we can't sit down for a quiet meal anymore? It's like we need the radio on or the TV blaring or some other background noise to make us feel active/awake/alive (take your pick)... or is that just me?
Needless to add that what with all the eating I watch hour upon hour of TV (which hopefully will go down a bit now that they've cut the free unlimited cable offer down to the usual pack of 3 movie and 2 series' channels), thus going to bed very late, and as a result sleeping in late into the day. Or like now, I'm turning off the telly at an ok hour to go to bed, but I'm not tired, so I sit down with my laptop and let all the thoughts that would only be keeping me awake in bed run freely (or playing solitaire). I've tried going to bed earlier but I only toss and turn. Did the hot milk thing, did the write things down to get thoughts out of your head thing, did the plan the day ahead so you won't worry about tomorrow thing - all for a few days, then I stopped and here I am, still tired. I also tried getting up at a more reasonable hour, so I set my alarm, and when the time comes and it rings and rings, I either a) build that ring into my dream so it doesn't even get me into consciousness, or b) I turn the thing off and go right back to sleep.
I know that (wo)man is a creature of habit, so the same way that I'm used to doing the things the way I'm doing them now, it should be possible to do them differently for an amount of time and then have those new habits take over, so they'll come naturally, and I'll lead my life better accordingly. Now the thing that I need to figure out is, to what extent are my bad habits inherent of my nature, my character, my self? As far as I can remember, I've always been lazy, never liked doing more than I had to, so maybe the procrastination is a natural extension of the childish lying in bed daydreaming to today's playing solitaire? If that were the case, isn't it futile for me to even try to change? Shouldn't I just accept the fact that I'll always be a lazy bum who doesn't like cleaning the house and would rather watch telly than discuss politics? Is it time to accept my bad habits as my habits period? No judgement?
Well that would be the lazy thing to do, so hooray! Nonetheless, a fellow participant in the self-coaching seminar I recently enjoyed wrote a piece that I found inspiring, and there are so many more quotes out there that make me want to change, or at least adjust my behaviour in order to grow and become a better person. I guess I'll keep trying, and come to think of it, trying to do things differently has already become a habit. ;-)
Anyway, this is what he wrote:

mind your thoughts, as they become your words.
mind your words, as they become your actions.
mind your actions, as they become your habits.
mind your habits, as they become your character.
mind your character, as it becomes your destiny.

We're all responsible for our selves, our lives, our actions. So let's do it. Bring it on.

...forgiving?

2006-04-28T19:37:00.000Z

They made me take philosophy in my first year at university. Psychology, my choice subject, wasn’t admitting any extra students, French would have totally messed up my other language classes so philosophy it was. Free-will vs. determinism, Paley’s watch argument, are we all just brains in a jar, is this table really a table, just because the sun’s always risen doesn’t mean it’ll rise again tomorrow… you can imagine my frustration. Although I enjoy thinking and talking and discussing all these things, I’m more of a pragmatic person. Plus it’s not much fun if you’re there on the spot in a class having to defend your arguments to pass tests, and be graded not on your views but on your ability to portray them, and whether your tutor happens to agree with them or not. It got to a point where I welcomed Descartes’ views with open arms – I just have to accept some basic facts as facts, otherwise there’s no stopping anybody driving themselves round the bend.

I think, therefore I am. Nuff said.

So, this one professor threw a phrase in the room, which has not left me to this day: “to know all is to forgive all”. Take this example: I make a date with a colleague; he (or she, doesn't matter) never shows up, I get annoyed; he calls me later to say he couldn’t make it because his car broke down. Excellent explanation, there’s no reason for me to stay annoyed with him. Clearly not his fault. But couldn’t he have called me at the time to let me know and save me from waiting in the rain/ waste my time/ miss the movie? Or another example: a man kidnaps a child and horrible, horrible things happen. He gets caught and in the trial we hear how he was mistreated by his parents when he was young. Again, excellent explanation, of course a difficult childhood will give you baggage to deal with when you’re an adult. Some people are able to deal with it better than others; this particular man clearly needs help. But, does it really count as an excuse?

Just because we know the circumstances that led to an act of violence, hatred or injustice, do we have to forgive? Blame the sin, not the sinner – did that ever work?

Imagine your marriage isn’t going so well and your partner decides to cheat on you. As there’s an underlying lack of communication, both of you are to blame. Up to a certain point you may even understand his (or her, doesn't matter) actions, but can you forgive their trespass and trust them again?

Would it be more blissful to know nothing, be proverbially ignorant?

In the former examples, at least it’d be easier to judge, and thus feel like “things are taken care of”, right? Damn that colleague, not honouring their commitments like that and showing a complete disregard for my time and feelings, they owe me at least a dinner to make up for it. (Obviously taking into account a number of factors, like how much do you like them, are they always late, or was this a first-time thing, etc.) As for the cheating husband, what you don’t know won’t hurt you, let him live with the guilt (if he feels it, which would be punishment enough.) Unless you're one of those people who insist on knowing everything, preferring to know the truth and then dealing with the situation, whichever.

When did we begin as a society to be so wishy-washy about clearly defining right and wrong? Many years ago, before big lawsuits and juries, people took matters of the law into their own hands. As a result of which, many innocent people got killed or sentenced unfairly, so that’s clearly not a way to go back to. But is understanding, knowing and forgiving really the better alternative? More humane, no doubt. More second chances, you bet. But fairer? Besides, who would be the one to decide where to draw the line?

That’s the problem I have with philosophy. I start off on one subject then rant on, think a bit sideways and boom, there’s a related can of worms I’m scratching the lid off of, still not finding any answer though. On the contrary, I end up more uncertain than in the beginning. Any comments you could contribute to clearing things up will be greatly appreciated.

Sometimes I wish I didn’t always see more than one side to things, and as sorry as I feel for the ignorant, I bet thinking in black-and-white-terms would make life a lot easier.

...children?

2006-04-26T18:53:00.001Z

As mentioned yesterday, I decided to give the whole children-thing another thought. After spending a couple of hours with the three nephews at the doctor’s now is as good a time as any to write about it. The way I see it, to procreate or not to procreate is a big question, if you like it or not. Eventually you’ll feel the urge, it’s a biological fact. If you’re 60 and never felt it, hooray for you, but you’re the exception to the rule. There are plenty arguments for and against procreation, it is not a decision to be taken lightly, and society not only affects people’s decision (just look at all the celebrities who are setting the example of babies being the most fantastic accessory ever, judging by the glossy mags) but also finds itself affected by the consequence.

Having kids or not may be a conscious decision; for many people, however, it just happens. I’m one of those accidents myself, so I won’t say anything. Now that we have virtually painless contraception available that in some cases even prevents diseases from spreading, it is my opinion that we make good use of them though, and update that particular chapter in the various religious books. Especially spread the word amongst teenagers, and parents: that responsibility falls to you. Don’t kid yourselves (no pun intended), your babies are out there doing it, so they may as well know what they’re doing and how to protect themselves. As in many stages in life, I’m sure I’ll also be using this phrase over and over in this blog, COMMUNICATION IS A WONDERFUL THING. Tell your kids how the body works, where their periods and morning erections come from, that it’s all natural, nothing to be ashamed of. Wouldn’t you have wanted to feel safe enough in your own home with your parents bringing up the topic, asking the relevant questions and having them answered truthfully? I know I would have.

I personally have not yet felt the need to have a baby. Basically, I don’t think there’s any logical reason to have children, it’ll all have to be in good faith, much like religion. You either believe your own child will not turn out as rotten as the screaming brat next door, or you don’t. Why else would you put yourself through the ordeal? If you’re having kids because you’re afraid of being alone when you get older, let me ask you this: how often do you visit your parents? Ha!

Of course you also have to factor in economics, because the aforementioned education doesn’t come for free, and let’s not forget the sword of the fashion-media hanging over our wee ones. In my day it was Benetton socks, which my parents couldn’t afford and thus kept me always at the margin of the cool cliques. Today it’s Playstations, iPods, the latest sneakers (do they even still call them that?) and who knows what else they need in order not to lose face in front of the buddies. Plus they’ll stay at home longer than you probably did, so there goes your pension and your quiet time reading on the porch. This is a major off-putter for me.

If you fancy yourself just at the right place now to become a grandparent, you look to your offspring and wonder, because they’re deciding not to have kids themselves. You realise you’ve raised them in a way that made them grow up to be rather individualistic, always looking after their own needs first, because if they don’t, no one else will. As a logical consequence (because it is all about using your brains nowadays, isn’t it), they decide not to have children, or not til way later. Instead they travel, broaden their minds, have a career. All the while the birth rate goes to hell and the politicians grow nervous because not one state pension is secure anymore, we’re getting too old as a society, there’s not enough fresh blood coming in.

How come, do I hear you ask, then, that everybody’s complaining about the planet being over-populated? Well, those (and I realise that I’m totally over simplifying here) who still have babies are either very catholic or very poor. The first keep having kids because sex is great and they’re not allowed to use contraception, the latter because sex (mostly) doesn’t cost any money, and if you have many children, the authorities may even give you a bit of money. Depending on where you live you will also hope that your kids will help you out with their wages, because soon enough they’ll be off working, as there’s no money for education, surely, what a waste of time that is anyway. To sum up, and again simplify: the rich educated ones are out there having a ball spending, keeping the economy going (and if they’re smart saving for a private pension) while the poor, educationally-challenged ones begin to make up the majority of the population. Until the aforementioned politicians change a few rules and come up with new concepts of day-care and the likes I don’t really see that changing either. Now where does that leave us in regard to Darwin’s survival of the fittest? Amongst the blind the one-eyed will be king? No idea. If I was pressed for an opinion though, I’d say start by making good solid education available for everyone. Start the kids in schools at three years of age, playing away with other children of possible different ethnic descent (and learning languages as a welcome by-product), and offer them further studies in the fields that they show interest in, apart from the general science, arts, sports, etc.

Anyway, just a few thoughts in the direction for your good selves to comment on. I’m sure I only see the dark side because I don’t feel the urge yet. As I said to my friend, I wouldn’t want to be responsible for putting anyone in this world watching the news today and having a vague idea of what it’ll be like ten, twenty years down the line. I don’t see things getting much better pronto, you see. You know what she said?

She said, if our children won’t make this world a better place, who will?

...eating healthy?

2006-04-26T14:40:00.000Z

Not always fun.

But sometimes it can be, just a little.

...education?

2006-04-25T22:11:00.000Z

I've always loved it... not necessarily the organised bit, what with the endless homework assignments, getting up way too early in the mornings, being patronised by smelly, bearded lefties (as well as annoying, conservative righties, sexually frustrated (fe)males past their prime and the likes) and sitting in a classroom full of mean kids. Yeah, now that I think about it, school was shite. But, on the whole, learning new things I liked then and I still like it now. A lot.
Which is one of the reasons why I jumped at the chance of broadening my horizons for free in the state-sponsored courses organised on a yearly basis for the disgracefully unemployed. Great opportunity to learn stuff I'd never otherwise get into, I thought, like doing some in-depth research into the finer points of social security, or maybe becoming a librarian, a professional tourist guide, or one of those creative people who decorate window displays. I've got enough time on my hands, so why not try something, right?
This morning, thus, I found myself all smiling and motivated in the cue at the agency, patiently awaiting my turn to chat to the nice young lady, telling her about the intellectual adventures I'd like to undertake. My turn arrived, she looked at my card, brought up my background information on her screen, and politely told me I didn't fulfil the educational requirements for the above mentioned courses of my interest. At which point I thought, why, there must be a misunderstanding when they transferred my data from where I used to live to where I live now, but no, regrettably, all is in good order. What her not so friendly colleagues whom I registered with all these months ago failed to inform me about, is the little oddity in the Spanish system that you have to have all your papers officially recognised by their educational authority in Madrid, and translated into the corresponding Spanish qualification. Call me crazy but I'm hesitant to send my ORIGINAL documents away for any length of time to someone who obviously doesn't trust me anyway. I thought this was the European Union? Freedom of movement and travel and work and all that? Hgrmpf.
The recognising/ translating process can take anything from seven months to fifteen years, and you don't even have the guarantee that they acknowledge degrees obtained in a different country at all (my man tried to have his Masters from the US recognised, did not happen). In other words: no free expanding of horizons for me this year, pooh.
Unless, yes, unless I go for a course that does not specify any particular educational level. There's one that sounds interesting, I'll see if I can have a go at registering for that one tomorrow. Funnily enough, there are also a couple of courses on childcare* and introduction to didactics that I could take... who knows, I may end up as one of the smelly conservative frustrated ones myself.

*anyone can have kids, right? In my opinion it wouldn't hurt to have everybody take a test before they're allowed to procreate. The mommies and the daddies. Spend a month with a Tamagotchi or puppy or something that halfway simulates the getting up every couple of hours, endless crying for no apparent reason, pooping all over the place... and that's just covering the first few months! After that you're in for small child rants, teenage angst and the worries just won't stop! Anyway, it's amazing the thing kids do or don't do to society, just think about the phenomenon of women giving birth later (and having trouble paying for their pensions cos the kids need college money round the same time) or not at all (apparently there's a trend now that many learned girls, women with one or more degrees under their respective belts decide not to have kids at all - shock, horror, surprise!). So either way, society's fucked. But I'm getting ahead of myself, I promise to give this some more thought before I actually say something I don't believe...

...who you are?

2006-04-24T19:00:00.000Z

It crossed my mind today that I don't really feel appropriately represented by any of the TV shows I watch. I'm neither single like the Sex and the City girls nor married like the desperate housewives. I enjoy both shows tremendously, but I don't fit in their genres somehow. (Never have, if you want to look at it that way, obviously, cos I've never lived in New York or its suburbs, been fabulously rich, or beautiful, or a mother with a big house or a former model with a jailbird husband. This is just for arguments' sake, hence I won't even comment on the fact that I'm no lawyer, doctor, profiler, or policewoman like the people in the other shows I also like. But back to the point...)
I used to watch SATC and treat Carrie's opinions like the gospel to live by. Now, I watch reruns of the show and wonder how come she likes Big so much, why she's so fidgety and such a drama queen and always always discussing everything with her friends. I mean, it's ok to talk with your friends, obvisouly, but these four women disect every single tiny detail of whatever he said "...and then I said and then she said" - it's exhausting to watch, let alone to remember that I used to do that too, on a daily basis! Now when my man does something that bothers me I prefer talking directly with him about it. If it's interesting and/ or important enough even in hindsight, I'll discuss it with the ladies afterwards to get their comforting "well done, girl, you were so right". But I simply refuse to go back to wasting time agonising, wondering, analysing and interpreting what he could have meant when he did or said this or that, when the easiest thing really is to ask him directly.
Anyway, I always wished I could be a bit more like Samantha; to this day I envy any confident outgoing successful woman who doesn't give a flying fuck about what other people may think of her. Of course I know those four women are extreme portrayals of four personality types that the mentally healthy woman is expected to combine in her being, and it's true, I have a bit of all of them inside me. But I seem to have lost the ability to endure hours, days or weeks of drama that some women fabricate in their lives. I'm not putting down their emotions, if they feel whatever is making them miserable is important, of course it is, otherwise they wouldn't feel it. Everone's entitled to their own dramas. I also do my best in listening to my friends and helping them out when they feel bad, as they do for me. Still, there's a limit to the whining I can take.
My friends, when they wanted to tease me and sometimes when they were being dead serious, often compared me to Bridget Jones. It's true, at Bridget's height of fame I was single, living in London, drinking like a fish, smoking like a chimney, and verbal diarrhea was not unbeknownst to me. Now, judging by the sequel I watched the other night, we are to believe that Bridget is still in her early 30s, drinking, smoking, embarrasing, chatty, and in a loving relationship, caught between spinsterhood and the formerly-dreaded smug-marriedness. I'm at that stage too, except I gave up smoking, I drink only on the rare occasion and my mom's not quite as bad as hers. How likely is it, then, that Bridget, too, lost her ability to empathise with her single friends? That she grew out of her little insecurities and finally accepted herself "just the way she is"? That she realised life will always have ups and downs? That she rammed a pole the size of the one she slid down from in the first film up her annoying boss's arse? Wouldn't it be nice if Bridget were a bit like me?

...self-confidence?

2006-04-23T14:37:00.000Z

The following came about after a self-coaching seminar, reading Jorge Bucay's and other journalists' work on the topic, and a fight I had with my mom. See if you can relate to this, and if so, please tell me about it:
you have an idea, you think it's absolutely fantastic, the bees' knees, you tell someone about it, someone whose opinion you value, they tell you it's rubbish, and you end up feeling varying degrees of badness, ranging between "misunderstood" and "completely crushed". Why is that?
Because you were looking for an outsider's approval to validate your idea, you didn't trust your own inner feeling, instincts, and gut enough to go ahead with it sans the OK of someone else.
Alternatively, you have an idea, you think it's absolutely fantastic, the bees' knees, you tell someone about it, someone whose opinion you value, they tell you it's great, and you're over the moon with motivation to turn that idea into reality. Why is that?
Because you were looking for an outsider's approval to validate your idea, you didn't trust your own inner feeling, instincts, and gut enough to go ahead with it sans the OK of someone else. But, this time they told you what you wanted, or needed, to hear to feel good about yourself.
In both situations you're giving away responsibility for your actions as well as for your feelings. I find myself in those dependencies often (though nowadays, I'd like to think, less than I used to), because I'm a harmony-loving person and I don't want to tread on anybody's toes. The only problem with this approach is (or, increasingly, was), ending up feeling bad most of the time, because there was always someone I could not please. I never found the one way to please everybody, including myself. Especially when it comes to the big decisions about my life, I like to run them past friends and family to get their opinion, after all, they love me and only want the best for me. More times than not I'd heed their advice in order to assure myself of their approval and in turn their continued liking me. Alas, there came a time when I realised I had to emancipate myself from all this. Easier said than done, it's not an overnight transition either, believe me, I'm still working on it.
I'm sharing this in case maybe you too want to find a way out of this dilemma and are not sure how. Well, two things helped and help me, maybe they can help you too. Before I came to them, I had to change my way of thinking. I found it's all about being afraid. Afraid to make a fool of myself, afraid to be standing there alone with my opinion, afraid no one will like me anymore if I say out loud what I'm really thinking.
I don't want this to sound all too preachy (please like me! See? Doing it again - so what if it sounds too preachy? Anyway...), I'm just saying - once I started thinking that maybe I was OK just the way I was, that it's also OK to have my opinions, that they're just as valuable as anyone else's, that it's OK if to be wrong sometimes - I began to feel a little freer, a little less conditioned by what I'm supposed to do. I'm allowed to be confident, because being confident is not the same as being arrogant (as my modest upbringing would have me believe, and of course, arrogant has usually bad connotations). Being confident is about knowing who I am, accepting the whole package, trusting my judgement, dealing with the consequences if I'm wrong, taking responsibility for my life and neither feeling like a lesser nor like a better person than the guy standing next to me in the line for the bus.
Of course this also means I can no longer blame my parents or some lousy teacher or some creepy ex-boss for everything that went wrong in my life. So before reading on, are you prepared to be responsible for your life?
Now then, thing one that helps in the day-to-day dealing with other people: to keep in mind that it's ok for them to have different opinions. They are free to voice them, too, even if they make me uncomfortable or angry or sad when I first hear them. I have no influence on what other people think, so it's a waste of time getting worked up about it, but I do have an influence on how I deal with what I hear. It is in my power to consciously decide in what way I will let other people's opinion affect my actions and/ or my feelings. And two: to keep in mind that every person has a different view of reality, which means they are usually taking their set of values and experiences and fears and projecting them onto the person they're talking to. I know that, because that's what I tend to do, but I'm working on being open-minded enough to really imagine what it could be like walking in their shoes.
Bottom line is, I'm the only person I have to live with til the end of my days. Of course I'm grateful for every support and token of appreciation along the way to make sure I stay on the right path, but the decision remains in my court which path is the right one.
(Note: If you're a kid or a teenager, this stuff is good to keep in mind for later, but it really only applies once you're at least legally an adult. Til then, enjoy your carefree days, play! Discover! Study! Make the most of your youth, you'll miss it eventually.)

...easter eggs?

2006-04-21T21:59:00.000Z

This is what Wikipedia says about the tradition of easter egg painting:

"(...) For centuries, it has been the custom of many Christians to share dyed and painted eggs, particularly on Easter Sunday. The eggs represent new life, and Christ bursting forth from the tomb. Among Eastern Orthodox this sharing is accompanied by the proclamation "Christ is risen!".
One tradition concerning Mary Magdalene says that following the death and resurrection of Jesus, she used her position to gain an invitation to a banquet given by Emperor Tiberius Caesar. When she met him, she held a plain egg in her hand and exclaimed "Christ is risen!" Caesar laughed, and said that Christ rising from the dead was as likely as the egg in her hand turning red while she held it. Before he finished speaking, the egg in her hand turned a bright red, and she continued proclaiming the Gospel to the entire imperial house. (...)"

Lovely tradition of colouring them, isn't it? Did that today, belatedly, with one of the nephews. He's only three, so not much of painting as such going on. It was more like trying not to get paint or egg or vinegar (used to dilute the paint) all over the carpet and his wee brother. Nonetheless, thanks be to self-adhesive stickers, three eggs found themselves coloured and pompously decorated in their nests. Another four eggs made it to the sink, they decided to bust their shell while being boiled and thus escape the dreaded painting ordeal. I don't blame them, I hate putting on make up, too.
Apart from that am feeling a little sick and tipsy - just watched the second Bridget Jones movie on telly. And that, as you well know, cannot be done without a big helping of greasy chips, two chocolate icecream waffles, 15 little Daim chocolates and a huge glass of Chardonnaye.
Hick. Offtobednow.

...your Ideal Career?

2006-04-18T21:52:00.000Z

Your Career Type: Social

You are helpful, friendly, and trustworthy.
Your talents lie in teaching, nursing, giving information, and solving social problems.

You would make an excellent:

Counselor - Dental Hygienist - Librarian
Nurse - Parole Officer - Personal Trainer
Physical Therapist - Social Worker - Teacher

The worst career options for your are realistic careers, like truck driver or farmer.

What's Your Ideal Career?

Now, does that mean I have to go back to school and get a teaching degree? Librarian sounds cool enough, I also quite fancy the coaching idea... but I always thought I wouldn't have the patience?! Is there even such a thing as an ideal career? As long as you do what you like and like what you do, things should be fine, right? Is there even an ideal anything, or is life - like relationships - about making compromises?
Today I've not been able to do much, we had a bit of a baby day. In the morning, I was just getting ready to dismiss the idea of actually going through with the fitness DVD my sister- in- law lent me by chucking the damn thing out the window, we got a call from their housekeeper to please watch the baby for a bit while she nips out and sorts out some papers. Nae bother at all, over we went and babysat.
After that it was breakfast and a quick checking of the old e-mail (aka confirmation that no one loves me) before nipping out again for my man to get his hair cut, meanwhile I went shopping.
Got home at 3 pm, got another call from the aforementioned sister-in-law, could we go over and watch the baby because her plane was delayed? Nae bother at all, we like the wee tyke. Quick lunch and over we go. Eventually she arrives, and the parents, and the other two of her sons (all under four years of age).
She has an appointment with her ophtalmologist, so we drive her downtown, park the car, and wait for her in the pub. Thinking she'll be in and out in a tick, we only order one pint and then start going for a wee stroll. An hour or so later she calls to say she'll meet us at the parking lot, only they gave her some drops, she can't see a thing, poor girl. Looks like a druggie, no pupil in either eye to speak of and having the hardest time finding her step. She felt especially stupid because she had brought a book to read while she waited. Big laughs all round and off home we go.
Thank God the three boys have already had their baths curtesy of the grandparents, because otherwise we'd have been too late for the latest House episode. I like Hugh Laurie, especially in combination with Stephen Fry. Or Rowan Atkinson. Anyway, dinner was fries and a sandwich, followed by another three chocolate eggs, to feck with the diet once again.

...religious isms?

2006-04-17T21:33:00.000Z

I’m having one of those “it’s all shit” moments. Or, more to the point, “I’m all shit.” No apparent reason, either. Just spent an hour or so with his family, delighted by the wee boy who can be a pain but behaved beautifully tonight. Had a small slice of chocolate cake and took one of his sister’s exercise videos with me. Had a nice chat, all good. So why am I so blue now?

Spent the day reading up on stuff on Wikipedia. Love that site. Decided after much consideration that it’d probably be safest to say if I had to choose a religious category it’d be close to following a path between agnostic spiritualism and agnostic atheism. In other words, I don’t know whether there is a God (or gods), to me his (or her, or their) non-existence appears to be more likely, which does not, however, mean life has no spiritual aspects at all, although I’d definitely not be basing that spirituality on anything as organised as the church.

I’ll have to consult the agnostics’ manifesto to verify whether I agree with their beliefs on life after death and such matters, I’ll get back to you on that. For now, suffice to say that I know nothing. Actually, a combination of weak and apathetic agnosticism also seem rather attractive. So really it’s safe to say I’ve still not made up my mind.

Who knows, maybe I don’t have to.

Besides, I am following Christian morals and all that, except for the sex and the envy part. Who wouldn't like to have a slim and trim body, beautiful hair and nails, and neither cellulite nor money problems, eh? I am alright with the big commandments though, the important ones, you know? No killing, no disrespecting, no stealing, that's all fine and dandy.

If I'm honest though, when it comes down to religion - I just don't want to risk not getting into heaven. I don't know what's going to happen after death, but if there is a resurrection and life after death, I wouldn't want to be left out of the nice plan. I've grown up in the western world, western values and all, so to me heaven sounds delightful. I'm not talking about harps and shit, I'm imagining heaven as somewhere I'll feel at home and good and happy. Which means heaven should be different for everyone. Somehow regular meetings with family members and friends will be organised, of course, but never more than a weekend or so, don't want to overdo it. I'd be busy meeting people in my heaven who have a similar vision of what's nice than I do, anyway. Besides, there'll be concerts in the parc every first Friday night of the month... I won't need food for the body anymore but food for the mind definitely, so there'll be bookshops to stroll in to that always have the latest novels free of charge... Big cinemas that'll show whatever film I'd like... No newspapers though, that'd be too disturbing, I don't want to worry in heaven... As for hell, I'm sure it's full of interesting people and all, but generally, I feel more comfortable surrounded by nice folks.

I guess at the end of the day, it's all "academic", as they say, because we won't know til we die and by then it's too late to change anything about our life on earth anyway (unless we can come back and be born again, but then we won't remember anything so dito). The thing that gets me though is I can’t seem to shut off my brains when it comes to subjects like this. Complete bollocks. Man values logic and rationality, but this is the kind of thing you just cannot analyse. You either believe or you don’t. As feminine as I am, and as emotional I may be, I would like to know for sure. I guess I have trust issues. I wouldn’t let myself fall backwards in the hope that someone catch me either.

Probably should figure that one out first, start with the girl in the mirror. And if I trust her and feel good about her, then I can get on to figuring out the bigger issues.

Sounds like a plan.

...diets?

2006-04-16T19:03:00.000Z

...I hate them. Have to go on them from time to time though so as to not get bigger and bigger, for the obvious health- beauty- selfconfidence- related reasons. Damage control I like to call it, whenever the needle gets too close to, well, a number- that- shall- not- be- named- but- has- been- getting- higher- over- the- last- few- years, I take it down a notch.
Problem is the following: if I consciously tell myself "I'm not going to eat this or that, at least for awhile," I get cranky. "This or that" become the only things on my mind. (By the by - don't ask me how I stopped smoking. No clue, but I did. That's another story though. So where was I? Oh yes, diets...) Since I'm an agreeable person with the need for peace and harmony with those around me, losing my patience and being a general pisser, as is my wont when I'm hungry, has a track-record of causing more grief than weight-loss. So that's no-go.
If I say to myself "I'll eat well for a few weeks" (and hope my eating habits change miraculously on their own) I stick to that til about 30 minutes after my every morning healthy wholesome breakfast. Oats, fresh juice, a cup of tea, good start to the day and all that. Eventually my mind and body decide they want chocolate, I give in against better judgement. Til bedtime. I find throwing in the odd handful of salted popcorn helps me not to feel sick from all the sweetness.
On top of all that when I remotely contemplate "doing something" about the daily choc- and crisps-feedings, it's either Easter or someone's birthday or we get invited to eat out.
This all comes and goes in circles, for awhile I'm busy with other stuff, more important stuff, so I don't bother about my weight at all. Then all the big stuff gets somehow sorted out and/or too big to handle hence procrastination sets in, and I'm free to worry about my weight again. I'm actually very annoyed at myself for this - why not not worry about anything at all for awhile? Hmm? That might be nice! But, alas, not going to happen, who am I kidding. I guess I'm just wired that way. So I think about losing weight, then I remember all the different tactics, then I start some half-arsed attempt, then I don't see results and tell myself "well, you didn't put your heart in it." So I think some more and try something else, and some other else... you get the idea. Frustration levels rise proportionally to the number of half-arsed attempts and chocolate eggs consumed.
How did I do it last year then? I mean, I've always been overweight and tried lots of diets. Last year for some reason I actually made it, with the help of weight watchers I lost my 10 % and even a bit more and I felt great. GRRRRREAT. Great. Confident, slim, sexy, great. I blame the fact that all of what I had lost AND EVEN A BIT MORE is back on due to a) hormone-based contraception, b) giving up smoking, and c) cooking, eating, and living with a guy who eats loads and is just as lazy when it comes to excercise as I am.
Well, I'm back into the cycle, making some half-arsed attempts again. First I tried weight watchers counting again but couldn't stick to it. Now I'll have a go with eating three meals (a big breakfast, medium lunch and small dinner,) little if no or healthy snacks in between. Do you find that after eating an apple you get really hungry? I do. I'm sticking to the meals so far, there's only getting those snacks under control. I figure once I've eaten the easter chocolates (all presents! I didn't buy any of them!) I'll be ok. I might also borrow an excercise video and try and do that three times a week (since the rowing machine we have in the flat is such a handy dust collector and towel rack in the corner).
Ah well, had to have a wee rant there. I used an online food journal after lunch and found out how many calories I'd eaten, you see. Very depressing. 57 % of them from fat. Not good. Very bad in fact. The way I'm going, the Easter chocolates will only last another couple of days though, so I may have some success to report by next week or so, hopefully.
Shame that the fat-patches I've been using for the last 14 days aren't working. Or, horror of horrors, maybe they are working and without them I'd have reached my limit much sooner?

...anniversaries?

2006-04-15T18:12:00.000Z

Today's the ninth monthersary of my boy and I. Nine months since our first date that didn't even start out as a date but as a few friends going to a jazz concert. We made it our date afterwards, when he walked me home and we talked on my balcony til the early hours. It took a few more dates for me to feel like I do now, but I knew right then and there that this is a man I wouldn't want to let slip through my fingers, cos he's just too good. Note: not too good to be true, just plain good.
I've had a couple of relationships that have lasted longer and another few that didn’t (or were wholly imaginary on my part), but this is one that actually feels grown up. The real deal, and since very early on. Maybe it's because I actually am more grown up, or older, or I communicate differently, I don't know. I just know that all relationship advice I had read in novels, magazines and the likes, all the strategies about being mean to keep people keen and not calling and waiting for the guy to call and analysing every last syllable he uttered is a load of bollocks.
Well, I shouldn't be so harsh. Maybe tactics like the above described do work sometimes for some people. I'll even admit, if memory serves, that those tactics occasionally did buy me some days or even weeks with a possible soulmate in the past. But that was always with the wrong people. You see, I'd meet a guy in a bar or club, talk to them, maybe go out afterwards thinking "wow, this could work". Rose-tinted blue-eyed naïve stupid - you name it, I felt it. Thing is, it shouldn't take any tactics at all if you've met the right person. And with this one, it all just fell into place.

My last relationship ended in 2000. After a year or two of being single, I felt ready for something new. When nothing really came about, in year three I figured I may as well roll with singledom and enjoy it. And enjoy it I did. Of course now I know that men in bars or clubs are rarely available for anything serious. More's the pity. Where's a nice girl to meet nice guys? At university all this was much easier, newly moved to a big town it's more complicated. Apart from that if you have single friends who like music and dancing, going out clubbing seems the only worthwhile activity on a weekend. Girls, in general, see clubbing as an opportunity to dance, hang out with the ladies, and possibly meet a nice fellow. Guys, in general, see clubbing as an opportunity to dance, hang out with the boys, and if at all possible yes please get laid. Seriously, I had guys come up to me and chat me up who shrugged their shoulders and turned away as soon as I said to them "don't bother, not gonna happen!" This took about a year to realise, by the way. When I first went out and someone came over to talk to me, I'd chat with them, have a wee boogie, but then if I wasn't interested, I'd have the hardest time getting rid of them. I decided that life's too short to waste time, so now I'd rather appear rude but be honest, and save the wrong fellows some time. Most of them appreciated it, if after an initial moment of having their jaws drop and be stunned into silence.
I've realised since that I was looking for the wrong kind of guy, for the wrong kind of relationship. I wasn't ready to "settle down", although the deception and disappointment I felt after each faded out little romance hurt me into thinking that that's exactly what I wanted. Investing emotion in the "cute" guys or the "interesting" guys was a complete waste of time, because I based my idea of "oooh, this could be nice" on the set of my expectations and my fantasies I laid on the poor fellow literally hours after I met him. In a way I should say sorry to them for never having given them a chance to be themselves! If I had left both my feet on the planet - who knows, maybe one of them actually could have turned into something serious.

Whenever mates would accuse me of wanting a relationship I'd recoil in mock horror, I liked my life just the way it was. I'm serious, I did. Nobody to answer to, freedom, friends - Sunday afternoons alone on the couch? No problem, I'd grab a book or watch a movie. Walks on the beach are also one of my favourite pastimes. The odd lonely spells were taken care of by moderate abuse of alcohol and/or chocolate, running up high phone bills and going to the internet café to chat with absent friends and lament about the apparent stupidity of guys in general and the internationally applicable (f)laws of dating nincompoops.

Year four and five passed and I was experiencing a bit of a split personality, on most days enjoying myself and feeling good and on some days seriously thinking I'd like a partner to share it all with. Make no mistake, I’m not talking biological clock, I don’t want kids just yet, or get married. Just – sharing would have been nice. The myth "it'll happen when you least expect it" or "stop looking and you'll find it" was thus bullshit depending on which one of my characters had the upper hand that day.

So where did I meet this gem of mine? At work. (For those who have read "my story", it was at the job with the psychotic boss. Proof, if you needed any, that there could seriously be a reason for everything that happens.) Roll your eyes, shout out "oh, nooo!", but it's true. If I hadn't always said I'd never get it on with anyone from work we probably may have gotten together sooner. For the record, at first sight he was not the kind of guy I thought I could fall in love with either, so sometimes keeping an open mind pays off. Anyway, two weeks after we started dating we talked about moving in together, we actually did four months later, much to the chagrin and worry of my friends and family. I can't speak for the future, but so far I've not regretted a single moment. It’s only been nine months but it feels like a lot longer. Having someone to kiss and make plans with is great. :-)

In June, my grandparents will celebrate their 60^th wedding anniversary. That means they have been married for sixty years. To each other. It boggles the mind, doesn’t it? I hope you join me in wishing them all the best and marvel at the example they set in these days of easy cop-outs and giving up when things get rough.

...life?

2006-04-13T22:21:00.000Z

well, I have, a lot, recently. My own life. That of my friends, to some extent, but mainly my own. I'm finding myself in new surroundings, you see, new town, new people, new relationship, no job... I think that's what I'm struggling with the most. The sense of being worthless without a job. The latter being defined as a paid occupation of my weekday hours between 9 and 6 or so, Saturday and Sunday off. Who cares that I am taking time out to cope with all the change that has happened in my life and is still happening, who cares that I had to get over some stuff in my past, who cares that I don't want to work right now, that I think this is as good opportunity as ever to look after "number one", as they say.
Well, I do. And, luckily, so does my partner.
So here I am free to take all the time I need to settle in. Decorating the flat, waiting for the furniture, buying little pieces that, put together, create a comfortable whole. The whole process feels good, takes a lot of time though. Time that is luckily available, not in vast abundance, but satisfactorily plenty. For the moment. Ha ha. If I could only get my inner nag to shut up and enjoy.
Anyway, I did a seminar for self-coaching where I learned that there are plenty more people out there with similar issues. That it is ok to ask for help, to talk about ones feelings, to express ones opinion, to cry, to be egotistic, to be nice to people, and that not everybody out there will necessarily hurt me, that some people are actually genuinely nice, interested in me as a person and helpful. I learned to listen to my guts (although they may have shit for brains, quote Nick Hornby) and that it's ok if not everybody agrees with me. That, incidentally, those people I call friends and family actually still like me even if I disagree with them. Or should, anyway, cos if they don't, who the hell are they to call themselves friend? That was a pretty cool realisation. Now Virginia Satir's five freedoms that my partner told me about early on in our relationship actually make sense, before I couldn't really deal with them.
1. The Freedom to see and hear what is here, instead of what should be, was, or will be.
2. The Freedom to say what one feels and thinks instead of what one should.
3. The Freedom to feel what one feels, instead of what one ought.
4. The Freedom to ask for what one wants, instead of always waiting for permission.
5. The Freedom to take risks on one's own behalf, instead of choosing to be onl "secure" and not rocking the boat.
Isn't it weird how sometimes one reads something and thinks "oh yes, golly, that makes sense, marvellous" but then one makes an experience and actually gets it. Well, I think it's a great feeling to seriously take time to think things through for oneself and come to realisations that are really earth-shattering or tremendous or blastfully huge so that afterwards one feels like this weight was lifted off the shoulders or alternatively a persistent knot in the above mentioned gut got untangled making breathing deeply a lot easier.
The only downside is, the deeper one digs, the more one realises one is only scratching the surface.

...love?

2006-02-13T19:04:00.000Z

According to dictionary.com, love is

A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
1. Sexual passion.
2. Sexual intercourse.
3. A love affair.
An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.
1. A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
2. The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.
Love Mythology. Eros or Cupid.
often Love Christianity. Charity.
Sports. A zero score in tennis.

I say
It is what most likely every person feels one time or another.
It is more likely than not different for everyone.
It is definitely likely to be fickle.

I also say I'm not too sure I agree with the dictionary's explanation, but who the hell am I to criticise? We all have our very own definitions for things, especially for love, do we not?

This Valentine's Day does offer itself to ponder about the concept though. Do you believe in true love? Have you experienced unrequainted love? Did you know that romantic love was fabricated only a few centuries ago? Before that people married for money most likely, if at all.

I've never met anyone who hasn't felt love at some point in their life. Babies clearly love their mothers, most mothers love their babies. Some prefer puppies. Many people love shoes and chocolate, or cars and computers. But is it possible to love one person? For ever? Like they want to make you believe in the movies? In my experience, love only lasts a finite period of time, then it changes its appearance and sometimes even goes away altogether. Is it possible to love and be happy? Simply enjoying that feeling? Everybody has an idea of what a relationship should look like, so what happens when your dreams actually come true? You fall in love, you meet your prince(ss), (s)he falls in love with you too and at the same time, hurrah... how long til you're wondering what their problem is? There must be a catch, mustn't there?

I'm not happy with this text which means I probably shouldn't post it. I guess the issue here is the topic... it's too big to fit in a blog-post. I do apologise for publishing it anyway. I'm too wrapped up in thinking about my love-life to think straight at the moment.

Have you ever thought about what makes you love something or someone? Outer appearance? Inner qualities? Timing? Desperation? Are you single? Are you in a couple?

I hope you'll share. Thank you.

...happiness?

2006-02-13T18:07:00.000Z

According to dictionary.com, happiness is

Characterized by good luck; fortunate.
Enjoying, showing, or marked by pleasure, satisfaction, or joy.
Being especially well-adapted; felicitous: a happy turn of phrase.
Cheerful; willing: happy to help.
1. Characterized by a spontaneous or obsessive inclination to use something. Often used in combination: trigger-happy.
2. Enthusiastic about or involved with to a disproportionate degree. Often used in combination: money-happy; clothes-happy.

I say
It is what most likely every person strives to be.
It is more likely than not different for everyone.
It is definitely likely to be fickle.

Do you think the human condition is to be happy or unhappy? I've never met anyone who was happy all their life. In my experience, happiness lasts its adequate period of time, then it changes its appearance (appreciation, then acceptance, then average) and eventually goes away altogether. My guess for the majority of cases: simple greed for more. You think once you lose that weight you'll be happier? Probably, and healthier into the bargain. Be careful to respect your body's limitations though. May I guarantee at this point that you will find thin people aren't happy all the time either?
You think getting that new car will make you happy? I bet you'll be happy for a few weeks, maybe even months, but then you'll want another new one. And quite naturally so, because man (and I mean the race here) is a creature of habit, and once he gets used to any situation, he gets bored with it (some sooner than others).

By the by, Happiness is also a film I enjoyed in a glaswegian cinema many years ago. Bless the old ladies who commented throughout the whole movie, their heart-felt exclamation of "aw the poor wee soul" at a crucial moment has stayed with me to this day. Watch it, you'll know what I mean.

Have you ever thought about what makes you happy? A baby smiling? Chocolate cake? Winning the lottery? I'd love to hear about it. Thank you.

PS - Happy birthday Robbie, I hope this day is just that.

...how to get out of a mental cul-de-sac?

2006-02-12T20:27:00.000Z

when you just don't know which way to turn, when one road looks as blocked as the next, what do you do?

simply turn around and go back to where you came from?

or try and try again to find an alternative to your present state, by rationally playing out all the options you see?

and once you've done that, listen to your heart and stomach to see if that rational solution feels right? and if it doesn't, go back to square one until you find an answer that makes sense and feels right?

how long does that process ususally take? depends on the problem, you say? well, what if you always come back to thinking "none of this is helping, i don't see the way"? what if all you can come up with are alternatives that have at least one negative side-effect? they're all half-cooked rubbish, nothing really solving the root of the problem? do you just wait for time to heal all?

when is it ok to give up or give in without feeling like a quitter, without feeling like you've let yourself down? when you think that you've done all you can? when you're sure you've given your best? well, isn't it obvious that you've not given your best, you've not done everything in your power, seeing as you're still going round in circles without the answer?

at which point does the need for the perfect solution, for being someone who can handle it all, become self-destructive? how long can you keep putting yourself down thinking, "i'm not good enough to deal with this situation", before slipping into a depression? you don't want to be one of those people who blame their incompetence on their parents or random stress-factors in their lives, do you? cos basically, that's just an excuse for being lazy, scared or stupid, isn't it?

have you ever thought about that?

if so, i'd love to hear your comments. thank you.

first post

2006-02-08T00:15:00.000Z

i'm not promising anything regular for now, i just wanted a space to let my thoughts run free.