HOME | DD
Carenza β Break
Published: 2011-02-12 23:54:38 +0000 UTC; Views: 818; Favourites: 57; Downloads: 25
Redirect to original
Description
...Related content
Comments: 47
And it was that day too - not to mention really bloody windy ^__^ I saw a newsgirl actually fly.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well maybe we need it, just so we can appreciate the sunny days more - if you like that sort of thing, sunshine, blue skies and birds singing... A really nice day brings me down when I'm busy feeling miserable, I'd rather have a storm.
Hahaha, you need tougher newsgirls. Was she using the papers as a kite?
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, I get you. I had a really really bad experience that particular afternoon, then I had to walk miles back to my hotel,it was raining really hard, storm force winds, icy cold, and at my moment of feeling worst, furthest away from life, I thought
"Well at least it isn't sunny." Because I reckon that we may not be in the same frame of mind all the time, may not be able to appreciate each others situation, but we all get rained on just the same.
Hah. If I see the weather girl again I'll tell her to toughen up and....ignore physics...that kind of thing ^__^ I believe all she was really doing was leaning into the wind and going "Weeeeeee."
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, at least that's something, isn't it. I think that if you're having a really bad day, week...or year, the worst that could happen (if you're still registering it) is that all around you life is just absolutely beautiful. Except for you. As if to emphasise how horrible you're feeling. 
Weather girl or newsgirl? Was that a freudian slip, sir?
π: 0 β©: 1
Why, a news girl reporting on the weather of course....actually, it could have been seafront porn or a mass suicide of some rain cult - it's hard to say.
To be fair, anecdotally, anyone who was walking outside that day could be under no other illusion than that God was personally attacking them. Even atheists, agnostics, house bricks and carrier bags would have all realised that something was inherently wrong in the world, and that it was happening to them specifically.
That's the problem with the observer "Well just imagine what people have to deal with in Africa." even makes partially sense, or maybe 'There are others worse off' may be Karmically correct, but I suggest the next time someone says it to you - punch them in the eye. All will become clear. After the swelling dies down.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah, of course... Really? That sounds incredible, "seafront porn"...wow...it does have an amazing ring to it, one can only imagine...or the rain cult send-off, by all means. Both of those, you'd expect a huge audience, only a shame about the weather - paradoxically enough, a day like that it would probably fail to draw a big crowd, despite the entertainment value.
Yes, that's what I like about the picture, that charming end-of-days look to it. It looks like a terrific storm, turmoil inside and out, just an inch away from running out into the waves - perfect.
Hahaha, thanks for the advice. Yeah maybe then they'll realise how flawed that argument actually is. It's an excuse to avoid dealing with what's right in front of you, that's what it is. How does it help to point out "other people are worse off"? Does it give you better Karma? You know, it would completely ruin my Karma,( if it's at all in good standing - I'd like to think so but you never know) to punch them in the eye, but what's worse is that I most likely can't bring myself to actually do it. I need more incentive... Do you have any idea how unsatisfiying that is? If only I could - I could have rubbish Karma, but feel fabulous! At least I still have moaning. Fantastically appealing.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's the thing about karma. It's like waking up and your arm doesn't hurt any more, and you don't know how it happened, it just did. Or you wake up and your arm is hurting. Or you wake up and you've had sex, but you can't remember it. Or calories without the cake.
Karma is results, without any of the satisfaction.
So just punch that sucker in the eye. That's their karma for them being so apathetic. You can then moan once you realise the brutal reality of your knuckles being softer than their skull. Ouch.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hm, does that mean life is a series of arbitrary and random events, not determined by anything you have done or intended to do? The world's full of liars, cheaters and people who generally don't care about anything or anyone - so it makes perfect sense. (Btw, why does men "love" women who loathe them more than women who don't or even care about them in various degrees? I know it must seem like a funny question but I do that, ask funny questions.)
What is results with satisfaction?
Maybe I'll save my hand, once I realise the brutal reality of my punching them in the eye won't have any effect at all, on anything. Broken bone has nothing on that...ouch.
π: 0 β©: 1
Life is indeed a series of random events in 'choice', but it's also 100% non random in execution, if you get me.
But it's only random to the outside observer. If you followed the line it travels, it's 100% certain. That's why we call magic 'magic', or more rightly, illusion, because we don't know the mechanics that make it work, and everything has a mechanism. Do we really have free will? Does it matter? If we didn't would we cease to be, or would we live with it?
We're a bit like marbles really. Not through randomness, but through movement. There is no cause and effect, because that would mean that effect ever ceases, which it doesn't. Movement. The only constant. Movement, or lack of, slowing down or speeding up.
And satisfaction? That's resting easy knowing that you've done your best, after you've done it.
Enough of my talking crap. Perhaps you could poke them in the eye?
π: 0 β©: 1
Life travels in a set line, and everything has a mechanism... interesting theory.
Well I'm not a physicist, but I would think energy is the only constant. Being a marble, I could easily get stuck in the sand. I would need a energetic kick, to give me some movement. A flying start.
Do I need to blind someone? A slap just won't cut it? That's really more suited as foreplay?
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, without movement there'd be no life. Only the potential. The universe would slow and become an infinite crystalline structure devoid of all life. A complete stop. Oblivion.
Reminds me of a Wedding reception.
Yes there's energy, but it needed a kick. But whatever came across to motivate you was motivated itself. We don't know what we're going to do next until it comes upon us to do it. Even if we were free from compulsion we'd just sit there until something prompted us to act. Look at cats - if they didn't like warmth, didn't need to eat or drink, they'd just sleep. Which they seem to do anyway. Can't be sure at least. But anyway, since we don't create the thing that compulses(made up word) us to do something; the ball through the window, the mountains, the sense that we're not doing enough, then how is anything free? It's at least strongly guided, and without that, there's nothing to do. No will.
Like a cat a wedding reception.
Poke in the eye is good. It's also comedic. The police would probably flip aa coin to decide whether they arrested you or uploaded it to youtube
π: 0 β©: 1
A wedding reception? You'll have to excuse me, I have very little experience with wedding receptions. I can relate to oblivion though.
Hmm, are you sure we don't create it? What do you think makes us move? Cats hunt, fight and mount other cats. Frequently. And, it seems, just for the hell of it. And then they come back and roll around on my bed, just to be annoying.
I'd hope it would come up heads, so they'd go for the Youtube-option.
π: 0 β©: 1
Stimuli makes us move, and I didn't put it there so no-one can blame me for causality, oh-no. But you don't even have to go that deep with it. For example, in Northern Finland/Lapland about a hundred years ago farmers would encounter up to 14 hours of darkness during the winter, and without electric lighting they used to sleep most of the time. Even if there was light, there'd be nothing to do, so we'd become dormant. If magic was involved, we'd become doormice.
There is a reason to everything a cat does - it's only humans who invent reason.
π: 0 β©: 1
I wouldn't dream of blaming you for causality.
You know, I've completely lost track of the point you're trying to make. Have you ever studied, or are you studying philosophy?
What..? Cats have a reason for everything they do, but humans are the only one who invent reason? Meaning we invent whatever reason cats definitely have for their actions?
π: 0 β©: 1
"I've completely lost track of the point you're trying to make. Have you ever studied, .... philosophy?" Hahah. Yes, meandering is a real indication of philosophising - to be honest, when I write, I'm really just thinking things out for myself as much as having a conversation/interjecting monologues, etc. I do it when I talk too, mainly reasoning with myself, occasionally trailing off mid-sentence.
Yes, people think I'm odd. My talk is mainly thought, nothing conclusive.
And I haven't studied any philosophers, but I've read about a few.
We have whatever cats have, up to the washing of the bum bit, but we also invent reason, beginning when we're a child. We have to know WHY we do certain things, because if there is no reason, no answers, we become troubled when the question arises. I suppose reason is a bad word to use. There's an instinct to everything a cat does, without real reasoning, but humans wrestle with reason and instinct - part of living in a society is supplanting instinct with reason (however fuzzy the reasoning is)
In nature there is no rape, no qualm about killing. If we compare what is real to what is invented, then compared to other species we're practically imaginary, like, do we really have names? No doubt they aid communication immensely, but are they integral to the survival of a species? Not really.
And I didn't mean to make all the text bold. Sorry.
π: 0 β©: 1
I thought as much. Not that you're meandering, well just a little, but that you communicate by train of thought.
Hahaha, I never had enough patience. Or the inclination, I guess.
Right, I see what you mean - instinct vs reasoning. I wonder where that comes from, I can't see how it can be anything other than the bigger brain. We use parts of our bigger brain that animals, as opposed to humans, do not possess? Their motivation comes from their instincts, we are a little more complex. We have a whole psychology, a range of mental processes that's just unique for us - that's different from the animals.
Yeah, they don't know what "guilt" and "shame" is. "Decorum" and "etiquette"? They've never heard of it. "Right" and "wrong" is something they have a hard time defining. I'm not so sure there's no rape in nature. Just because the female duck can't spell consensual, doesn't mean it is, and it doesn't look too pleasant having your feathers plucked and head pecked while you're half drowning with Donald on your back, using you as a surfboard. They say human females are the only ones who actually enjoy intercourse, provided it's consensual - there's no orgasm for cows, hens and bitches. Hmm. What a shame, they would probably enjoy securing the survival of the species more. But what's funny is the species that mate for life. What's going on there? Love? No..? Humans are much more evolved in that department, we're working on abolishing love altogether.
What was that you said about meandering? Contagious you said?
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not saying animals won't find things unpleasant, like for a lot of creatures sex is painful if not fatal, and the need for sex is a purely chemical thing. Also, there isn't really much what could be construed as rape, because mammals don't actual employ that method of determining who gets to play hide the phallus-thing. It would be a grim life of hide and seek surely. There is a very much a pecking order going on and nobody bucks that trend.
Besides this, animals don't feel regret,in our way, or shame, or, as Mr Lawrence would chime in, self-pity. They just don't feel sorry for themselves, or wish they could have done more, or feel ashamed, typecast, or fear another attack. They just can't be raped in any sense we'd know about, because it's only humans who have all these emotions to violate, this brittle psyche to rend.
Animals don't have cuddly personalities, or a deliberate personality at all outside of what we observe. So it's easy to think of them as such, after all we are conditioned as children to think of animals as being nice, friendly, having personalities, Hello Mr Badger, Hello Mr Tiger, bvut in civilisations that have to encounter these creatures the conditioning is far different.... STAY AWAY.....
We talk to Cats for christs sake - they don't know what the hell we're saying. You can't even discipline cats, because unless you stop it from doing somethng it won't associate the punishment with the 'crime' They think we're big cats. My point is that we see things from a conditioned viewpoint rather than something more 'actual'. A conditioning that doesn't really matter until its falsity would cause you harm - then it really matters. (Imagine toddler trying to stroke a tiger)
My point is, eventually, that even if we found one socially isolated duck that felt inadequete enough and sociopathic enough to rape another duck, then Mrs Duck would probably in lol speak be 'thinking' 'WTF?!' and be preparing the good news/bad news speech for her partner. Onlookers my think that it's cruel, but the truth is it's only how they think of animals in the anthropomorphic sense that's making them feel like that. In all, Mrs Duck doesn't give a quack. How things work usually has been shaken up a bit, but apart from that, everything has happened as designed. No sensibilities to repair.
Murder wise is the same. Animals don't even kill each other to determine who'll mate (generally). They kill for food, or in defense of body and land. Or moths. All animals like killing moths
Got a little Moth mustache there, mister tiger.
God, I wrote a lot. That's what shift work with no work to do will do for you. Do do do. Humans have the oppose-able thumbs, imagination and all that stuff. In fact, it's most likely fire that got us to where we are now - the control of energy. But what it comes down to is that we're animals, own own species, and in comparison to other species we're so domesticated that we're our own pets.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh sure, animals are animals - that is fairly obvious. It's in everyone's, every animal's that is, interest to mate with whoever's suitable in order to procreate. It's not a question of emotion, it's cold necessity. Obviously. Mrs Duck isn't actually Mrs Duck, is she.
Mrs Human might also only be interested in mating with her partner to procreate. Or just interested in her partner/partners for sex. Or she might only want to have sex with a partner if they have bonded emotionally. That's different from the animals. I'm not saying this is "right", that is "wrong", where's the point - but I wouldn't want to be Mrs. Duck at all really... I'm happy being unnatural.
Animals like killing moths, and in self-defense, to protect their food, and I'm pretty sure there are those animals that kill for sport as well. It's not that big of a stretch. Have you seen the look in the eyes of a Greyhound chasing after a hare? Animals can't muster the same cold-bloodedness as humans can though.
You do write a lot, probably more than the entire dA-community do in a day combined. So clearly, it's not the worst you could do with your time. It could be worse, we could be sending each other little smiley faces, western or anime-style, while rolling on the floor, lol-ing. In that case, your shifts would be positively whizzing by, and you wouldn't be worry for one moment about being your own pet. Wouldn't that be just magical?
π: 0 β©: 1
It's not just suitability though - it's locality. And again, there's no coldness. I guess it seems cold to us humans, after all, loss is a bad thing, even if what we lose isn't really that good. The fear of not fearing. Losing emotions would be a little death after all, but there's nothing cold about not being emotional - only to us as observers. I bet you like your memories, but once you lose a memory, it's gone, and so is all fear surrounding it's loss. Once you lose emotions, there's nothing remaining for you to mourn their loss, and if you never had any.
Humans must look strange to animals, but we also look strange to each other. Ever read 'Families and how to survive them'? Pretty interesting read, all about how we all have the same emotional box of crayons, but there are some, for certain reasons, that never get developed, so we can't use them properly.
More than this, we get attracted to people with the same problems as us or people who represent something that was lacking in our family unit. The former because that person is less likely to bring up the same issues which we have problems dealing - two people who can't control anger, that is, become afraid, might cohabit very placidly resultantly. As for the latter, well your family are the first human beings you know, and if there's anything missing we'll want to fill that void, being social creatures. All acceptance or rejecting of what we've known.
So how do people have bad relationships if there's this 'instinct' guiding them? Well, it's not necessarily that brilliant. If your think about it though, whatever keeps people together keeps the relationship going, which is a good thing nature-wise, if not for the people involved. Just like the girl who's parents were mean to her might hook with a guy who treats her like shit because she still wants approval. Approval that never comes.
Or the girl that lost her father early - she misses that father figure. Or the girl that had to compensate for her father never being there, so in every relationship she takes the 'male role' and so likes partners who display childish qualities.
Apparently, in general, we either act like adults or children. Women find adult traits, dominant traits, whereas men find 'girlish' traits attractive in women. Of course, we really would like these roles to be reversed sometimes, or all the time. That's when illness can kick in. The male becomes so incapacitated when ill because the roles can be reversed - the woman gets the chance to be the strong one, and the man gets to become the child, the dependant. Or like above, the girl who likes to be dominant will find a submissive partner, but if she falls for a guy who turns out to be dominant too, well, then, either they live as two strong individuals or troubles can erupt.
Even trouble can keep people in a relationship. It's what they know. Pigs like shit.
Still don't want to be a duck?
Anyway, the next time you're unlucky in love, just say to yourself 'I'm just too much of an adult, obviously'
I guess all I'm really staying in general is that we're not some brilliant advanced race of people totally in control of ourselves, with more right to be here than anything else. These are just notions we have, which really don't get questioned. Do we live in some golden time that will go on like this forever? How long have we been in this 'advanced state'? Computers? The internet? Not things that were brought about by necessity but by the matter of survival being in place, allowing us to do other things. We are still in our infancy, as a species, as a society, as people. We're all travellers here, explorers. Observers. Not privileged, just here.
I've taken meandering as the constant here.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't know. My mother has Alzheimer's disease, she has lost much of her memory. There's a great deal of fear linked to the idea of losing memories, as well as actually losing them. She can't remember, but still, instead of the memory being gone and that's the end of that, there's a void. And in that void, is fear. I don't recommend that method of getting rid of your memories and fears. But we were talking about emotions, maybe that's easier.
No, I've never read it - I find books like that only give me headaches. I prefer some good advice instead, and I'd hate to be labelled. And luckily, I don't have a overpowering urge to fill any void that's keeping me from finding happiness or social fulfillment.
Either adults or children?
I can't say "That was unlucky"? Not a suitable partner, we were just not compatible. And cry, girlishly.
We aren't privileged, we're just lucky we have some tools. Other than that, it's trial and error. But I still don't want to be a duck, Mrs Duck can't say "I'll skip the manhandling, and this time I want to be on top". As a human female I'm entitled to optional manhandling.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's a pretty funny book actually. I'm just the same - I only recommend it because it's well delivered. I'd also recommend Sophie's world to anyone learning about philosophy, I would skip Thus spake Zarathusta (or whatever)on your bus to the aquarium.
Yes, Alzheimer's. I don't know if it's the same thing as what I meant. Alzheimer's disease is fraught with anxiety. I was talking about something far less devastating really, not the loss of a persons identity, but maybe something whimsical, like someone telling you that you're going to forget this conversation (maybe a nice thing for you ^__^) and you may be scared of how it's going to happen, and the letting go, but once it's gone the fear of losing it has gone too. It's an un-missed memory. I suppose I'm just really talking about the fear of losing something, really, and with emotions there will be nothing left to fear the loss of fear.
As for the bit that's preposterously simple, I'd go back to the bit where I'm saying we invent things. Invent flavour. We think we like those things, but the actuality is always different. You wouldn't carry those things you like about a man on a check list would you? "Well, section a you passed with flying colours, but I'm afraid I have to refuse you on the grounds you don't play a musical instruments and I'm not sure if my friends will like you." It is a real simplification, as you say, just like saying something is hot and cold. It isn't the entirety of human relationship either - I don't presume to fit that in a sentence. But applying what I specifically like stops things from being general and makes them specific.
All I know is that they did quite a bit of research, and people did say things such as 'I like blue eyes' etc, but in the end the people selected who the psychologists thought they would, based on their background. But anyway, it's not really feminine or masculine - that's what they refer to as dominant or submissive traits. I'd also add I'm not talking about everyone just going for good looking people, or how people look. It's how they act, it's that innate 'feeling' you get about a person when you see them, then talk to them about maybe to affirm it. I'm talking about relationships where both people are involved, and attracted. Dark and chiselled isn't masculine - how you act is. A relationship with someone who is beautiful where you don't get on is pretty rubbish, and usually only sustained for ulterior motives.
Caring, honest, sincere - traits any of us can have, not inherently dominant, and that we do have to varying degrees. The psychologists would ask, to understand human relationships better, why exactly you need to have these traits in a partner. You'd think it was pretty obvious why you'd desire these, and why everybody would desire them, but it's pretty obvious that a lot of people get with partners that don't have these traits, or don't leave them once they find out they are uncaring, lying, insincere idiots. Because there's something else tying them together? Something they want to properly explain? That's why they could ask why you desire these traits, and look to your background to understand why, but it'd be better if they looked at a partner you were with, the 'actuality', rather than the 'ideal'.
Ideally, they are looking at the things we take for granted, the things that are obvious, because we really don't understand them, we just get along anyway and therefore the entire subject becomes buried waist deep in opinion and anecdote. Research is a good thing, because for example, telling someone that they have a fatal disease because they are unlucky will only cut it for so long. We all get ill some of the time, but we have emotions and needs all of the time, so shouldn't we try to understand those? Eventually just thinking of ourselves as depressed or anxious doesn't cut it either....vague descriptions...to fight back we need to know what's wrong.
I find most advice on relationships and emotions pretty crap. It's generally offhand, on the spot, something you already know but won't do, or even worse, and anecdote. Support is better, encouragement better still, and involvement, well that's only a pipe dream for some.
Our gains are tied up in our losses. We're a troubled race, and no, I've never seen a wild thing feel sorry for itself. Seems that without choosing we chose to be blessed and cursed.
I'd really like to see how being on top would work with a duck. No, no, I wouldn't. Crap, I'm thinking of duck porn now. Duck mΓ©nage a trois. Good job they can't ask I say.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hmmm...if it's funny I might consider reading it, at least the first page or so - to see if it "grabbed" me. But I'm not crazy about the title, have to admit it. You like Jostein Gaarder's book? Haven't heard from him in ages, in the media that is, I don't know him personally. I don't know if he still lives in this country, probably not. Also sprach Zarathustra would most likely kill me. I can't take that chance.
I thought your combined experiences, and all your memories made you who you are...even this whimsical conversation. You might learn something from keeping your memories, don't you think? Taking away fear might work though. Did you mean taking away all your emotions?
What exactly are you afraid of losing? I don't mean for this to sound trite, or weird even, but I don't have much to lose. What I have I can't lose. And I don't need to be sedated, I have emotions - everyone does, you just deal with it. By "fighting back", are you talking about psychotherapy? Medical research is one thing, social analysis and catagorising of people based on who they would choose as partner is quite another. Frankly, it doesn't sit well with me.
I know everyone lies. But everyone doesn't lie all the time, everyone doesn't have "ulterior motives". No, I don't have a checklist. I just prefer that people don't lie. I would prefer a partner that didn't frequently lie to me and cheat on me. Now, that's standard behavior for a lot of men, not lying and cheating. But the opposite is also standard for many. The same goes for women. And this is something which often doesn't become clear straight away - so yes, honesty is not a trait you look for initially, it isn't what initially attracts you. In that respect, I have no checklist either. I hear attraction is chemical. If that is true, I don't know.
I was comparing advice to a book. And it would have to be pretty good advice too. From someone you trusted. I don't get many stupid, offhand advice. Thank god.
It wouldn't work. They wouldn't be able to bend right. So there's that, a practical reason why Mrs Duck can't be on top. Duck mΓ©nage a trois wouldn't work either, just a personal opinion. Well, she's wouldn't, would she. She just waits patiently.
π: 0 β©: 1
Are you sure all men lie and cheat as standard? All men?
I mean, divorce is at a record high, and statistics show that people do cheat (though maybe they don't statistically cheat then leave their partner - odd that....)
Anecdotally almost anything can be seen to be true, though really it's all environmental and situational.
By fighting back I mean understanding that there is no real difference between yourself and other people except how you developed, so if you develop a mental illness, then it's linked to your life. Iyt helps to understand how this happened. I never said people are categorised by me. That said, the way people are generally categorised, by other people, is usually a lot more cruel than 'Well research shows you're more likely to settle on a partner that creates some antagonism.' Everyone can be their own special little flower. I understand how upsetting it can be to not be as individual as we want to be, or to be too scientifically predictable. I suppose we're back to the free will thing, and my understanding being different. I guess you could say some atheists are more religious than others.
Attraction is chemical - your chemicals. But so is everything else ^__^. Love and chocolate.
I don't mean taking away all emotions, but once something ceases to exist, there's nothing to miss about it. There's anticipation of its loss, if known, but no withdrawl. I suppose I'm really talking about the loss of ego.
π: 0 β©: 1
Of course not!
As far as I know, divorce is a little more complicated than just one partner cheating on the other. Yes, it's one of the reasons people get divorced but not the whole picture, and people divorce when there's no infidelity in the picture at all.
"Mental illness" is a quite general term, I don't know if it's quite accurate to say that you can trace all mental illness back to your childhood, or for girls to have a distant/absent father. Also, you say nothing about men having problems in their relationships - are you just sailing through life on a comfortable, puffy cloud?
I think it's important to differentiate between problems that are more medical and socio-psychcological issues. It's clear that they sometimes are linked, but not always. In my opinion you're wildly generalising complex issues, and suggest we rid ourselves of our egos...why? And to what end? I'm not grasping the point, the core of the argument. Why would it be better/for the best if we didn't have a sense of self/ego, and didn't recognise emotions we would have if/when losing something dear to us? Does it have something to do with relationships, would you rather we were like animals - short, meaningless encounters? No steady partners, unlimited number of partners, no jealousy, no love, no demands? Free as the proverbial bird? Or is it the point about humans not being as special as we think we are?
I don't mean to seem contentious, I really don't, but I'm actually trying to understand, call me human - I have to have a reason. To be very honest, you're on the verge of being too philosophical for me, mainly because it's all academic.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not mentioning things - doesn't mean there aren't other things, I'm just not mentioning them. I'd go insane listing the variables. It's bad enough picking socks.
So things are more complicated. I said development for mental illness, because people think of their lives in a fairly general way, like it's had no effect on them or who they are. Not just childhood, but that's when you really learn to be you, when you become conditioned to react. When you learn your voice and your mannerisms. The inception of emotional controls. Maybe a person becomes phobic about flying, but why are they more afraid than the person next to them? Development, how things have been.
Men do have problems in relationships. I do. But my problems are with relationships in general - general human relationships. People. Friends. Family.
How else can I do anything but generalise in such a short span to speak? ^__^
Mental and socio-psycological problems are always 'linked'. Even if they don't generate each other. We develop a symptomatic behavior from real diseases, lethargy, anxiety.... That's because we're always 'on'. One of the silliest phrases is when people say 'In real life' because there is nothing but real life, dressed up, imagined, but you don't get a single heartbeat for free. You're always here. Same too with health - anything that monkeys with you affects you totally. Mind and body are the same thing. Pain isn't something generated outside of the body - the capability for it to occur is purely internal. Sometimes our problems take recognisable patterns and do so in mass, so then they get medical names, but then the notion of separation occurs, that it is a 'problem' that we are somehow separate from, but it is us. Yes, the problems are varied, but they all touch the core.
Ego wise - ego causes a lot of problems. War. Jealousy. Possession. Lack of ego doesn't really mean meaningless relationships, one night stands, or anything else along those lines. Ego has more chance of doing that, because the ego needs to be fed. Perhaps it would be better to be in a state where we didn't grab and push all the time? There is also the point that our collective ego gives us a false notion of be 'special'. Of course, this is all just academic.
We're the same that we always were, we just live in different rooms. (<---generalisation with poetic bent)
I don't really have a reason, but my heart is still beating.
And I'm making my head hurt. These are exactly the conversations I tell myself I'll not instigate, you know ^__^ Pain.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, life isn't perfect - whatever that means - and like everything else on this planet, humans break. All the little parts that comprises a human being, from the smallest cell to the illusions you may harbour can fall apart and turn into nothing. We should just accept that sometimes all the research, medicine, and treatments in the world, for whatever ails the body and/or mind just doesn't work. Humpty Dumpty, all the king's horses and all the king's men can't put Humpty together again. Ego or no ego - why obsess about it?
But you know what? You should be glad you still care as much about it as you do, do you realise how lucky you are?
You don't actually have to make your head hurt, that's not what we're here for is it? I'm sure you can think of other things on dA that doesn't give you pain, I'd hate to think I'm keeping you from that.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, I have loads of reasons to distract myself from deviousness ^__^ I'm just finding less and less motivation to take anything, which is hampering my ability to upload the photos (which I haven't taken) because I don't seem to get many views and comments any more (of the photos I didn't upload because I never took them) and I get a lack of motivation (from the comments I don't get of the photos I never uploaded because I didn't take them) So now I don't see much point in doing much here (because of the lack of motivation from the comments I rarely get of the photos I don't upload because I didn't take them through lack of motivation.)
Or something like that >__>
π: 0 β©: 1
Maybe you need a break. No pun intended. From being devious.
π: 0 β©: 1
To DA, or not to DA--that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of paltry page views
Or to submit pictures amongst a sea of others
And by uploading, fav them.
π: 0 β©: 1
Indeed, there's the calamity of such long memberships: who knows what favs and comments lie beyond dA? Uncertainty makes lurkers of us all, photographs are tainted by mainstream forces and clichΓ©s, and eventually, we lose the name of action.
π: 0 β©: 0
Oh, but you live in Europe. Tomorrow is only a train away. Asia too.
π: 0 β©: 1
I the tiger cage at the zoo.
π: 0 β©: 0
It wrestled me to the ground in a headlock once. That powerful.
π: 0 β©: 1
Did you try to fight back?
π: 0 β©: 1
Does crying like a small girl count?
π: 0 β©: 1
It depends if it helped.
π: 0 β©: 1
Nah. But the scampi did.
π: 0 β©: 1
It was abject misery as you may guess ^__^
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
