Well this will be weird. For the first time I am using a tablet to
write and because the keyboard takes so much space I can’t even see what
I am writing. It promises to be fun…
Anyway back to the topic I picked this time. Did you ever consider if
you are a totally different person at work than at home? I will try not
to think some of my colleagues are reading this…
I grew up with comments from the people who more-or-less knew me
saying that I don’t care about other peoples’ feelings, that I am sooo
confident, always know what I want and go for it, blah blah … Even one
of my teachers said at some point that I am like a nice candy filled
with caustic soda (I hope the word actually exists in English).
I usually thought the descriptions were accurate. I recently (like 3
years ago?! God has that been so long??) got to be a manager… yeah like
managing people, as crazy as this may seem. So with all these lovely
personality traits in my mind (which is a different person, if you
recall) I moved my behavior in the opposite direction. People at the
office say I am calm, organized, I listen to them and even go too far by
not taking decisions (and letting them decide) when I probably should
“impose” something. My own husband is laughing when I tell him what nice
things my colleagues are thinking-or at least saying- about me.
So the question is (there had to be one, right?) Who am I? Why can I
be understanding and listen to people at the office, but a (screaming)
maniac at home? Am I compensating something? My own “desguise” at the
office? My husbands indecision and lack of interest in any kind of
change? (I am obsessed with change, by the way, and that applies in both
lives/personalities/context/whatever).
So maybe there is some common ground between the monsters living inside me, but the rest is chaos?
I am still amazed I can appear calm and quiet when I am arguing with
myself in my head all the time. But at least I am having fun.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Dude, what’s wrong with this country? (June 2012)
I was quite unsettled when I read that men or women having 3 or more
children are exempted from having a Masters degree or a specific IT
skills certificate to be able to pass an exam to become teachers. I
wonder how having 3 (and not 2 or 1) kids is equivalent to having a
Masters degree or to know how to use IT tools to build and give a lesson
to young children?
However, the Computer Science engineers do have to pass a certification to prove they know how to use computers!
Anyway, if your children have teachers with 3 or more children, then they might not even know what Internet is… but they might know Twitter, now that our First Lady handled that part
However, the Computer Science engineers do have to pass a certification to prove they know how to use computers!
Anyway, if your children have teachers with 3 or more children, then they might not even know what Internet is… but they might know Twitter, now that our First Lady handled that part
A career? What for? (June 2012)
I wonder, how does one choose the (ideally) right career? And what are the criteria to say it’s right?
For me, I think I will know when I find it, if:
Actually, we get used to a style of life and it’s tricky to get out of it, even for something that matters, and even if we have a career that does not satisfy us. Gaining X or X/2 makes a difference in our minds, go figure
Would you do something that is really important to you and you’re passionate about for half your salary? Or you’re ok with going to work just to earn something that seems ok to you, even if you hate every moment of it?
For me, I think I will know when I find it, if:
- I will wake up happy to go to work (what the hell, this will also happen on Monday, after a 6-months stay at home with small children!!)
- I won’t be able to stop thinking about how to make things work better, find a way to do my job better and so on
- I won’t care how the others look at me when I reply to the question ‘what do you do?’
- I won’t think (too much) about the payslip I receive at the end (or beginning) of the month
- … (to be completed)
Actually, we get used to a style of life and it’s tricky to get out of it, even for something that matters, and even if we have a career that does not satisfy us. Gaining X or X/2 makes a difference in our minds, go figure
Would you do something that is really important to you and you’re passionate about for half your salary? Or you’re ok with going to work just to earn something that seems ok to you, even if you hate every moment of it?
How will you measure your life (May 2012)
Yes, again, it’s about a book. A kind of self help book, but not the
usual kind. It’s the kind Stephen Covey writes, if you know him and like
his style.
And actually I won’t talk about the book in itself. What intrigued me was the title. I think we’re not asking ourselves this question often enough (if ever). How will I measure my life? It’s even stranger that once we do ask ourselves this question, it becomes obvious that what we do has nothing whatsoever to do with the things that are really important, the ones that we would like to accomplish to have a good life. Or am I the only one in this case?
I admit, I’m not totally on the wrong path, but maybe this is only because I read one of Covey’s books earlier on and some things stuck with me… But I would still say that more than 50% of my “resources” are not invested in making my life a success, after my own standards, not those of the society or other c..p.
One of Christensen’s explanations for this (yes, it’s the guy who wrote the book about how to measure your life) is that we tend to choose to invest in short term project, those that will give us a ‘asap’ ROI and instant gratification. And guess what, those short term (or short lived?) projects are not the ones we care about the most. To this I would also add another reason “because it’s so damn difficult”. It’s amazing what stupid, lazy and careless this human being can be (I’m talking about myself). It’s sooooo tiring to do the things that matter, it’s easier just to sit somewhere, wait for the time to pass and think of nothing, then start again in the morning.
I’ve been at home for the last six months (having a second baby) and all I could think about was how soon I can return to work, as sitting home all day with small children – even mine! – drives me crazy. I am still quite sure I will take better care of my time with them when I’ll only have two-three hours a day to spend with them, than now. What kind of sick twisted mind do I have? And this is just about the kids… not talking about other aspects.
Well, anyway, the purpose actually was to get you started on thinking how you can measure your life and how much of what you are doing right now is towards making it better. I’ll go back sulking in my corner and let you to it
And actually I won’t talk about the book in itself. What intrigued me was the title. I think we’re not asking ourselves this question often enough (if ever). How will I measure my life? It’s even stranger that once we do ask ourselves this question, it becomes obvious that what we do has nothing whatsoever to do with the things that are really important, the ones that we would like to accomplish to have a good life. Or am I the only one in this case?
I admit, I’m not totally on the wrong path, but maybe this is only because I read one of Covey’s books earlier on and some things stuck with me… But I would still say that more than 50% of my “resources” are not invested in making my life a success, after my own standards, not those of the society or other c..p.
One of Christensen’s explanations for this (yes, it’s the guy who wrote the book about how to measure your life) is that we tend to choose to invest in short term project, those that will give us a ‘asap’ ROI and instant gratification. And guess what, those short term (or short lived?) projects are not the ones we care about the most. To this I would also add another reason “because it’s so damn difficult”. It’s amazing what stupid, lazy and careless this human being can be (I’m talking about myself). It’s sooooo tiring to do the things that matter, it’s easier just to sit somewhere, wait for the time to pass and think of nothing, then start again in the morning.
I’ve been at home for the last six months (having a second baby) and all I could think about was how soon I can return to work, as sitting home all day with small children – even mine! – drives me crazy. I am still quite sure I will take better care of my time with them when I’ll only have two-three hours a day to spend with them, than now. What kind of sick twisted mind do I have? And this is just about the kids… not talking about other aspects.
Well, anyway, the purpose actually was to get you started on thinking how you can measure your life and how much of what you are doing right now is towards making it better. I’ll go back sulking in my corner and let you to it
About things that really matter (July 2011)
Yeah, that’s actually a book’s title, but it’s a Romanian book,
written by Paleologu, called, in the original language “Despre lucrurile
cu adevarat importante”.
I know most of you won’t be able to read it or you won’t be able to understand anything, even if you can read Romanian but don’t have a minimum of Romanian culture.
I don’t have much of a culture myself, I guess, so for example I can’t explain who this guy
iswas (thanks, Wikipedia), I just know he wrote books and he was quite
present in the TV shows which debated about culture, writers,
philosophy, even politics I think (but not sure if he was part of any
political party or anything).
To come back to the book, it’s a strangely interesting one, because it’s not a novel, but just a collection of texts about one or more writers, about a critic or things like that. I did not finish it yet, but there were a couple of chapters I liked, especially one about Caragiale.
Ok, so you don’t know who Caragiale is. It’s (for me) one of the major contributors to Romanian literature. You can read some of the facts here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caragiale
He wrote mostly theater – and almost all were comedies, some short stories, and I think that’s basically it. We could say he resembles a bit Moliere’s style… What is very funny (and very well done) in his comedies is the way he describes the society at that era (~1870, says Wikipedia), not only from a political point of view, but also in terms of habits, ways of living, talking, etc. It’s very very funny for someone who can relate to the Romanian people, and a lot of people say his theater is very realistic even for current society, some 150 years later.
What Paleologu defends in a couple of short essays about Caragiale in his book is the idea that comedy/humor is not the basis for a low-level literature. During high school, when I actually had to read a lot of (bad, from my point of view) stuff and all that the critics had to say about it, I was amazed how much critics ‘despised’ humorists. It was simply unbelievable that people would consider laughing something… frivolous, superficial and low-quality, especially in literature. I never understood why a novel should be tragic, very sad and complicated to be very very good. So the fact that this guy defends the quality of Caragiale’s work by saying that literature that has humor at its foundations is not by default low scale and superficial, I actually felt less ignorant
Another thing I liked about this book is that, 20 years later, it got me thinking ‘I would really like to read this novel, and this one, and this one’ – most of which were on my ‘to read’ list in high-school, but I never wanted to read them then. The way he describes what the author wrote about, mixing this with their lives, the things they believed in, the ‘fights’ they had with other writers or poets, puts a context around each writer and book that makes it more interesting, especially since it’s no longer mandatory to read, understand and comment it in big philosophical terms that I did not even understand at that time…
“Atentia acordata lucrurilor neinsemnate se numeste frivolitate. Seriosii (pretinsii seriosi) se sperie de frivolitate, fug de ea ca dracul de tamaie si raman la nivelul cliseelor si platitudinilor grave. Contrariul frivolitatii nu e seriozitatea, contrariul frivolitatii e superficialitatea. [...]Nu exista teme grave si teme superficiale, exista numai privire superficiala si privire patrunzatoare, profunda, indiferent de obiectul ei. Pretinsii seriosi nu au acces la profunzime, si nu stiu sa se amuze. ”
I know most of you won’t be able to read it or you won’t be able to understand anything, even if you can read Romanian but don’t have a minimum of Romanian culture.
I don’t have much of a culture myself, I guess, so for example I can’t explain who this guy
To come back to the book, it’s a strangely interesting one, because it’s not a novel, but just a collection of texts about one or more writers, about a critic or things like that. I did not finish it yet, but there were a couple of chapters I liked, especially one about Caragiale.
Ok, so you don’t know who Caragiale is. It’s (for me) one of the major contributors to Romanian literature. You can read some of the facts here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caragiale
He wrote mostly theater – and almost all were comedies, some short stories, and I think that’s basically it. We could say he resembles a bit Moliere’s style… What is very funny (and very well done) in his comedies is the way he describes the society at that era (~1870, says Wikipedia), not only from a political point of view, but also in terms of habits, ways of living, talking, etc. It’s very very funny for someone who can relate to the Romanian people, and a lot of people say his theater is very realistic even for current society, some 150 years later.
What Paleologu defends in a couple of short essays about Caragiale in his book is the idea that comedy/humor is not the basis for a low-level literature. During high school, when I actually had to read a lot of (bad, from my point of view) stuff and all that the critics had to say about it, I was amazed how much critics ‘despised’ humorists. It was simply unbelievable that people would consider laughing something… frivolous, superficial and low-quality, especially in literature. I never understood why a novel should be tragic, very sad and complicated to be very very good. So the fact that this guy defends the quality of Caragiale’s work by saying that literature that has humor at its foundations is not by default low scale and superficial, I actually felt less ignorant
Another thing I liked about this book is that, 20 years later, it got me thinking ‘I would really like to read this novel, and this one, and this one’ – most of which were on my ‘to read’ list in high-school, but I never wanted to read them then. The way he describes what the author wrote about, mixing this with their lives, the things they believed in, the ‘fights’ they had with other writers or poets, puts a context around each writer and book that makes it more interesting, especially since it’s no longer mandatory to read, understand and comment it in big philosophical terms that I did not even understand at that time…
“Atentia acordata lucrurilor neinsemnate se numeste frivolitate. Seriosii (pretinsii seriosi) se sperie de frivolitate, fug de ea ca dracul de tamaie si raman la nivelul cliseelor si platitudinilor grave. Contrariul frivolitatii nu e seriozitatea, contrariul frivolitatii e superficialitatea. [...]Nu exista teme grave si teme superficiale, exista numai privire superficiala si privire patrunzatoare, profunda, indiferent de obiectul ei. Pretinsii seriosi nu au acces la profunzime, si nu stiu sa se amuze. ”
Qu’est-ce qu’on se marre… (July 2011)
I know it’s not about a book, but I can’t get this very nice song out
of my head. I heard it on a radio station I listen to quite regularly
(France Inter) and since then, every now and then, I spend (more than) a
couple of minutes listening to it over and over again.
It might be related to my next post about a book I’m reading now, if I ever manage to take the time to write it…
Anyway, here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZjExxr2S_c
For those of you understanding French, enjoy! For the others, just appreciate the music
It might be related to my next post about a book I’m reading now, if I ever manage to take the time to write it…
Anyway, here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZjExxr2S_c
For those of you understanding French, enjoy! For the others, just appreciate the music
Dark... something (June 2011)
Hey there! As usual, it’s been a while since my last post. I had this
one in mind for a while and now I also figured that if I want to write
regularly I should write about something that I do often enough (and
that might be even a tiny little interesting to others).
The only thing I came up with is: I read. Yay! So don’t go having big ideas that I’m any kind of a book critic or something, it’s just that I read a lot (of bad stuff, mostly) and I would like to share every now and then what a specific book made me think of or how good or bad I felt reading it. That’s about all the depth you’ll get in here!
So, first one that I wanted to talk about is a romance series (I read those a lot, so sorry for the “real literature” fans out there reading this). The series is called Dark… something. Actually each book is “Dark” followed by another word, like “Dark prince”, “Dark pleasures” or whatever, I don’t remember the names (I actually had to look for the books to see what they were called).
More to the point: in short, it’s a series about some vampire-like characters, feeding on human blood, living in the Carpathian mountains (heh! I know those from somewhere!) which are called -surprise!- Carpathians. Not vampires!! Because they only feed with human blood, but never ever kill their “food”, otherwise the “dark side” of the force would make them become vampires and kill for pleasure. They are practically immortal and the males are the ‘hunters’ of the species, trying to hunt and kill those who turned vampires. In time, if the male does not find his lifemate (a woman, but of course!), they have less and less emotions and joy in their life, so they are more and more … available for the dark side to take hold. That’s basically the idea and each book is the adventure of a really really old male who has bravely survived the attraction of the dark side until he – finally!- finds the lifemate and binds her to him and all is well in his world.
Now, the books are quite average (to put it nicely), but… the thing that got me thinking is an idea that the author had (the only one I find original in all this) the idea of lifemates. Of course, there’s only one lifemate for each, so no messing around, that’s one thing – and nothing original about that. What’s weird is that the lifemates share ALL their thoughts and emotions via a sort of telepathic link. When I say “all”, it really means “all”. So it’s not like “I want to tell him X, I’ll tell him telepathically instead of picking up a phone”, it’s more like “Heh! I can ‘hear’ all your thoughts”. A point where I thought ‘oh, bummer’
So my question is: why is this so unthinkable? Why would we never feel safe enough with someone as to share everything, even our most weird or bad thoughts? Are people so fundamentally evil that they can never have 100% “publishable” thoughts towards at least one person in this world? I know I seem to be, because the idea just terrifies me.
Anyway, that’s the only thing I can recommend about these books. A nice and interesting idea, I think.
The only thing I came up with is: I read. Yay! So don’t go having big ideas that I’m any kind of a book critic or something, it’s just that I read a lot (of bad stuff, mostly) and I would like to share every now and then what a specific book made me think of or how good or bad I felt reading it. That’s about all the depth you’ll get in here!
So, first one that I wanted to talk about is a romance series (I read those a lot, so sorry for the “real literature” fans out there reading this). The series is called Dark… something. Actually each book is “Dark” followed by another word, like “Dark prince”, “Dark pleasures” or whatever, I don’t remember the names (I actually had to look for the books to see what they were called).
More to the point: in short, it’s a series about some vampire-like characters, feeding on human blood, living in the Carpathian mountains (heh! I know those from somewhere!) which are called -surprise!- Carpathians. Not vampires!! Because they only feed with human blood, but never ever kill their “food”, otherwise the “dark side” of the force would make them become vampires and kill for pleasure. They are practically immortal and the males are the ‘hunters’ of the species, trying to hunt and kill those who turned vampires. In time, if the male does not find his lifemate (a woman, but of course!), they have less and less emotions and joy in their life, so they are more and more … available for the dark side to take hold. That’s basically the idea and each book is the adventure of a really really old male who has bravely survived the attraction of the dark side until he – finally!- finds the lifemate and binds her to him and all is well in his world.
Now, the books are quite average (to put it nicely), but… the thing that got me thinking is an idea that the author had (the only one I find original in all this) the idea of lifemates. Of course, there’s only one lifemate for each, so no messing around, that’s one thing – and nothing original about that. What’s weird is that the lifemates share ALL their thoughts and emotions via a sort of telepathic link. When I say “all”, it really means “all”. So it’s not like “I want to tell him X, I’ll tell him telepathically instead of picking up a phone”, it’s more like “Heh! I can ‘hear’ all your thoughts”. A point where I thought ‘oh, bummer’
So my question is: why is this so unthinkable? Why would we never feel safe enough with someone as to share everything, even our most weird or bad thoughts? Are people so fundamentally evil that they can never have 100% “publishable” thoughts towards at least one person in this world? I know I seem to be, because the idea just terrifies me.
Anyway, that’s the only thing I can recommend about these books. A nice and interesting idea, I think.
What's... God... got to do with it? (Feb 2011)
I guess that most of us are asking ourselves questions about God during our entire life. Me, I keep wondering why we do that 
Why do we feel something called God is or can be important in our lives? I’m not talking about religion in itself, because that’s another matter, things like power over others, a sense of belonging to a community, and other reasons can creep up, reasons that don’t necessarily apply when we consider God on a very personal note.
I can think of some reasons to need a God-ish presence in our lives: a reassurance that someone will reward the right and punish the wrong (better than our justice systems or whatever), a feeling that there might be a purpose to life if someone else – much more intelligent and powerful than us – decided that we should exist, a protective presence, someone who can help when nothing else can… Maybe other reasons as well.
What bothers me with this is that:
I guess that’s bugging me more than anything else, the fact that we (as one of Earth species) believe we can’t be owners of our lives, of our choices, of our value systems. We much rather rely on others for that, even if others can easily manipulate us with this.
As a trainer said a couple of days ago: when we fail, we externalize the causes (it rained, I was unlucky, others cheated…). We need a plan-B in case something is not the way we want it to be. It can’t be our decision, our responsibility, it must be someone else’s.
Why do we feel something called God is or can be important in our lives? I’m not talking about religion in itself, because that’s another matter, things like power over others, a sense of belonging to a community, and other reasons can creep up, reasons that don’t necessarily apply when we consider God on a very personal note.
I can think of some reasons to need a God-ish presence in our lives: a reassurance that someone will reward the right and punish the wrong (better than our justice systems or whatever), a feeling that there might be a purpose to life if someone else – much more intelligent and powerful than us – decided that we should exist, a protective presence, someone who can help when nothing else can… Maybe other reasons as well.
What bothers me with this is that:
- we should be able to define – for ourselves – what right and wrong means, without any 20-commandments, coming from someone else
- we should be able to find a purpose to our lives without just saying “there must be one, even if I don’t know it”
- we should not need protection from a “superior” person (especially as it’s not obvious we have it anyway)
- the only thing that can help us is … well, us.
I guess that’s bugging me more than anything else, the fact that we (as one of Earth species) believe we can’t be owners of our lives, of our choices, of our value systems. We much rather rely on others for that, even if others can easily manipulate us with this.
As a trainer said a couple of days ago: when we fail, we externalize the causes (it rained, I was unlucky, others cheated…). We need a plan-B in case something is not the way we want it to be. It can’t be our decision, our responsibility, it must be someone else’s.
Truth or dare (April 2010)
So… after nearly two months of heavy drinking – as an excuse to
discover my true personality…, I’m back to blogging (totally sober this
time, even if it won’t be obvious from this post).
I was wondering the other day why we are so stuck on this fidelity thing. It seems pretty obvious to me we’re not really built to be faithful, but we cling to this idea anyway. And it is a paradox for me, because I think we usually just adapt our conceptions and rules to the way of living that we want to have. The religion did not approve of sex before marriage, we just slowly (but surely) decided that this is just bogus and did it anyway. Some are prohibiting alcohol (and there were laws against it, too, once upon a time), we managed to get around that as well. Even prostitution and drugs are legal here and there, and basically they are quite accepted in our society.
So how come, when almost no-one really really believes we are “born to be faithful”, we are still considering this idea as a viable one? Of course, I doubt the percentage of people actually being faithful is that big, but it seems that somehow the idea that we should be faithful to our one-and-only never got to be a “has been” thing. Many have tried, but I don’t feel it’s a success as yet. Maybe I live in a bubble and I am not aware of the reality, but this is my impression anyway.
Any ideas why? Why we don’t simply say it’s not possible and forget about it? Maybe because it would bring some sort of chaos and the relationships (if any) won’t be structured in any way? Maybe it would mean we would be in some ready-to-explode society, in which no rule still applies? Probably it’s the same with the laws and criminals. The fact that there’s a law simply lowers the percentage of crimes, not the number of people thinking about committing them? I wonder if people would cheat less if we (still?) had a prison/death penalty for it? Or would they just pay more attention to not being caught?
And a more frightening question (for some): thinking that there is a high probability your sweet, loving half, will cheat on you at least once in the future, would YOU want to know about it? This is, amazingly, one of the few questions to which I think I know the answer, but I will keep it to myself. Hah!
I was wondering the other day why we are so stuck on this fidelity thing. It seems pretty obvious to me we’re not really built to be faithful, but we cling to this idea anyway. And it is a paradox for me, because I think we usually just adapt our conceptions and rules to the way of living that we want to have. The religion did not approve of sex before marriage, we just slowly (but surely) decided that this is just bogus and did it anyway. Some are prohibiting alcohol (and there were laws against it, too, once upon a time), we managed to get around that as well. Even prostitution and drugs are legal here and there, and basically they are quite accepted in our society.
So how come, when almost no-one really really believes we are “born to be faithful”, we are still considering this idea as a viable one? Of course, I doubt the percentage of people actually being faithful is that big, but it seems that somehow the idea that we should be faithful to our one-and-only never got to be a “has been” thing. Many have tried, but I don’t feel it’s a success as yet. Maybe I live in a bubble and I am not aware of the reality, but this is my impression anyway.
Any ideas why? Why we don’t simply say it’s not possible and forget about it? Maybe because it would bring some sort of chaos and the relationships (if any) won’t be structured in any way? Maybe it would mean we would be in some ready-to-explode society, in which no rule still applies? Probably it’s the same with the laws and criminals. The fact that there’s a law simply lowers the percentage of crimes, not the number of people thinking about committing them? I wonder if people would cheat less if we (still?) had a prison/death penalty for it? Or would they just pay more attention to not being caught?
And a more frightening question (for some): thinking that there is a high probability your sweet, loving half, will cheat on you at least once in the future, would YOU want to know about it?
This is, amazingly, one of the few questions to which I think I know the answer, but I will keep it to myself. Hah!
To drink... or not to drink (Feb 2010)
Isn’t it funny how we have some memories jumping back into our minds
without warning? I had one of those a couple of days ago, and of course
this brought me to another question without answers.
I think I was around 14 years old when one of my cousins got baptised. Of course, after the ceremony we went home, with some family friends to celebrate. As my cousin was more that 1-year-old, his parents also performed a weird ritual we have in our country, in which we present the kid with a tray filled with various things (from screw drivers, money, mirror, to almost anything that passes through your mind) so that he can chose what interests him. And of course, from this we jump to the conclusion that he will do X and Y when he’s all grown up. Anyway… so during this ritual, one of the acquaintances of the family added his wedding ring to the mix. He’s working on a ship (he’s a marine, I guess, but not the military type), like most of the man in our family. When my cousin picked up his wedding ring from the tray, he was deliriously happy because he concluded my cousin will follow the same career path.
All this to come to the point where during that evening, this acquaintance was very … how should I put it?… communicative about his emotions. He expressed them all with enthusiasm (even crying at some point, if I recall correctly) and it was weird (even to me at that age), because he’s a man, he’s about 2 meters high and quite solidly built and somehow we would not expect this from that kind of person. However, during other social occasions I also noticed that he’s more or less open to expressing his feelings – so that evening was not very special from this perspective, probably.
What I recall was that I actually liked this guy and was talking to my mother and aunt about that evening, telling them that I thought he is more honest than the majority of the people I knew. My aunt seemed to have some doubts about that and I didn’t really understand why, but now (more than 15 years later…) I wonder if his nature was not a bit exaggerated that evening by the fact that he’s been drinking. I am pretty sure he was not actually drunk, but maybe the couple of drinks he had were softening him a bit more than he usually was?
So this is my question: is the alcohol something that makes us behave more like what/who we really are or is it something that makes us become something we’re not?
(yeah, I know, long story for such a stupid question… I like telling stories, what can I do?)
Without going in a debate about what it means “what we really are”, it is still difficult for me to choose between these two opinions. I am sure that the alcohol helps loosen a few inhibitions – thus showing more about our “inner” self that we would like to in day-to-day life. Also, I think that it might trigger some behaviors that one would not normally adopt – even because those things never crossed his mind before being drunk. So I have no idea what the answer is – probably the scientists already have this figured out. What do you think?
PS: my cousin has not yet chosen what he’s going to do in life, but the marine option seems like a valid one…
I think I was around 14 years old when one of my cousins got baptised. Of course, after the ceremony we went home, with some family friends to celebrate. As my cousin was more that 1-year-old, his parents also performed a weird ritual we have in our country, in which we present the kid with a tray filled with various things (from screw drivers, money, mirror, to almost anything that passes through your mind) so that he can chose what interests him. And of course, from this we jump to the conclusion that he will do X and Y when he’s all grown up. Anyway… so during this ritual, one of the acquaintances of the family added his wedding ring to the mix. He’s working on a ship (he’s a marine, I guess, but not the military type), like most of the man in our family. When my cousin picked up his wedding ring from the tray, he was deliriously happy because he concluded my cousin will follow the same career path.
All this to come to the point where during that evening, this acquaintance was very … how should I put it?… communicative about his emotions. He expressed them all with enthusiasm (even crying at some point, if I recall correctly) and it was weird (even to me at that age), because he’s a man, he’s about 2 meters high and quite solidly built and somehow we would not expect this from that kind of person. However, during other social occasions I also noticed that he’s more or less open to expressing his feelings – so that evening was not very special from this perspective, probably.
What I recall was that I actually liked this guy and was talking to my mother and aunt about that evening, telling them that I thought he is more honest than the majority of the people I knew. My aunt seemed to have some doubts about that and I didn’t really understand why, but now (more than 15 years later…) I wonder if his nature was not a bit exaggerated that evening by the fact that he’s been drinking. I am pretty sure he was not actually drunk, but maybe the couple of drinks he had were softening him a bit more than he usually was?
So this is my question: is the alcohol something that makes us behave more like what/who we really are or is it something that makes us become something we’re not?
(yeah, I know, long story for such a stupid question… I like telling stories, what can I do?)
Without going in a debate about what it means “what we really are”, it is still difficult for me to choose between these two opinions. I am sure that the alcohol helps loosen a few inhibitions – thus showing more about our “inner” self that we would like to in day-to-day life. Also, I think that it might trigger some behaviors that one would not normally adopt – even because those things never crossed his mind before being drunk. So I have no idea what the answer is – probably the scientists already have this figured out. What do you think?
PS: my cousin has not yet chosen what he’s going to do in life, but the marine option seems like a valid one…
Tell me why... oh... why (Jan 2010)
Ok, time for a break in my busy day before my short vacation
What story do I have now? Actually, I don’t. I’ve had a subject in mind for a while now, but I don’t seem to get a hold on it. So maybe I should just start and see what happens.
I was actually asking myself (you will see the irony of this in a second) why I am asking so many questions. I somehow seem to be obsessed with questions. I rarely have the answers to them, but I am having a great time just jumping from question to question. And so I add to the infinite chain of questions, this one: “why?”
I am starting to think that I am on a quest. A quest for the perfect question. I read somewhere a long time ago that “a problem without a solution is not a problem” and somehow, my weird mind understood that the solution to all problems should be obvious, IF you know how to look at the problem. My way of doing this is to search the perfect question that will give me the answer immediately. Of course I don’t usually find it… but sometimes it works (otherwise I won’t keep doing it, right?).
…
I stopped for a couple of minutes now and thought about an example, and nothing comes to my mind (no wonder!). Looks like I’m just stubborn, and I keep looking for questions, even if they don’t solve anything
I think that all that questions have to offer is new ideas, a bit like a brainstorm. Asking all the questions that are not necessarily related to the subject at hand might be an open door to new thoughts, new approaches. Or maybe I am just trying to defend my habit of finishing my sentences by “?” – I have a colleague who is ending them with “!!!”. I seem insecure, she seems overly enthusiastic. Probably (hopefully) both impressions are quite superficial.
What story do I have now? Actually, I don’t. I’ve had a subject in mind for a while now, but I don’t seem to get a hold on it. So maybe I should just start and see what happens.
I was actually asking myself (you will see the irony of this in a second) why I am asking so many questions. I somehow seem to be obsessed with questions. I rarely have the answers to them, but I am having a great time just jumping from question to question. And so I add to the infinite chain of questions, this one: “why?”
I am starting to think that I am on a quest. A quest for the perfect question. I read somewhere a long time ago that “a problem without a solution is not a problem” and somehow, my weird mind understood that the solution to all problems should be obvious, IF you know how to look at the problem. My way of doing this is to search the perfect question that will give me the answer immediately. Of course I don’t usually find it… but sometimes it works (otherwise I won’t keep doing it, right?).
…
I stopped for a couple of minutes now and thought about an example, and nothing comes to my mind (no wonder!). Looks like I’m just stubborn, and I keep looking for questions, even if they don’t solve anything
I think that all that questions have to offer is new ideas, a bit like a brainstorm. Asking all the questions that are not necessarily related to the subject at hand might be an open door to new thoughts, new approaches. Or maybe I am just trying to defend my habit of finishing my sentences by “?” – I have a colleague who is ending them with “!!!”. I seem insecure, she seems overly enthusiastic. Probably (hopefully) both impressions are quite superficial.
Random (?) living (Jan 2010)
What’s bugging me today? Just how random our lives actually are. I
started thinking today when stretching at the gym (apparently too much
physical effort involved, so my brain was feeling useless)… what would
have happened if I didn’t choose to have as boyfriend my best friend’s
crush? What would have been the “butterfly effect” on this – not so
small and insignificant, maybe – decision? And then I just got swept
away by all the questions…
What if I wouldn’t have split up with my ex? Would he have left the country after all? What if I hadn’t insisted that my parents move from their old flat? Would they be happier? What if I would have chosen a different university to attend? Would I have met my husband after all?
Yes, pointless “what if”s. Usually I just think that it all worked out for the best. What surprised me in fact was the sudden realization that my choices (maybe) changed other’s lives significantly. I guess I never realized that before – I just thought we are what we are and we would evolve more or less the same way, no matter who and what we have in our lives.
Now, on a vaguely related topic, what annoys me is that I am checking the available positions in my company and I simply don’t know what I would like to do. I know that I spent too much time on my current position, so I need to move. I would like to do something else, I don’t know what. So what decision will I take? A random one… meaning I am trying to chat with all the managers looking to fill a spot in their team, see what they are looking for. Maybe I will find something interesting and my life will change “randomly” again. I wonder if this more-or-less random act will impact others that much…
* Maybe “random” is not the right word… “unpredictable”, but also “inter-dependent” might be better – but such a complicated expression…
What if I wouldn’t have split up with my ex? Would he have left the country after all? What if I hadn’t insisted that my parents move from their old flat? Would they be happier? What if I would have chosen a different university to attend? Would I have met my husband after all?
Yes, pointless “what if”s. Usually I just think that it all worked out for the best. What surprised me in fact was the sudden realization that my choices (maybe) changed other’s lives significantly. I guess I never realized that before – I just thought we are what we are and we would evolve more or less the same way, no matter who and what we have in our lives.
Now, on a vaguely related topic, what annoys me is that I am checking the available positions in my company and I simply don’t know what I would like to do. I know that I spent too much time on my current position, so I need to move. I would like to do something else, I don’t know what. So what decision will I take? A random one… meaning I am trying to chat with all the managers looking to fill a spot in their team, see what they are looking for. Maybe I will find something interesting and my life will change “randomly” again. I wonder if this more-or-less random act will impact others that much…
* Maybe “random” is not the right word… “unpredictable”, but also “inter-dependent” might be better – but such a complicated expression…
Reading mania (Jan 2010)
It started with a simple question “Why don’t you like this book? It
seems to me it gives some common sense suggestions”. The answer puzzled
me… “Maybe that’s what I dislike about it, that we have to read
something that teaches us to do common-sense things”. Fair enough. Got
my tiny chaotic wheels turning. Why do we feel the need to read about
living? Don’t we know how to think, walk, behave without a book
explaining it to us?
How come there are so many “self help” books around – and so popular? Did we actually forget how to live? Or is this just a habit of looking for the best way of doing things, without the trial & error process, as there’s no time to lose in the every day race we are running?
I admit I am also quite interested to the books that (try to) teach you how to think, evaluate, live, feel… this is what I find scary. I am actually waiting for the books to tell me how I should feel and explain why I am not and what I should do in order to… It’s a vicious circle.
What is also kind of stupid is that (some of) those books don’t actually make you think, they are assessing the situations and give you the solutions that you have to adopt if you want to be ”better, happier, healthier”. The entire “civilized” world is focused on these adjectives. Maybe we have too much of everything, don’t know what to do with it. Maybe we are too high on the famous “needs pyramid”, so we started looking for easy recipes to happiness. I wonder if Haiti’s population is currently considering ”being zen” and “making peace with their inner-child” as solutions to more happiness in their lives. Yes, of course it’s a caricature, but maybe less that you’d think. It’s a very strange world we’re living in…
How come there are so many “self help” books around – and so popular? Did we actually forget how to live? Or is this just a habit of looking for the best way of doing things, without the trial & error process, as there’s no time to lose in the every day race we are running?
I admit I am also quite interested to the books that (try to) teach you how to think, evaluate, live, feel… this is what I find scary. I am actually waiting for the books to tell me how I should feel and explain why I am not and what I should do in order to… It’s a vicious circle.
What is also kind of stupid is that (some of) those books don’t actually make you think, they are assessing the situations and give you the solutions that you have to adopt if you want to be ”better, happier, healthier”. The entire “civilized” world is focused on these adjectives. Maybe we have too much of everything, don’t know what to do with it. Maybe we are too high on the famous “needs pyramid”, so we started looking for easy recipes to happiness. I wonder if Haiti’s population is currently considering ”being zen” and “making peace with their inner-child” as solutions to more happiness in their lives. Yes, of course it’s a caricature, but maybe less that you’d think. It’s a very strange world we’re living in…
Conversations
Me: Honey, I have an idea…
Him: Hmpf. Should I buy paint?
Me: Where did that come from?!…
(30 sec later)
Me: How did you know??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Me: Do you have any suggestions on how I can convince my husband to change our car?
Woman-friend: Crash the old one against a wall
Questions:
1. how come she never even thought about the possibility to discuss the matter with him?
2. what does it say about me that I actually considered doing what she suggested?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(after more than one hour talk about our relationship)
Him: you keep talking about ‘your mind’ like it’s another person. “My mind says that”, “my mind thinks that”…
Me: you know what? It totally IS!
Him: I’d like to meet this.. entity and beat the c..p out of her.
Me: Me too!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)