One might think I have some principle or other regarding honesty on here. Truth of the matter is, however, I don’t. I try to be as honest as possible, but keep a few things in mind when you read this.
My vision is distorted. My writing is emotionally influenced and my memory is far from perfect. I will simplify situations and conversations to magnify the point, and will occasionally draw questionable conclusions.
I know what I mean when I write cryptically worded paragraphs or figurative expressions. You don’t. You can try to assume but realize that I have a reason for wording matters the way I sometimes will.
I don’t lie on here, since I would be lying to myself. But, I am still acutely aware that I have a reader base, however small. Details that I don’t want read, I simply did not include.
For that reason, I recently edited a post fundamentally when I realized my mistake. Call me a pussy. It was vulnerability I did not want to show.
Some will find this text very familiar.
Screw that, forget about that
I don’t want to hear about anything like that
I got nothing to do
But hang around and get screwed up on you
Ever since I quit MUDing, it has been rather difficult for me to channel my interests. It’s hard to put inspiration into physical occupation like writing or working, because I quickly lose interest the moment I have a clear view of what the end result will be. This results in two effects: A constant midlife crisis-like addiction to adrenalin and the breaking of laws, and a slowly progressing obsession with one individual after another.
Fascinating as it might be, this intense analyzing of those around me gives me little more than frustration with myself. I tend to pick the worst subjects you see, and I am frightened to death that my intentions will come over as bad and I will only manage to push them away. So in the end I will reach a dead end that I can’t get around of without being obvious, and the tedious process of pacing begins. Walking back and forth, watching, from a distance, with the only distraction being the next object of interest to shamelessly sneak around on.
Back when my roommate was still living here, he would have these moments of being flawlessly annoying. Don’t get me wrong, he was and is a great person, but god damn it when he got into one of those moods again. He came home from a mutual friend one day, where he had met a girl he had gotten crazy about in about an hour. He would go and abuse our oven mitten, calling it the “smitten mitten” and make it say “smitten” repeatedly. I eventually threatened to roll that thing up and force it up his cock hole, that shut him up. I had to keep him from gluing ping pong balls to it, too, having a seriously hard time getting it through to him that it would render the thing useless.
And just today, he of all people, looked across the table, where I had gone quiet.
I nodded slowly. “Yeah.”
So yeah. Maarten is hooked, poor sap. She’s got a boyfriend, for crying out loud. She’s from another continent. The far side of it, and she’ll be leaving in a year. Did I mention she’s got a boyfriend?
I can’t seem to get her out of my head, though. Our working hours are both insane and contradicting, so there’s only a slim chance I’ll be able to see her until 8 days from now. I suppose that’s a good thing, it may help that damn helplessness subside.
I always said, attraction does not stick to rules. Shit like “he’s not my type” is no excuse because that would indicate that it only takes him to be your type- besides, exceptions are everywhere. The only factors that matter -and remember this- are Attraction, Interest and Closeness. By interest I mean things like ethical objections like marriage or whatever deeply rooted reasons that smother the spark.
Otherwise, if you put 2 people together and these are mutually there, they -will- hook up. Bullshit like “we shouldn’t”, does not apply.
Knowing this, you can imagine what kind of challenge I see myself facing here. Let me get it straight: I don’t want to steal her from a boyfriend she’s happy with, and I don’t intend to claim what’s not mine. But fuck, I met her for something just over an hour and I caught myself ogling Smitten Mitten today.
But here’s the good news: I am a good liar. As much as I am deadly honest with myself, I will always be sincere with others – there is a difference. If I swear I’m telling you the truth, I am. If you’re making me swear it, you’re giving me good reason to lie. Things like that usually involve matters that the other lies about to themselves, and if they’re too fragile to see the truth, I won’t make them.
To the point. One year is nothing. "So… you’re gonna go out there, you’re gonna say ‘goodnight’ and ‘I’ve had a very lovely evening’… walk out the door, get in the car…. go home, jerk off… and that’s all you gonna do."
And hope she never reads this.
It’s no secret that a roadie’s world is a man’s world. Women are scarce and usually found in the office, and those that do join in with the grunts have bigger balls than you do. The result is an atmosphere of crotch scratching, burping and crude remarks. There is limited room for decent conversation, about personal life, beliefs or philosophies.
Which is one of the reasons I am so fond of one colleague, in particular. From another part of the world, he communicates in English but luckily, is articulate enough to make himself understood even at complicated or specific topics. On top of that, he’s a thinker, like I am. Although our views differ slightly, we share our method of reasoning and understand each other quite well when we discuss various topics. Given enough time for ourselves, we will talk about various concepts we are all troubled with until our colleagues tell us to shut the fuck up, and we are made fun of for the rest of the day. But we don’t need their understanding- we have each other’s, and I noticed it has created a bond I share with no one else.
Not that we’re that tight. It’s just a great relief to find that you’re not alone digging a little deeper once in a while, and that even your method of doing so isn’t as unique as you thought it was. Some might find that disappointing, but I am just glad I’m not as mad as I sometimes fear to be.
Talks like that can start off at any given time, and will carry on until we are called to business. Something said in normal conversation will cause one of us to say something the other might not agree with, and off we go until we get to the very bottom of the issue, and find exactly where our difference in views are. At that point is can become difficult to swallow it down and agree to disagree, rather than start a convincing marathon in the style of the religious.
Just recently, one of those enlightened moments occurred. I can’t recall exactly what the topic was, but the conversation had gone silent, adding drama to the slow shaking of his head and his mumbling, “It’s terrible. There is no freedom. There is only the lie of such.”
And off we went. It boiled down to his definition of freedom, and he explained that he would only accept nature itself to put him before choices he didn’t want to make. Somehow we got to the example of “the monkey and the lion,” both iconic concepts of limited intelligence and mortal danger respectively. He claimed that our ethics had gone off track. That the pacification of amusement and the ease of living had made us numb, and deeply unhappy. The call back to nature would be the only thing that will allow us to find that peace again.
We are nature’s mistake. The other side of the medal to the almost musical balance that nature has found in sustaining itself. Our urge for survival has gone out of hand and we have separated from nature’s set of ethics of “survival of the fittest”, which has shown to work. Our minds are severed from the unity found in the wilderness, and we miss it so much that we can never be 100% happy.
Our ethics are wrong. Our ways are misguided. We are a cancer to nature and ourselves, corroding the beauty of nature and being a danger to what is right.
So he claimed.
Naturally, I disagreed. Loving my life as it’s going at the moment, I didn’t think we were fundamentally unhappy. I couldn’t claim to be 100% satisfied with myself, but I don’t think returning to nature would bring that back. We may be somehow unsatisfied with our situation, but going back to our example, my unhappiness was nothing compared to that of a monkey being chased by a lion. No one would agree less to the laws of nature as an animal fighting for survival. I couldn’t imagine it would make us any happier.
We may be controlled to an extent and other humans might want to cage us in rules, but the freedom we can enjoy today is so different from a situation in which we had to struggle for survival. If we were to go back to that situation, and I was trapped in a life of searching food in constant fear of death, not to mention in the pain that would result in a lack of medical attention, I would quickly lose my mind. This is a point where our opinions clashed.
What it came down to, was the discussion whether our ways were right or wrong, compared to those of “mother nature”. If were were her mistake, then this would imply that a conscious choice is involved, where she made an error of some kind. Both atheist/agnostic, we more or less agreed that this would be very unlikely. Additionally, if nature’s allowance for us to exist was a wrong thing to do, this would mean that there is a set of rules around “wrong” and “right” that even nature would have to answer to. I don’t think that is the case.
The only concept of wrong and right is that inside our heads. It differs from one individual to the next, and fundamentally so when it comes to the world of animals. Some eat their mates, some destroy eggs in favor of their own- things we would find unacceptable. No one would disagree with nature’s “ethics” more than the terrified monkey. To me, there is no wrong or right outside our minds. We could destroy nature as a whole and then each other without repercussion. It would be a terrible thing for all of us, yes, but not evil in the eyes of the onlooker, just like it isn’t evil for a bug to kill its mate, or a tribe of apes to destroy another.
In the end, he asked me this: “So then do you think that things, as they are today, should be like this?”
I shrugged and shook my head. “Things shouldn’t be anything. They just are. They led to this situation and will continue, and no one cares what happens in the end.”
And that is where we agreed to disagree. When we were done, he concluded that he did think there is, objectively, a right and a wrong judging our actions. I didn’t mention that this would imply that a higher being would be involved, it’s the age old discussion I actively avoid.
Me, I am convinced that good and evil don’t reside in our hearts, but our minds. We owe neither man or nature our collaboration, we do so because we want to. Keeping this in mind, it suddenly becomes so much less important to pick up your ID card, or learn to drive. Fuck ‘em, they can wait, your happiness goes first. Selfishness will backfire on you, but blind obedience will obstruct your ways and the key to true happiness.
Or so I claim.
“People need their freedom of speech so much
to compensate for their freedom of thought,
which they rarely use.”