Floating Leaf (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
floatingleaf) wrote2011-01-01 08:20 pm
floatingleaf) wrote2011-01-01 08:20 pm
Entry tags:
a ramble for no reason
So yeah... life goes on. For what it's worth. No one has died, after all. I just unwisely allowed myself to think that I wasn't so completely broke after all. I had actually started to enjoy shopping again, and not feel so terribly guilty about it. So maybe I needed a reminder that people with my income levels can never fully relax and enjoy all that this lovely consumerist society has to offer. People with my income levels have to carefully consider their priorities and choose between privacy (= living on their own) and convenient transportation (= owning a car), or between privacy and travel, or between convenient transportation and cool modern technology (= a new PC). The thing is, if I could reverse time now and go back to before the car got fixed, I would totally choose to just not have the car anymore and keep the money I had spent on it. Except if your car dies in the middle of the road, you have to pay for towing anyway, even if you don't want the car anymore. You can't just say "fuck you" and walk away. And if the city tows you, you end up paying far more than if an auto repair shop tows you - so it makes more sense to get it to a shop; and once it's there, it's easier to just let them fix it instead of trying to figure out what else to do. Especially if the whole thing catches you by surprise and you just haven't had the time to consider all possibilities beforehand. If someone had asked me, theoretically, what I would do if I had to either spend $1,300 on the car or get rid of it, I would totally say: "To hell with the car, then, and good riddance". But I didn't really know I was going to have to pay that much until I had already paid part of it... and then it just seemed logical to finalize the process, so to speak. But maybe it wasn't. Maybe it's more logical to just sell it now and at least get the repair money back (if it's even worth that much). I don't know. I just don't even want to think of something like this happening again. And if it does happen, I simply won't HAVE the money anymore - unless I borrow it, or leech off my parents yet again. And I think I'd much rather put up with the inconveniences of having to use public transportation on a daily basis.
So this is something to ponder over the next few weeks/months, as I get into the car each morning, feeling slightly nauseous at the sight of it.:/ For now, let's change the topic. The 30-day meme is as good a distraction as any, is it not? ;)
That's a tricky one, I must say. I don't think I have a definition. I don't think love needs a "definition". It can mean a million different things to a million different people, or a million different things to one person in different circumstances. What it's usually meant to me was a juvenile, though intense crush on someone unreachable - be it a famous actor or a close friend who simply wasn't interested in me "that way". I don't know much about mutual love - I may have thought I experienced it for short periods of time, but it was never as intense for me as when it was very decidedly unrequited. Weird, that. Maybe a shrink would have interesting theories on it, if I could afford one. My own theory is that I am an idealist (or an anal-retentive perfectionist, if you prefer), and have very high expectations of a romantic relationship, and life usually brings high expectations down a peg or two - so it's somehow easier for me to fall for people who seem unreachable, because I don't have to risk reevaluating my lofty opinion of them.:P Or, due to my relatively low self-esteem, people who are interested in me can't really be that awesome - because if they were, how on earth could they be interested in me???... Yeah, I know. Anyway - I seem to enjoy "being in love" more than actually "being with someone"; and I'm not sure it even matters whether the fact I've never had the opportunity to be with someone I was in love with is a result or a cause. The one time I sort of had a fling with someone I was in love with was way too nerve-wracking - because I cared way too much and couldn't handle it being just a fling (even though I knew very well I wouldn't be happy with her on a long-term basis). So yeah. Actual relationships are way too complicated for me - unless I'm not really all that crazy about the other person... in which case it's not really love we're talking about. More like "friendship with benefits" - which sort of worked for me when I was younger and desperate for sex... lol. Now, if I care for someone as a friend, that's all I want from them - friendship. I am not interested in sex unless I am in love - and I am not in love unless they are damn near perfect in my eyes, in which case they are not very likely to throw a second glance in my direction.;) Which is fine, since I have better sex in my HEAD than anywhere else anyway.:P
So yeah... I am probably the last person on earth anyone should be asking about a definition of love. Love is a precarious emotional state I can only handle in theory, from a safe distance. I love reading about it, watching movies about it, fantasizing about it... but that's about it.:P I love feeling it, too, but only if the object of said feelings is too far away to have any real power to hurt me. Loving someone who is close in real life, and therefore CAN hurt me, scares me to death. Being the object of someone else's feelings, and so having the power to hurt them, also scares me to death. I do not want that power (yes, that's a quote, and high points for identifying where it comes from ;). Unless, perhaps, I am capable of returning the feelings to their full extent - but that has never happened to me, just like I have never been fully, completely "loved back" by anyone I had been in love with - so how would I know?
So this is something to ponder over the next few weeks/months, as I get into the car each morning, feeling slightly nauseous at the sight of it.:/ For now, let's change the topic. The 30-day meme is as good a distraction as any, is it not? ;)
That's a tricky one, I must say. I don't think I have a definition. I don't think love needs a "definition". It can mean a million different things to a million different people, or a million different things to one person in different circumstances. What it's usually meant to me was a juvenile, though intense crush on someone unreachable - be it a famous actor or a close friend who simply wasn't interested in me "that way". I don't know much about mutual love - I may have thought I experienced it for short periods of time, but it was never as intense for me as when it was very decidedly unrequited. Weird, that. Maybe a shrink would have interesting theories on it, if I could afford one. My own theory is that I am an idealist (or an anal-retentive perfectionist, if you prefer), and have very high expectations of a romantic relationship, and life usually brings high expectations down a peg or two - so it's somehow easier for me to fall for people who seem unreachable, because I don't have to risk reevaluating my lofty opinion of them.:P Or, due to my relatively low self-esteem, people who are interested in me can't really be that awesome - because if they were, how on earth could they be interested in me???... Yeah, I know. Anyway - I seem to enjoy "being in love" more than actually "being with someone"; and I'm not sure it even matters whether the fact I've never had the opportunity to be with someone I was in love with is a result or a cause. The one time I sort of had a fling with someone I was in love with was way too nerve-wracking - because I cared way too much and couldn't handle it being just a fling (even though I knew very well I wouldn't be happy with her on a long-term basis). So yeah. Actual relationships are way too complicated for me - unless I'm not really all that crazy about the other person... in which case it's not really love we're talking about. More like "friendship with benefits" - which sort of worked for me when I was younger and desperate for sex... lol. Now, if I care for someone as a friend, that's all I want from them - friendship. I am not interested in sex unless I am in love - and I am not in love unless they are damn near perfect in my eyes, in which case they are not very likely to throw a second glance in my direction.;) Which is fine, since I have better sex in my HEAD than anywhere else anyway.:P
So yeah... I am probably the last person on earth anyone should be asking about a definition of love. Love is a precarious emotional state I can only handle in theory, from a safe distance. I love reading about it, watching movies about it, fantasizing about it... but that's about it.:P I love feeling it, too, but only if the object of said feelings is too far away to have any real power to hurt me. Loving someone who is close in real life, and therefore CAN hurt me, scares me to death. Being the object of someone else's feelings, and so having the power to hurt them, also scares me to death. I do not want that power (yes, that's a quote, and high points for identifying where it comes from ;). Unless, perhaps, I am capable of returning the feelings to their full extent - but that has never happened to me, just like I have never been fully, completely "loved back" by anyone I had been in love with - so how would I know?
no subject
a
no subject
And yes, it is a consolation to know that you are still reading and thinking about me and caring enough to let me know. It means a lot, really. *hugs back*