The following may contain bitterness and/or madness. Enjoy.

Dear Love,

Plato wrote some centuries ago about a Greek drinking party dedicated to the god of love. The attendees praised the god one by one with a monologue, including the playwrighter Aristophanes. Aristophanes told a tale about how we humans were originally created as spherical beings with four arms, four legs and a single head. However one day our ancestors offended the gods, whereupon Zeus decided to teach us a lesson (as always *sigh*). As a punishment, he devided us into two. This may be the start of our wonderings of where the other half may be. It's become our destiny to find number 2 and make us yet one again. But why is it so important to become spherical? Is it so bad being alone?

I find that love nowadays gets thrown around like it's worth nothing. We're turning love into a must have, instead of treating it like a rarity. We're trying to create relations from the feeling of necessity. However, I think it's arguable that we ought to find love in another being. Shouldn't we first love ourselves before we run straight into the arms of a socalled lover? The big arms represented as a safe haven, which ought to return our faith to our believes. You could ask yourself if it's faith that you've found or just another opinion to compliment your believes. Because when the day turns into night, which feeling will leave the presence of the surface first?

Every song is based upon the principle of loving and being loved back. But it's also rather creating an image of what we ought to miss. Being alone is to be found as a capital punishment, which makes us desperately trying to catch butterflies and pin them onto the wall of our hopes. We are approached as individuals, but as a couple we're supposed to concur the world. Why is the couple superiour to the individual? Aren't we destined to first develop our own personae before we try to answer that of others? Aren't we as individuals good enough?


It's almost laughable that we've created, in this day and age, a concept of love whereas we try to Individualize every way towards it. We're shown a standardization of how to "properly" love. But how can we live like fairytales, if the story is already foreseen? Happy ever after gets turned into a broken heart within time. It can make one wonder if love is meant to be loved? Or should we be satisfied by the fact that we're priveliged enough to receive it, experience it in the first place? Are we taking love for granted? Do we need to work for it, make a hole in the slibbery mud with our bare hands, waiting for someone to offer theirs so we can get dirty together? Is love, or maybe life itself, about getting dirty and not washing your hands until you've dug a hole to the otherside of the world? Hereby making every love affair a helping hand into your own ditch. Or maybe a seperate ditch that's been made from scratch by two lovers. Who knows?! Maybe the world is covered in holes waiting to be dugged further and further until there's no earth left. No slibbery mud to close a ditch and no slibbery mud to make the journey our own. Is there even an "our own" in the ditch of you and me? Aren't you and me in that scenario you-and-me? Willard Gaylin wrote in his book Rediscovering Love that the concept of fusion, you-and-me, means that you lose your identity in that of another. The line between two people is blurred or gone, "the sense of unsureness as to where I end and you, the person I love, begin".

If we dug a hole together, becoming a spherical being again, means that there's no individual we've so desperately created over the years. I becomes we and we are at once I. But do we need to give up all our personal gravings to become what once was me (a spherical being)? Can't we dug together and yet stay appart? Is it possible to have three ditches at once? One for you, one for me and one for us. Making us individual yet connected. Maybe we ought to ban "us" to build a bridge between you and me. Making our seperate ditches indeed connected and our individuality protected. 

But isn't the graving of the individual, and thereby the need for protecting it, a whole new meaning of love. Is love for that matter of fact something that changes through time. Maybe hereby we can take marriage as a study case. Up until not long ago, people married not out of love but out of property/possession. And one can even argue that this arrangement still strives forward into some cultures. So love is something relative that doesn't always proceeds in a two manner way. Whereby one can argue that we don't necessarily are looking for our other half, but for the arrangements one can get better off. And naturally you can get better by finding true love, but sometimes circumstances can make someone fit or unfit depending on what point in life you are. Hereby not gratifying the rise of divorces since the last decade or so, because one can perfectly find love in the eyes of their school sweetheart and be happily married for over 50 years. It's more something like love comes and goes around whenever, wherever. Whereby I could say that what comes around goes around is a song by Justin Timberlake, which is a fine elaboration on how love can change by the act of life. Making the process of splitting the spherical being yet once again into two. Of course whenever, wherever relates back to Shakira. "Wherever, whenever, we're meant to be together", so it doesn't matter where you dig, one way or another we'll be connected and it doesn't really matter where the hole is and if you've already started digging. Love will find a way to make sure that you won't succumb until you've reached the end of the world.

'I'm afraid it's terribly hackneyed - just buried treasures,' said Edward.
'Indeed? But that sounds most exciting!'
'I know. Like Treasure Island. But our problem lacks the usual romantic touches. No point on a chart indicated by a skull and crossbones, no directions like "four paces to the left, west by north". It's horribly prosaic - just where we ought to dig.'
(...)
'Well, it must be quite simple, really, mustn't it?' said Miss Marple.
'Simple!' said Charmian. 'You come down to Ansteys and see if it's simple!'
It is possible that she did not mean the invitation to be taken seriously, but Miss Marple said briskly, 'Well, really, my dear, that's very kind of you. I've always wanted to have the chance of looking for buried treasure. And,' she added, looking at them with a beaming, late-Victorian smile, 'with a love interest, too!'
Miss Marple's Final Cases -Strange Jest by Agatha Christie-

Love,
Dominique

I want: fish, Michael, George, Tom, Harry, Louis, Zayn, Liam and Niall.

A week or so ago I listened to this song by One Direction called I want. Before I type any further, I must confess that I'm not very familiar with the stuff they've produced. I stumbled upon this song through Tom Fletcher from McFly, who apparently wrote it (who knew?!). So if you're looking for an insightful blogpost about One Direction, than I'm sorry to say that you're at the wrong adress. However this doesn't declines me to give my thoughts on the song...

Allright, to be honest the song isn't a work of literature and can be easily overseen in a chart of best songs ever made. It's basically about this boy (or boys, because FACT One Direction excists of four British boys and one Irish guy) who's had enough of his whining girlfriend and wishes she was for ones gratefull with the blessings she has had. Now you could say that this is a representation of the western world wherein consumption has taken the lead over day to day life (YES! We can). We're triggered to always want more and encouraged to never be satisfied with what we have. There's always something you don't own. May this be in actual material or a state of mind that you're searching for. The poor want to be rich, the rich want to be richer and even the most wealthiest man on earth wants to have more. Because it's true, in a psychological way I guess, that there's always someone above you and that there's always something you can crave for. So for us people -meaning people who don't live in a bad situation, based upon the assumption that you're reading this by means of an internet connection- can the crave of wanting more be seen as the vision of a spoiled brat. We've been brought up with the phrase "Gotta catch 'em all!", and that's what we're basically trying to do (hereby not blaming Pokémon for our consumption behaviour).

I don't think that this wanting or craving is necessarily a bad thing. It gives us a goal to improve ourselves and our environment. It's mainly a matter of wanting too much. As my mother has always told me "everything starting with too is bad". But if there's a nice correlation between owning and wanting, than it shouldn't dictate your living -meaning that it isn't bad to want something. I've noticed that the word "want" has a bit of a negative undertone. Because, as you can theorize, to want something means that you're not satisfied with what you have. This of course goes aganst the picture perfect principle, often symbolized by Hollywood with an average American household (husband, wife, son, daughter, dog and a freshly baked apple pie) instead of most realities (a spoiled brat lying on the floor in the supermarket having an emotional meltdown, because mother dear said no to something she really really wants). And if the American dream is a joke, how ought we to live our lives, knowing what to consume through the standards that are perfect in every possible way?


It's often a tradition to disguise the word "want" into the word "wish". Because wishing sounds more fairy tale like and friendlier as opposed to I WANT A CUP OF TEA AND I WANT IT NOW!!! And a wish can be seen as something that adds to your picture perfect life (nice to have, but not absolutely life-threatening necessary). While wanting can be synonymous for needing (I absolutely need this because without it my life won't be complete). And it's a magic trick by advertisers to attach this feeling of need to their products.

A product doesn't rely on their abilities anymore to mesmerize us. They are more often used as a representation of the lifestyle someone is living or wants to be living (which in itself is a generalization made by marketers). This ought to give you the feeling that you're buying the part you want to serve in society. You can become what you aspire to be by buying the right stuff and using the right things (in combination with the right way to walk, talk and breathe).

Naturally there's a seperation between stuff that gets to be used within particular segmentations in society. For instance some things are created with specialization like diapers (to mention something sexy) are mostly targeted to be used by babies and to be bought by parents with babies. However there's a range of difference (apparently) between one diaper and the other. This can be translated to the social class someone belongs to ("belongs to" being an exaggeration). You could say that the upper class buys diapers of gold, the middle class gets diapers of silver and the underclass obtain diapers made from brass. This of course isn't a fact, but through research one can say that the majority who can afford to spend a certain budget, buys a certain product. This all basically forms the lifestyle that gets to be slammed upon a certain kind of diaper instead of the other.

Although we can get upgraded by buying stuff out of our little constructed box -becoming what you aspire to be. We can, the advertisers say, be as succesfull as this really famous moviestar by drinking this certain kind of coffee (Yes, I'm talking about Clooney. Although the other day I saw one with Matt Damon. So you could also be Matt if you don't want to be Clooney... yay).

Making a full circle: One Direction gets to be promoted in a certain kind of way, trying to reach their preconceived target (based upon research - which isn't, I presume, a difficult task going by how loud one screams when shown a picture of them). They are a representation of a lifestyle that can be lived and gets to be spread under their admirers. This not meaning that every One Direction fan wants to be part of a mega famous boyband (because frankly they are mostly girls), but the lives they life, or the lives that gets to be showned to the media (hereby not the lives someone has secretely photographed on their mobile phone and leaks that not-so-image-approved picture to the media) are based upon a picture or image they want to eradiate.

Sometimes this manufactored image can clash with that what the artist wants to be. It's the well known story of almost every Disney-star who tried to break free from their fabricated image to turn it into another, more "groundbreaking" fabricated image... with less clothes and more tattoos. Oh how elaborating! Sorry, that's the pessimist within me talking. A manufacterd image isn't pre-eminently a bad thing. It's often a choice made by both parties. You can't force someone to not enjoy what they do, because it would show through the performance they are giving (as often debated with the case Michael Jackson v.s. Joe Jackson).

And on that note I will end this blogpost.

Love,
Dominique

Lets face it, every holiday is part of a master plan made by the greeting card industry. If you think that those pre-made statements on cards are a good representation of those feelings you couldn't write down yourself, than I'm sorry to say that you're wrong. You are perfectly capable of writing those Happy Birthday/Merry Christmas/Happy New Year/Happy Valentines Day messages yourself. However by writing it down for you they have absolute control in what message gets to be spread at what time of the year. Hereby naturally ignoring the fact that someone could be born on any day of the year, which isn't something the greeting card industry can supervise... BUT THEY CAN!

Why is it that it's inappropriate to give someone a Valentines card at any other time of the year accept Valentines Day? Shouldn't we spread the love all year long? You know like, all you need is love and love is all you need. It's easy. But then, where are the Valentines cards on Christmas day? On New Years eve? On my Birthday? And even on Valentines Day I've never received a Valentines card... but that might be because underneath all this extravaganza I'm a bitter old lady with cats (or dogs for your liking). You see! You see! It's a conspiracy!


So why not mix the lot up?! Get back the Christmas tree, some firework and a birthday cake in the shape of a heart and you're ready to rock 'n' roll. Give eachother a card of your liking (because now we're really going to mess with the minds of those corporations) and cross the pre-written words and write your own Happy Birthday wishes on that Christmas card. At first it might feel wrong. The words don't come as easily and you feel like keeping the manufactored sentiment... take a deep breath, these are just withdrawal symptoms. I believe in you! You can do it! Cross those words and turn that Birthday card into a lovely Valentines message. 

And of course I realize that all holidays are fundamentally based upon love, but they made a seperate card for whatever it is that we're celebrating. And naturally I enjoy receiving cards... it's just a matter of spreading an idea. An overall feeling that we all ought to venture on the same day, year in year out, with words that aren't ours but made up in some big boring office building by a 35 year old bolding guy who has given up love after his second marriage and must try his hardest to think of ways to make the concept of his message simple, easy and applicable to a wide and diverse audience through the media of an -old fashioned- postcard. Oh, how romantic! Happy Bristmas New Valmas Day! May there be loads of smoochie smoochie time under the mistletoe...

Love,
Dominique

"In all seriousness, you can totally say hi and bye without it being 'weird.' Your acquaintance won't think much of it, and they probably feel the same way you do anyways. That way you'll be 'that nice girl/boy' instead of 'wait, does that person even go to our school?'"
An exercise of my faculties.

Not that long ago I had this big/massive/hidy-hidy-ho realization: Nobody cares. Hereby not saying that nobody cares, but nobody actually cares. Nobody cares when you're walking down the road, doing nothing peculiar or... weird. We're all just too busy with ourselves to realize what someone who's not me is doing.

I'm a bit paranoid towards, well everybody, because you're never sure of what they are actually thinking. And of course you'll think of the worse, because why think positive when you can think negative? WRONG! Everybody is, just like me, too busy with themselves that most of what occurs between the moment you've passed by, they won't even notice. They are too got up with their own existence whereby they can't see you walking. And you can't see them walking because you're too got up with your own excistence (this of course goes up for most of the time. Sometimes people see things and judge. But yeah, that's probably just like 10%).

Do you know those moments when you're walking and you get really conscious about the way you walk, whereby you just loose the ability to walk. Making you move forwards in a really unnatural manner...  

I'd rather have a cup of tea. Just saying.

Consciousness. Awareness. Realization. All comes down to the basic principle of reflection on subjective impressions from the outside world. Making you aware of what you see, hear or feel and giving you the ability to reflect upon that. It's a state of mind which is characterized by the environment and the perception of the self within that environment. Almost every philosopher has thought or even made statements about this "consciousness". René Descartes thought for instance that thinking and the outside world (reality) are two fully enclosed substances (aka not connected with eachother). Friedrich Nietzsche thought that the conceptual identity one has, is based upon a construction of self perception and not upon a reality besides that perception of the mind (aka subjectivism, aka we're not able to perceive things without being spoiled by our own perceptions, aka we're always bias, aka the plottwist of Pride & Prejudice). On top of that, Nietzsche said that by thinking we give the world a stability it doesn't has. By defining the names of objects we delimit the possibility for ourselves to turn that object into something different. A banana is a banana and can never become a balloon.

What, you'd might think, has this to do with the fact that nobody cares. Well, my nosy reader, I'll explain. In this day and age (oh yeah, I'm going to sound like an old whiney grandma... a good looking one though. Who smells nice. And has a good sense of grandeur. Making me aloof yet very agreeable...) we're living in a "self based" society. Making the individual queen of the empire. This of course alouds us to develop a consciousness that's been minimally tempered with by outsiders (making our perception of things indeed ours and not an opinion that's been measured by for instance society). However, going against Descartes, the influencess from the outside can also temper positively on the way we perceive ourselves and others. By being secluded, self based and not caring we'll walk side by side without being engaged with eachother. This of course can be experienced as something positive when you for instance overthink the walk whereby you can't walk, or as been guided by An exercise of my faculties for avoiding awkward encounters. However, it can make us unaware of the outside world, not understanding towards those who are different than us -the main source of why those proposed 10% sees things and judge people, unrightfully. Like Richard Osman said on the British panel show Room 101:

"Lots of people come up to you on the streets. And it's lovely and they're interested that you're tall and it's exciting and people love it. So by a large it's fine. But it's the people who shout out of car windows, in case you didn't know, 'EY! YOU'RE TALL MATE!' (...) Well, you know there's a class of people in the world who are delighted telling anyone they're different. And you know most peoples differencess are wonderful things and we celebrate them. And you know most people are like that. But there are a group of people as well who, whatever it is in their brains, will delight in letting you know that something about you is unusual. I mean if your shoelaces are undone, that's good. That's helpful. If you're telling me I'm tall, I promise you, it's covered".

John Locke is another philosopher who once said that "no man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience". He stated that reason alone is too limited to serve as the foundation of knowledge. One needs experience and reflection upon that experience. Everybody is a blank page when they're born. You begin with an "empty mind" which gets filled over the years with experience and impressions. Hereby making those two things the source of all knowledge, which provides the mind with ideas. Ideas themselves are not the actual physical objects or things, but they represent them as it were in the mind. Hereby making the attitude of not caring quite dangerous for the development of consiousness.

So to conclude with another male orientated voice (this time represented by Harry S. Truman):

"It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences".

Couldn't said it better myself.

Love,
Dominique