My fat sister has started a Higgs Boson Diet after being inspired by the Higgs Boson particle that gives matter its mass.
Got up with the sun, but the clouds were there instead
Thought i’d dress in grey, but turned out all in red
Pest controller came and waited at the gate
Kids were still asleep from getting in quite late
Engineer seeks directions despite the satellites
Office disconnected only I can make it right
Young man from Nigeria recreating rainbows
Sensitive young lady wants to feel the touch of shadows
Silver screen starlet dressed to work a sweat
Gasps in amazement at how her top has stretched
Old love lost has bitten on her tongue
To keep in secrets from once when she was young
Lady of the pier is not allowed the daylight
But if she could hideaway she doesn’t mind the night
Caffeinated chaos, and it’s still a day from Friday
If the skies don’t get bluer it will only end in grey.
Ever find yourself suddenly very unpopular for reasons arising NOT from anything you’ve actually said or done? But from what others THINK you’d say or do?
Well, I do. A lot. Or at least enough to want to rant about it. It’s when I find myself shunned NOT for things I’ve actually said or done. But for what others THINK I would say or do. Or what they THINK my thoughts or choices are about. Or THINK they know what my intentions are. In short, I get outcast by the suspicion, conjecture or even guesswork of others. And not by any direct, analogue, actual fault of my own towards them in real time and space.
I’m quite used to being cast aside. I accept it as the price one has to pay for being such a smart ass. For being someone who insist on developing worldviews based on one’s own enquiry, observation and experience rather than mindlessly inheriting worldviews established by anonymous others. I’m okay with that. It’s part of my responsibility for my choice of action. But it does grate me when I suddenly become persons non grata in absentia. That they choose to ostracise is not really the issue. That they choose to do so as a consequence of something I have NOT actually done is my grounds for contention.
Why the need for such guesswork, conjecture or suspicion in the first place? I propose that one of the major need for folks to guess and conjecture has to do with their non-familiarity of a situation but desperately need to explain it off with what they readily believe or know. They prefer that rather than open up their mental and emotional faculties to understand the circumstances for what they are. As their internal databanks are not accustomed to the newness of it all, they make assumptions based on what is closely familiar to them within those banks. Even if its totally alien to the matter at hand. Therefore what comes out towards you is guesswork formed around cross cut conjectures which you’ll find quite removed from the actual truth.
There is of course the related converse condition where they believe they are familiar with the circumstance but can only read it in the way that they have come to know. And that no other reading of it is possible. To them things can only be the one way. And they already know what that one way is. And there can be no other way else. Therefore, they’ve already formed a solid guess in their mind that you must be as they suspect because to them there is simply no other way to be.
I never know when such guesses or conjectures are made until it’s too late. When you do find yourself at the receiving end of them, the natural thing to do is of course to approach the self appointed judge & jury to clarify yourself. But futile that. My tiresome experience of this has taught me that if someone has self manufactured such strong conjectures in their own mind chances are they are quite adamant with the conclusions of their suspicions. They’ll gamble with their gullible guesses. I believe I can understand why that’s as it is. And this is my raggedy hypothesis.
I find that those capable of such self-correcteousness [and I think that that should be a word], do so by the mechanics of their mental categorisation procedures. I can best illustrate this with the worst group from amongst the lot. And that would be the binary minded. Those with only dichotomies for categories. Where there are only two sides to everything. A positive side and a negative side. So if something does not fall on to their positive side, it must then be negative. And furthermore, if something does not fall between their dichotomy, they would not be willing to open up to grey areas because they can only see in terms of black and white. They would not open up another category for you. If none fits the yin and yang of their mind, there is no place for you within it. Thus, no place for you amongst them. Hence you’ll find yourself gone. Real gone.
You’ll be on their disagreeable side. As you do not fit into their positive, they’d need to brand you in the negative. The labels they’d have on you would likely be that you’re severely suspect, crazy, liar, non-truther, half-truther, unreliable, evil, bloody fool or a bona fide idiot. That’s a list condensed from labels by others that I’ve become accustomed to for myself. Interestingly though, if you have the kind of status that they fawn over then you’re eccentric, visionary or just really clever. And probably very sexy too. But since I’m nowhere near such status, it would be utterly pointless for me to go there.
If ever they purport patience to hear you out, it would be an act of courtesy rather than charity. Because they don’t actually listen to you. They can’t. They wouldn’t have points of references for point-counterpoint dialectics or deliberations. But that can be quite a moot point because regardless whether they listen or not, they’d only be justifying why they’ve conjectured the way they have. The more astute amongst us know that justifying something will only strengthen the resolution of the thing and does not resolve anything. You’d be stonewalled for your efforts. After all, the binary minded cannot comprehend the possibility of a third premise. Nor the finitely minded grasp the concept of infinite possibilities.
But what can a poor boy do? Well, not much if you want to get back into the fold by bringing such folks to your point of view. They can only be satiated when you show yourself moving towards what’s more familiar to them. Something they can then positively categorise within the confines of their minds. Unfortunately, that means shifting yourself to the mental limits of others. Some call it compromise. I call it claustrophobic. And I especially find it a waste of a personality that has been developed by the diversity of thoughts and experience. Only to have such bravado bamboozled just so it’ll fit into the pigeonholes of non-flying birds.
If you stand your ground you’d be in the negative. If you decide to not contest because of the sheer tedium of what you know contesting will trigger, you’d still be in the doghouse. You’d be arrogant. Aloof. Which is rich in irony coming from people who insist their guesses or conjectures are valid, conclusive, and absolute.
It’s also not always easy to accept such shunting. Because in my life, I end up in mixed emotions as the result of being shunned by loved ones. Mixed emotions because I delight with having worked out my worldviews through discovery. But saddens when being outcast by loved ones who refuse them so vehemently. Of course the mindless cliché thing to do is to step down for our loved ones. But I prefer what’s professed by one of the smartasses from the 80s simply because it offers me solace as well as prevents me from being such a tight arse like the folks I appear to be disfavouring. If you love somebody, set them free.
Which is probably what they do when they cast me away. They’re setting me free. I only wish it not be done with animosity. Or even finality. Because when loved ones do it they no longer want to keep in touch. In contemporary current day culture that would include de-friending, blocking, unliking and even deleting. Which is strange. Because it seems that the concept of agreeing to disagree can only work amongst strangers. And not between loved ones.
If you do something stupid, especially something that you know the consequences would inconvenience or trouble others, saying sorry afterwards does not cut it.
If you do something that you sincerely had no clue would end up stupid, then the sorry you say is valid.
But if you can’t be bothered to spare grey cells to ponder if something is stupid or not, and mindlessly go ahead to do it, then I’m sorry. You are stupid.
I’d like to believe that amongst all the people I know, they each have at least someone in their life that profess to care about them. And that they care about too. Be it parent, sibling, child, relative, friend, partner, spouse, mistress, teacher, counselor, colleague, pet . . . Okay, pet’s are more about the delusion of being cared for by a life form that functions primarily on instincts and intuition. Let’s leave that for now.
Yes, we care for each other. We believe that. We like to believe that. We want to believe that. We need to believe that. We even believe that so much that we do not notice it when we behave contrary to what we say to ourselves. Or more importantly, to each other. I’ve noticed some things we do or say to each other, in the name of caring or even love, that seems more vicious than if it was between strangers.
For starters, many of us find ourselves in situations when someone with a love-care affinity with us says or does something to upset us. But instead of trying to appease us over what they said or did, they actually get angry, upset or even disappointed at us in return. For being upset. If you’re as lame as I was decades ago, you would end up trying to appease someone who had actually upset you in the first place. I Lame-O!!! All those years ago.
Another is when you’re angry or feeling down or just feeling uneasy. And the love-care person you’re with just keeps pointing out that you must be angry, down, or just uneasy. At times even to the extents of annoyingly quizzing you about it while you’re in the thick and muck of it. It even appears as if they’re taunting you about feeling that way. Rather than trying to alleviate you out of such a negative disposition. Or coming up with ways to cheer you up. At least strangers just leave you alone. Which is a much preferred option as far as I’m concerned.
Speaking of options, there are situations when there is a 50-50 option on something, and your love-care person gets upset when it’s your 50% option you prefer to choose and not theirs. Instead of understanding or accepting that you have your reasons for preferring your options. And even if you do get a chance to explain your preference, they still need to build a case that it should still be their option that prevails. Perhaps they can only see the good in their option. And they blindly want and/or believe that good for you too. And you’d end up like, “I’m sorry I had an option.” You might just as well apologise that you even had an opinion, while you’re at it.
Of course laying those examples out in that way appears as if it is just the appearance of love n’ care and that they’re not actual love-care relationships. But I actually believe it could still be a proper love-care relationship despite the negative undertones. It’s just the way that it manifests itself that is perverse. As are the reasons I believe underlying them.
A love-care person gets angry at you if you’re upset at something they did or said probably because they see your distraught as an accusation of sorts. That you are accusing them of something bad that made you feel bad. And it was nasty of you to make them that guilty. In short, they are angry at you for being upset because you have indicated that you are the victim of something bad from them. And that to them brings about unfair guilt. Because they care. As they have told themselves. And you.
Second instance is probably just a moronic charade of mindless caring by an idiotic display of empathy. They care. Therefore they show it by indentifying and calling out your pain. Never mind that they don’t bother sparing any grey cells to figure out how to make it better for you. The more douchey amongst them will probably find fault by accusing you of not caring about how they feel because your negativity put a damper on their moods.
I’ll reiterate what the third example was about. It indicates the love-care person who only sees the good in their own options or opinions. And they just want it for you too. Wholesale. Unequivocally. Unanimously. Selfishly.
So it is a bona fide love-care relationship after all. It’s just that there is more love-care for oneself than there actually is for the other person. And I don’t recommend making a habit out of such relationships. Because chances are, the habit won’t be yours.
When I eat prawns, and I’m ravaging what’s known as the head, voices keep coming into my head repeating the mantra that it is the best part of the prawn. I’d repeat it out loud myself when there is need to verbalise pleasantries while I’m sucking the juices from the shell. Even though I totally disagree. Personally, I find the fleshy bits around the curvature the best part of the prawn. The head, though rather tasty, is more mucky than juicy. And definitely not the best part of the prawn. Not to me at least.
Same goes with the arse of chicken. The bone marrow of the bovine. Couture for the canine. Follies and foibles of the feline. None of those garner any good with me. Just courteous goodwill so as not to piss off those who believe they are indisputable favourites amongst the masses. Cos if truth be told, I absolutely hate those. All those, thank you. But there is one similar to those popularist likes that bears an axiom that is not to be repeated out loud. Ever. There is one phrase I know should never be used at any time in or out of the public realm. Yes, it’s about babies. Human babies in particular.
Firstly though, a disclaimer. I accept that there is an aesthetic charm about babies. It stems from the seduction of the miniature. We seem to have a propensity to delight in miniaturization. And babies are after all, scaled down versions of us. And I’m fine with that. After all, I’ve had three miniaturized versions of me in different guises.
Other than that, boy, are they urrrgly. Hairless. Puffy. Blank stares. Inane smiles. They look like Winston Churchill. Yoda. The Michelin man. The Marshmallow Man. Bulldogs. Aliens. Which is fine by me. I mean, like other citizens of the planet, there are no peoples that are absolute beauties. Nor absolute uglies. But my problem with babies actually stem from adults who insist on parading them out for the world to witness. Out in malls. On streets. In parks. On desks. In frames. Online. In avatars. Cocky and confident that they will get nothing but coos and caws of how cute are the fruits of the labour of their groins. I do beg your pardon but more often than not, they’re not. Not cute that is. Cos whatever we choose to insist, or are deluded or obliged to believe – babies are ugly.