hollaback_
Sunday, June 05, 2005
i suck at subtlety, really. maybe it's just this eagerness in me for many of the things that i get excited about. i get so caught up in things that i move too quickly, i can't control myself, i trip, i mess, i fumble, i stumble. (this reminds me of madcatwoman in 0zeroO1 last year who went
i tear i bite i scratch i kill or some other primitive ululation of the sort.) i guess after diplomacy and tact, which i've learnt alot about this year, the logical progression would be subtlety. there are many important lessons in life that we must internalise, and it's high time i became sleeker and more of a smooth operator in the way i lead mine.
i hate the SATs. the admission ticket said to be at the test venue by 7.45 because the test would start at 8. at 8, queues were just starting to form, people were streaming into the exam halls even till 8.30. really long-winded and pointless instructions resulting in the test finally starting an hour late, at 9am.
i'm beginning to see a certain degree of truth in the cliche "opposites attract". i mean i'm not sure if it really works two ways, because i don't have any personal experience in such sorts. but for my single self,
i had as lief not be as live to be in awe of such a thing as i myself i find that the case. for almost all my.. fancies, the people i've liked were always worlds apart from me. maybe it is right, that our partners (if any) should fill up all our inadequacies, and we theirs. that is why there is the innate desire to look out for someone who is not like us totally. for that would be just double trouble, 2 blind people rather than one blind and the other deaf, both complementing each other. then again, it is imperative that in differing, the pair do not differ too much. if there is absolutely nothing in common, then what can the relationship be based on? of course there is always chance, providence, the fortuity of it all or maybe just plain
chemistry, that heavily used yet hardly understood word. but in general there should be at least something that connects the two!
then again, what on earth would i know. philosophizing about something that i know nothing about and have no direct experience of, breaking such a magically mystical thing down into technical portions and mechanics. i can only gain my insights vicariously through my friends who, in their wide spectrum of intimate relationships reveal to me merely a glimpse of what it means to have someone who's always there for you (ideally, at least).
it is tempting, isn't it? to be desirous of such a connection to someone else. as people begin to pair off into their lovey-dovey sets in their own little worlds, i think i can feel a tinge of what adults left on the shelf fantasizing about blissful matrimony feel. imagine what it would be like if that was really to be my fate. i don't think i would be able to take it. but can i handle such commitment? i observe and see the amount of effort that goes into keeping the engines of love chugging along, and end up questioning myself if i'm capable or even have the capacity to sustain such demanding requirements, even in low-maintainence/key dalliances. to a person who gets bored easily and changes crushes every 2 weeks or so, that's asking alot.
but then again.
bernie / so long, and thanks for all the fish. says:
guess you fall in love too easily>> being in love and having a r/s
is really quite different.so maybe i'd have a different perspective to this whole thingbob when it actually arrives. since it doesn't come by easily, i'd probably cherish it like smeagol covets the ring *grins at eugene* solitude is fine, but too much of it can have negative effects. no man is an island. gosh, i think primary school teachers would love me (actually, mine did.) - i'm becoming this idiom-spouting machine, espousing the nice little pretty phrases that really do make alot of sense! why do you think they were dreamt up in the first place?!
ok, fuck. that was quite personal. zzz.
mike just took up your time at
1:05 am
th time!