What if

Sometimes I wonder if it's actually true, this mythical "Law of Attraction" thing. Meaning, what you want and concentrate on, comes true. There's a logical, rational explanation too, which is that whenever you really want something and believe in it, you tend to do every little thing as if in preparation for it, anticipating it will happen which will in turn modify circumstances so that they're more beneficial for the thing to happen.
So many times when I've been on a job or in a school and then started to think about leaving, the more I think about it, the more everything starts to push me in that direction, sometimes in the most outlandish ways. Perhaps also because all motivation is lost to try even the tiniest bit. I may not even have thought about it that seriously, but once the thought enters my mind, the process has irrevocably started and in the end I will be elsewhere. It has happened every time ever since I was old enough not to be forced to continue anything I didn't want to.
So in order to stop the endless spiral of quitting and moving and starting over and quitting and ... it's just about realizing happiness actually is within yourself and not some specific place outside of yourself. Although it has to be said that sometimes there's simply a fire, that needs to be extinguished and the only way is to go. The problem is discerning when it's a fire that forces you to go and when it's just a stupid itch that you can sit and wait to go away. I think by now I've gotten decent at telling them apart. When you know that that fire's not gonna go off through scratching; or that eliminating the itch with a fire extinguisher is a bit of an overkill.

I've originally written this in May (so it says on Blogger) but it still feels very topical. I have since actually started wondering about what if the things I've been so compulsively after ain't even worth it. Wouldn't be the first time! What if this right here is good enough for now. It might just be. I keep failing to see it because I'm so obsessed with something else, something I don't have, all the time. How do I know it's so good if I never had it?
I'm talking about locations btw.

Bros before hoes - FALSE

I watched a movie the other day that had a scene where the protagonist had to choose between his long-term girlfriend and a friend in a sticky situation. As I was on IMDb reading about the movie, I landed on the discussion boards where there was a thread about what people would have done in the protagonist's situation.
A depressing number of what I assume to be male respondents just blurted out "of course I'd choose the friend, that's a no-brainer". Apparently, girls are cool n' all but they come and go. And this phrasing was way more neutral and less misogynistic than the majority of the replies in the discussion.

I started thinking about this old fact "girlfriends/boyfriends come and go, friendships are forever". Firstly, friendships are not necessarily forever, that is just plain bullshit. I have first-hand experience of that, and not even with childhood friends with whom you regularly do not stay in touch often. Sometimes even with a close friend with whom you make effort to stay in touch, you drift apart. So the "friends are forever" is FALSE as shit.
Also, comparing the two different kinds of relationships (partner vs. friend) is not fair and realistic, because: 1) a romantic relationship, when it's serious and stable, is faaar more prevalent in one's life than a regular friendship 2) as a rule, you can only have one romantic partner at a time. These facts mean that the quality that relationship needs to maintain to survive is much higher than with some random friend. That is a lot of strain on the relationship, any relationship in fact. (To test this, feel free to move in with a good friend and see what happens.)
    Also, this is exactly why a regular friendship tends to last longer, on average. Because it's less significant, and the definition for both 'to last' and 'friendship' is very, very broad. The quality and intensity of it might, and dare I claim will, fluctuate over the years. There is going to be phases when you are less close, sometimes even for months or years you hardly even talk. So to say a relationship has lasted for decades is stretching a bit. Of course there are exceptions to this, some people might have friends they have talked to on a daily or at least a weekly basis for 30 years continuously, but those are goddamn rare. You can't really take such breaks from a relationship.
    Which is why you need to find someone who is as compatible as possible, and finding someone like that is hard as fuck. When/if you manage, you both need to have similar views about life and the relationship. Mainly regarding monogamy. If even one is not on board with that, it will fail.

So here are some thoughts to that "girlfriends/boyfriends come and go, friendships are forever" crap. For the vast majority that is still true though, but that is closely connected with choosing a wrong partner, for whatever reason. Maybe your standards were too low (the case for most people), maybe one of you changed or was dishonest from the beginning. I have always thought that whole saying sounds somehow wrong, like if you think that way, why the hell do you even get involved with anyone, you're basically dooming the partnership to fail with that awful attitude.
    So bottom line is, while the saying might have some truth to it, does it mean a friendship should automatically be prioritized higher? Is some more or less flimsy and flaky connection better than a closer, more intense one automatically more valuable just because on average it tends to last longer? Some may think so, I sure as hell don't.

And about people who regard women as some form of temporary entertainment, they are obviously suffering from a horrible fate that is not having come across enough women to meet smart, funny and interesting ones. Or they did, but were too dumb to appreciate it. Fortunately there are men who don't suffer from this.

Therapy session

I do wonder just how difficult I'm capable of making things for myself. The language thing has not really progressed at fucking all during all this time, and it's getting embarrassing and more stressful for me than actually taking the bull by the horns and doing something about it (and I've said this before too, only about 46 times).
But now I have actually grown uneasy about it, realizing that if I don't do anything about it soon, I will regret it, and that is just the truth.

Problem is, I'm too fond of my comfort zones, and I'm phenomenal at doing stuff when I practically have no choice, not so great at doing stuff that is outside of my comfort zone when I am not necessitated to take action. My comfort zone has shrunk so much it is not even funny anymore.
    There's no way I can not get a job in the near future. There is no way I will get a job unless I get my act together regarding the language. I can, again, just say this, or I can finally tell the bf he'll speak Norwegian in simple matters from now on (not complicated, because it will reduce the level and quality of conversation too much for now).

Stepping outside comfort zones is an intriguing thing for me. Inside the comfort zone it's sort of nice and fluffy but also there's this nagging feeling in the back of my head making me feel guilty all the time. Then there's the stepping out of comfort zone and first moments there, that are potentially frightening, but they have without exception led to triumphant feelings in the past. So, not rocket science, this. The nagging's driving me nuts, slowly but surely.
    I have had comfort zone borders to cross with languages at least twice before, which has happened with great success both times. The problem will go away by doing, not by sticking my head in the bushes and hoping it will disappear on its own. Also, who gives a damn if I have a crappy accent, I will anyway so what's the big deal. I'm focusing way too much on the obstacle and not what's on the other side. Also, this stress is getting worse than the obstacle ever was.

Infidels

I read an article about the experiences of people that were cheated on. More interesting than the article was the comment section that was bursting with reader comments, for and against cheating. The "for" comments inspired me to make a typology of cheaters. I mean the hypocrites who are not in an open relationship as they couldn't handle their partner going behind their backs, but have no problem doing it themselves.
This categorization was influenced by the study according to which people with a lower IQ are more likely to cheat than those with a higher one.
1) Dumb fucks. Their justification most often contains the phrases "it's human nature" and "have to spread the seed". So, they directly compare homo sapiens as a species to other animals, of considerably smaller spectrum of emotions and lower intelligence. Sounds about right, sounds just like Group 1, the Dumb Fucks! Just please don't make the mistake of overgeneralizing your moronic underdeveloped mindset to apply to all people. Because no, it's not in all people's nature to lack emotional intelligence altogether. Just because it is a myth to you, doesn't mean it's not very real to some others.
2) Cowards. They usually complain about their relationship going south for whatever reason and are unhappy, unappreciated and can't get laid. Then they find a person who is a dream come true, start an affair and leave the old relationship only after this, or after they are caught and dumped. They don't have the guts and decency to call it quits when it's clear the relationship is not working, but have to have the next one handy before leaving. Yes, being single is simply terrible, so better to be a spineless, useless pathetic worm.
3) Sociopaths. They would say something like "I don't understand why cheating is made out to be this huge thing when it's not". Maybe for people with zero empathy and emotional intelligence it isn't, but the partner most likely does not see it the same way. But oh wait, what does the sociopath even care.

I'd like to see a study on how many people are okay with their partner sleeping around too, I'd venture to guess it's somewhere around 5-8 percent.  Max. Okay, and how many people have cheated and think it's not that bad, it's actually natural and not a big deal? Probably more than 30%. So what the hell, there's this huge number of people who somehow think they have some extra rights to screw around that their partner just doesn't. What is wrong with you??
I mean, if you are polygamous, sleep around and allow your partner that too, nothing wrong with that. To each their own. But what I don't get is these precious little things that think they're above everything else and come up with the stupidest excuses to get rid of the responsibility. If you can't keep it in your pants and you're in a monogamous relationship, it's not human nature, it's an issue you have, and your partner unfortunately too.

Also, by having sex with random people outside your relationship implies that that is your preferred pastime, because usually people tend to get a similar kick out of a different hobby, like bungee jumping, chess, or wine-tasting. A lot of people like to read, too. But if a physical activity where you rub your genitals against some other person's genitals is absolutely mandatory, then I would have to suppose that you are more physically- than intellectually-oriented. And that is only a fancier way of saying you ain't too bright.
And finally, I simply detest people spitting out things like "human is not naturally monogamous". How nice of others to speak for me too, if that is really the case, I guess I'm a humanoid. Would explain many things.

Skin Deep (and then some)

In a bittersweetly ironic way this is almost like some lesson that occurred just when I was making problems out of nothing for no reason.
    It started out as a little rash on my arm, like so many other minor rashes I'd got and got rid of over the years. But now, I struggled with the ever worsening condition of my hands and arms for a week, then surrendered to the infection and went to seek medical help. Now the first doctor says it's either psoriasis or atopic dermatitis. Both of those I have feared as from what I'd heard they basically wreck your life. Atopic dermatitis was my diagnosis, the general doctor, Dr #1, who I suspected to be biased because he has psoriasis himself, says he thinks it's psoriasis.

I went to see a dermatologist today, fully prepared to argue about what this is - yes, I would have argued with a specialist, because after some hardcore googling and comparing it to my symptoms, I was headstrong about what this is. Turns out, I didn't have to argue, the dermatologist took one look at this and concluded it's atopic dermatitis. Potential cause: bacterial infection. Prescribed loads of creams that sucked my account and remaining credit dry, but at least now I can fight this. And I will look and feel like a normal person again, pretty soon.
    I was half-forced to take an anti-bacterial (or something) bath that cost a small fortune, and I'd basically according to them, need to do that for the rest of the week at the doctor's practice. Too expensive really, so I'm going there tomorrow to find out if I can get the goo and put it in bathwater elsewhere, like bf's folks' bathroom. Personally, I feel that with the antibiotics and cortisone pills prescribed by Dr #1 that I have been taking for 3 days now, and the cortisone- and antibiotic-containing creams I started using today, I think the baths are an overkill. Particularly for a penniless bastard like myself.

During these 2-3 weeks that it has been bad, I forgot what it was like to have normal, healthy skin, and found out what it was like to have one main dream: having normal skin. Now it looks like it's getting there.

Power of thought

There isn't really a way to address this without sounding new age or at least like some yoga-hippie type, but it has been quite a central theme for me for a while. Positive vs. negative thinking. I've had problems with negativity for ages, and no, contrary to my favorite motto at certain times, it is not realism, it's straight-up pessimism.
    I have had a tendency to visualize future a lot, and for some reason, these scenarios always involve stuff I'm worried about and do not want happening. I don't know why, perhaps I feel that if I try to get used to the thought of this bad stuff happening, I sort of numb my mind to it and it won't be so bad? And this very subconsciously, because anyone can see that logic doesn't work irl.  Positive attracts positive, and negative likewise, although more like negative repels everything.
    It was about a year ago when I finally discovered a piece of advice I found useful, because it conveys the message so clearly there's nothing to decipher, it's all there: think about what you want, don't think about what you don't what. That brought my attention to the fact I had been concentrating a lot on things I didn't want, for no apparent reason. It makes you feel bad and that reflects everything you do, say and are. Which then affects what happens to you and what doesn't.
    I remember the times I've had the most fun in my life. Those were times when I was feeling great, a lot was going on and stuff was exciting. I always thought I felt great because of said circumstances, but maybe the way I felt also had something to do with those circumstances even forming in the first place. It might be a chicken and egg type of question, but negativity had no part in it.

Here's the new age part: in a way, I've started believing that what happens to you is often the direct result of what you were expecting and visualizing, deliberately or not. Source: my life.
The rational explanation for this is, simplified, this: if you don't think anything good will happen anyway, you don't bother doing anything to promote it. Therefore, nothing happens. If you think you might win the lottery, you buy a ticket and may or may not win. If you think you won't, you don't buy the ticket and with 100% certainty, don't win the lottery. This was of course a crude simplification but it illustrates the point.

Even while writing this I had to fight off some completely imaginary and speculative negative thoughts that almost had me in their grip for a second, that is how accustomed I am to this way of thinking. This is simply how it goes: whatever you think about, grows bigger in your mind and takes up more space. You can choose to shut the negative stuff out, which makes it diminish. When I first tried it, last summer, everything seemed completely different in a split second. Apparently I wasn't well-trained enough to maintain that mindset, but here's to another try.

Wise up

I'm convinced men who don't like smart women have at least one of the following issues. A) They are not too bright themselves or B) they have low self-esteem.
It is not a myth that some men are "threatened" by intelligent women, just like they are by funny women - since for some curious reason, these are perceived by many people to be masculine traits. If the lady beats you on that front, and you have ego shrinkage problems, you don't want that. You want someone who is clearly below your level in smartness and/or funniness. That is to say, someone reminiscent of a pretty dummy. It's beyond me why anyone would want that, unless of course the reason for dating the person are purely peer/societal pressure or ego-related, and you are not that into all that intellectual challenge and equality.
Then, if you want to have a night out with the guys and your cute but not-too-smart gf raises hell because you never want to be with her instead, ask yourself what went wrong.

This is, thank God, not based on personal experience, but a collection of experiences from other people I have read on different discussion boards.

Interpersonal

Again, I wish I knew more about social psychology so there'd be explanations to all the peculiarities of human interaction. For instance, why is it often that the older you get, the more selective you become about who you choose to spend time with. Is it because your identity has gotten stronger, you know what you like and what you don't, what you're interested in and what you aren't. You recognize more easily when you feel like you're wasting time with bullshit you don't care about.

I've noticed that I have always had the following style of interacting when first getting to know people: at first I strive to be as sociable and talkative as possible, to sort of scan the social environment, be approachable to people and talk to as many of them as possible. Then, after a few weeks, the situation is usually this: I have socially drifted apart and then alienated from 4/5 of the people, and am in the process of making a new best friend in one or two people in the group. So many times in a newly established group of work- or classmates, I wind up looking at them after the first few months and remember how I talked to them a lot in the beginning, what happened? The interaction just sort of stops. I always thought it was them, but it may be me, because let's face it, I never was very interested in those people after the beginning. I guess for me it's quality over quantity in these matters. Especially if I find the kind of person I actually want to get to know, I stop bothering with the rest completely.

I might be a tad too picky with people nowadays, I recall how at about the age 10 you could easily make friends with most of your classmates and hang out all the time. Now I'm lucky if there's 2 people in a group of 20 that I would go out of my way to spend time with. Perhaps there's gems in the rest of them as well, but the small talk jungle you have to go through to get to their person is way too exhausting.
    Most conversations I have with strangers fall in the 2 following categories: 1) a) other person likes to talk, and talk, and talk, and mainly about themselves b) other person seems at a loss of what to do, doesn't seem interested in me as does not even ask the politeness questions, which is why in order to avoid awkwardness, I ask them questions out of politeness to the point where it feels like I'm an interviewer with my interviewee, and don't personally give a shit about what they're saying. 2) Other person does not talk about themselves at all, asks me questions out of politeness, so it's just one big monologue where I get the feeling that I'm in the receiving end of some type of social charity and the person doesn't really care.
    If I try to find a pattern here, most of the people I cannot relate to didn't study, and the people I find stuff to talk about with did. I guess if you choose to educate yourself in a university, it means you are curious about the world and have interest in discussing topics outside the weather and whatever your personal hobby is.
This is not meant to sound elitist, but just a neutral observation. I suppose you choose uni if none of the other alternatives feel completely right for you, ie. you're not sure what "your thing" is, or there might be several things. Having a job in common provides topics for a limited time, sooner or later you're going to have to talk about something else, and here's where the harsh truth is often revealed. I wonder how the other person perceives the conversation where I'm bored out of my mind, while acting interested. Are they bored too, do they detect the lack of social and intellectual chemistry?

To sum it up, I am increasingly only interested in the company of people who are curious about the world. I can find common ground with almost anyone, but unless most of their interests match mine, there's only so much you can say about a really narrow topic.

The dreaded zone

Now this is a topic that seems to be all over the place right now, and as I had nothing else to do, I analyzed it a little in my head whilst having my excessive amount of morning coffee. I'm not sure if someone else already said it - most certainly they did - but I didn't read it anywhere.

I think the problem that the friendzoned people have, is that they are too much like the opposite sex. And I'm talking about straight folks here. They often have loads of friends of the opposite sex, they "get" them on a very special level, maybe as a result of growing up in a (fe)male-dominated environment or had loads of (fe)male friends in their childhood. So as for men like these, they make magnificent friends for women; they're emotionally intelligent, sensitive and able to converse. Which covers most of what women want - just not all they want.
 
Apparently, attraction requires some degree of difference, in order to create that tension, excitement and mystery that is crucial. If the guy is a lot like one's female friends, it's hard to see him in any other light. Same goes for the unfortunate girls who happen to be "good guys", they get friendzoned.
    Funny thing is, men and women keep complaining about how the opposite sex consists solely of insensitive, mute jerks, or vain, uptight, irrational hussies. And whenever there's one specimen that doesn't fit the stereotype at all, "sorry but I just see you as a friend". Humans are masochists; or maybe just like the poles of magnets, they need to be the opposites to attract each other. Simple as that. Of course, that's only the beginning: for things to go even relatively smoothly in the long run, there needs to be more in common than there is different. And often there isn't, and ergo the eternal war that so many engage in, voluntarily.

One thing I also wonder is if it's really true that the majority of the friendzone victims are males. This would basically mean that almost any given single straight male will say yes to any of their single straight female friends, should they suggest. Is this true? Are men really that simple and unselective when it comes to choosing a partner, desperate even? It also sounds like their view on women is very one-dimensional as they cannot perceive someone of the female sex to be suitable as just a real friend. If they can't get a date out of it or at least laid, better not bother at all, but to just vanish in all quietness. This actually happens, I have seen it.
    As someone who has friendzoned at least one person (that I know of), I can't tell if it's something they do or just something they are. But in case of the former, what I suggest is to try and be moderately assertive, firm and determined handling the situation where you're interested. Babbling and beating around the bush, flirting between the lines is a mistake while trying to avoid the friendzone, because that is effeminate. Being effeminate does not work well on straight females. You don't have to be a brainless, senseless macho, unlike a lot of bitter friendzoned guys complain, just don't be like a girl.

Things are not really that simple, but sometimes generalization is necessary.

// A small specification: someone pointed out that being friendzoned almost without exception means that you're simply in some way unattractive to the other person. That is definitely true. It can be the femininity, or it can be some little thing about the physical appearance. It often is the latter, no matter how much we'd like to tell ourselves we're not superficial like that. Looks may not be the main thing, but sometimes it is the dealbreaker. And then, even an awesome personality will only get you to the friend level where you get stuck. Happens to both sexes.
Now all this made me wonder why this whole thing is treated like some newly found phenomenon, when in fact it's just the good old "you're not my type". because that's what it's about.

Blah-di-da

Living in the new place since a week ago. Something wonderful like that can only keep you happy for so long, until you start to come up with new ways of wasting time and energy, or in my case, fall into old time-wasting patterns.

    I just wish I had a plan, but then, all the plans I've previously had have proved less than executable in the long run. All life seems to me is a series of flips of a coin. Hardly ever have I got the result I was striving for, and it has made me very unfocused and prone to drifting. Like, I can try my utmost and get a random outcome x (instead of the desirable outcome a/b/c I wanted), or I can not do anything and get the same. Which one's easier and less disappointing? 

Or perhaps the reason I didn't reach the a/b/c outcome was because somewhere along the way I lost the interest and drive I had in it, resulting in getting the random x instead. And perhaps the reason that happened is that in the past, I have indeed accomplished those goals, only to find they weren't all that and I ended up wanting out.

    What I'm babbling about here is doing something instead of this nothing, but what, when and where? What would be worth the effort? I'm sick and tired of putting all my resources on the line and winding up empty-handed. Instead of seeing this as a transition phase, as mentioned in the previous post, now it feels like a permanent state of nothingness.

    I suppose thinking's not going to get me anywhere now either. I despise people who think very little, but maybe I'm just jealous, 'cause things are bound to be easier for them. I think I'm like a horse that's supposed to drag a carriage but is not wearing those eye-patches on the sides, which makes it hard.

In other, more concrete words: I should be learning the local language effectively enough to be able to study at university next year. But where can I find a course, and what course should it be, and you know what's the whole point anyway. I always get like this and later on, I regret being so irresponsible and... lazy? and weak-minded. The title of this blog is so fitting it hurts.

02

Seems like the 4-month blogging break made me fall off the wagon completely, I don't get the usual "must write about this" reaction, even though things have happened.
Firstly, we can finally move out, to a place where there's not gonna be any other people there. Which is nice, and also unimaginable to me right now. I've had all possible scenarios go through my head as to what good and what bad it will bring. I can never just wait and not speculate. Anyhow, just 2 more weeks, approximately. Then, no more restrictions to living. Or at least not as many.
I have also been sick with cold and done a small proofreading gig off the record with quite a good compensation (German-English translation).

My life's somehow constantly in a transition phase, or that's what it feels like. 'Once I get there and that, I'll be able to x'. Like now, I'm convinced that when I move and get in a somewhat more settled mode (which this form of living has not been, even despite lasting this long - 6 months which is about 5 months longer than planned), I'll start some healthy and useful routines. Like pilates. I have pilates instruction cards that I bought more than 4 years ago, and have been about to start doing pilates ever fucking since. Haven't really.

The list of things useful, bordering on compulsory, that I'm telling myself I'll start doing is long as hell, but what does it take to actually start? It requires seeing the goal clearly and believing it's worth the effort. Looks like I've gotten either lazy or nihilistic. At least I've stopped believing there's only one right way to go. There isn't. I've had ideas of "right ways" that never materialized, ergo not that much meant to be after all.

It's April and it's snowing like it's January. In past years this would've disappointed me sorely and made me grumpy, but I was told it would be like this, so I was prepared. Also, doesn't mean spring won't ever come. It will, and it will be better than in Northern Ireland.

Itching sensation, in the mind

All of a sudden I felt a burning need to start blogging again, without having anything in particular to say at the moment. Just so if in the future I do, I can simply start writing away, instead of having to go through the pain that is creating a goddamn blogspot blog first.
The urge was so forcible, in fact, that I had to use a random word generator to be able to call the blog something so I could get started, as my imagination is currently on strike. At least when it comes to blog titles. 'Metempirics' sounded fun, and turns out what it means is fascinating and kind of fitting. That's where I got 'Wayside' from as well. Through patient, repeated clicking until it was something other than "opossum" or "maccaboy" metempirics. I hate naming a blog as the title will almost always be either boring or pretentious, if not both. If those are the options, I'd rather be pretentious, in which I think I now succeeded.

In a way I'm quite skeptical about this one. Since, the way I see it, other people's blogs are like the hair that grows on your head -  it just keeps growing longer and older - while mine's like... I don't know, nose hair - stops growing after reaching a certain length, and just is there, until you take it out completely. (Beats me why I didn't compare it to eyebrows instead.)
I've lost count of how many blogs I have started, kept and abandoned in my life. My blog history is a lot like my history with many things, such as hometowns and countries, study places, jobs.
I have now set it as a goal to make an exception to that, with something at least. (This blog might not be it though, time will tell.) I think the problem generally is, I can't help getting too personal, and then I feel like I shat where I blogged, no other option but to start over someplace else.

I also hate stupid expectations as to what to write about (both mine, other people's and the ones I imagine other people have). I try no longer to have any. A post can emerge any given time and be about any given thing. That's the premise right now at least. No theme blogs hereabouts.