Do not do drugs in public places

I am. I am what I am. I am what I am and nothing else. It is simple as that. No no no no no no no. I dreamt about this and now I am actually writing it down. Things in reality can never be as good as in a dream. Especially if that thing, concept or text; even something as concrete as a text is taken from that dream and smashed down, taken by its very guts and thrown right down on the paper. See how it looks, how it stares at me, while in my dream it seemed all to be slight strokes on a klavier on a piano. The gentlest of pianos. No no no. My dreams are not opaque or anything of the sort. They are the complete opposite of what one would expect; of what I would expect. Normally, dreams are dreamy and reality is really. With me it has turned around; it was a slow process such that I can only see or tell when it more or less begun and that it has now been fully completed. My dreams are real and reality has become like a dream to me. My sanity still tells me that it is not really how it really is, however, there must come a time when I too snap and start to believe in the things I see, believe the things I taste, touch, believe what I believe and at that point there is no turning back. All others will be ousted and there is no one left to cling to except me and the things I experience.

Last night I was standing at the bus stop and the stones which were neatly put down on the sidewalk started to come out and whereas they were normally laying down in a horizontal way they now stood up vertically and wobbling what you might call their hips and started coming towards me, not in an agressive way or anything, but they just came to me in a very slow pace, such that; if I were to have been afraid at that very moment, I would still have had the possibility to run away, but now that I am dreaming, nothing seems to have scared me back then. Why would I have been afraid? The trees were humming as always, but as the stones were slightly moving towards me the trees started hissing in a hissy way. It is hard to describe it and I am afraid I cannot show you in proper language-signs, because they are not allowed to be described; those sounds. Those sounds became one sound fairly fast. It first raised the pitch and became louder and louder until my hearing could not hear the tone anymore and all there was left was a tiny squech in my own ear. High-pithced and from far I felt a storm coming up, not a gale, but a wave of air. Short, hard and warm. I braced myself and let it all fall over me untill I felt a kid jerking my jacket and asking me: Sir, what are you doing? Nothing, nothing, nothing that concerns you for that matter. But.. but I am only trying to help, you see, the bus is here. What? Oh, thanks I suppose.

Treatise on hope and other things which accidentally come to mind

Paul requested of me to write another entry on my/our blog. Since it is common knowledge that such requests inevitably lead to bad quality in writing I would like you all to read with a critical eye and if you see something which you do not like to lay the blame with the one responsible; Paul.

Let me start at the beginning; I have not structured my argument or my treatise at all, but here it goes. Hope is innate. It is in us and can be seen as a human emotion, this however does not explain where it comes from. To explain this requires a dialectical dicussion which I will start later on. A bit of structure is already sneeking in as you can notice. First of all, however, I would like to make sure that it is clear to every reader that hope is essentially innate, because it is important for the rest of my argument. Hope comes forward from some sort of expectation of a certain upcoming chain of events, or a single event, to take a certain course. This expectation, however, may be or may not be grounded on chance; this does not matter. One can have hope of a certain course of events to take place in a certain way in the least likely situation of those events actually going to take place. One simply does not know how it will take place until the time it has actually taken place. That seems quite self-explanatory.

Hope, therefore, has its roots in uncertainty. If you do not know what is going to happen, you usually hope for the best. At least, if it concerns yourself and if you are not nihilistic and wish the best for yourself (which I think is true for most of us). I might like to add that I take out a particular hope actually, which namely is the one concerning the self. I do not wish to discuss other kinds of hope, because there are many and I have got little on my hands. I am merely doing this to please Paul.

It is time for an example; today I talked to a bum, who claimed to be a millionaire from Australia. Nothing wrong with that, except for the fact that he also thought that he was a university teacher and splendid in martial arts as well. He smashed his newly bought bong, which alliterates, onto the steps of the faculty, but he could clearly not give a rat's ass. I needed a light so I asked him one. He first needed half an hour of speaking before I could eventually get a fire from him, but at least I got what I wanted. I had not really hoped for it, because I could always smoke my cigarette later. However, he wanted to show a meek display of his martial arts skills, which was quite impressive with hindsight, because he only had six fingers. Unfortunately I was the first one to be his 'victim', rest assured it was not painful. I had hoped it not to be painful, there was certain uncertainty to what would happen, and my hope was fulfilled.

After this display, this particular person wanted to display his abilities to other people as well. I think they were college professors or something like that. Not having been introduced to him, they were rather surprised when someone started pulling on their limbs. They did not know what was up. Now, I did not hope that they would not get injured or anything. I assumed them to be o.k. in the end. I still hoped I would not get hurt in some sort of way, in whatever way possible, most likely to be caused by Dan (that was the bum's name I think, because he was hard to understand), but that did not happen. Another hope was fulfilled, at least my hope.

Uncertainty is not just the source of hope, but also of many more things. It causes humans to be inquisitive, eager to become certain of what is uncertain. It is the basis of religion and of science and seen as such they do not differ that much.

Hope and its 'mechanics' are dry material, but it can be made much more interesting when taken as a point of view on someone's actions. As some sort of goggles you put on and check out what a person is hoping for. I have hoped for several things and I still hope for other things; these things come in sizes big and small like hoping that the weather will be good up to hoping that I will life happily ever after or something like that.

However, when the expectation is very unlikely to actually take place, so the thing you had hoped for is not going happen, then it is probably best to let go of that hope. I think I myself have hoped too long for something to happen and have too lately realized that it was not going to happen, period. By doing this I postponed the process of grieving over lost hope and this postponement is not good I think.

Een gedicht over zomer

Luid hoongelach in een lange dorpsstraat
De hete zomerzon weerspiegelt niet in een voorruit
Een jonge vader op klompen harkt een tuin aan
Zijn peuter dondert van een driewieler
en breekt een melktand op de kaseien

Ik kijk één van de mannen aan
die door een derde worden toegeschreeuwd
Ik denk na over zweet
Er komt rare muziek uit een slaapkamerraam

Een verbrande tiener masturbeert ongezien
En luistert vervolgens naar stilte
Zijn moeder maakt een saladedressing
Weldra zal de familie op het terras aan tafel gaan

Twee schoolkinderen rennen langs me
Ik vraag me af hoeveel hun kleren kosten
Ik stap de bus in terwijl ik kort een boom waardeer
Het stinkt er en hij vertrekt
 

Paul's zus

Als Paul een zus had gehad, had ik haar wel geneukt in tegenstelling tot wat Paul met mijn zus heeft gedaan; niet geneukt. Ik zou haar dan alleen maar neuken zodat ik iedere keer met recht kon zeggen tegen Paul; "ik heb je zus geneukt" om er vervolgens een welgemeende bulderlach uit te laten rollen. Hetzelfde zou ik bij de ouders van Paul doen, ik zou ze zeggen; "ik heb uw dochter geneukt" gevolgd met een gemene diepe lach. Als zij mij dan zouden vragen waarom ik dat gedaan heb, dan zou ik zeggen dat ik dat enkel en alleen gedaan heb om Paul een loer te draaien. Ik vind het eigenlijk heel jammer dat mij die kans nooit is gegund, want ik zou Paul toch graag een keer op die indirecte manier willen kunnen pakken. Ik heb al andere mogelijkheden doorgenomen, maar allen leken ze me te immoreel. De zus van Paul was nog op een bepaalde sociale manier geoorloofd geweest, mits ze min of meer mijn leeftijd had, want dan had ik het er op kunnen gooien dat ik het niet alleen om de seks deed, maar ook een beetje omdat ik behoefte had aan menselijke warmte of iets dergelijks. Onzin natuurlijk; ik wil gewoon een manier vinden om Paul te kleineren, maar ik zal proberen creatief om te gaan met die behoefte in de toekomst zodat ik die jongen op de een of andere manier op zijn plek kan wijzen.

Tijs fietst op zijn fiets

Terwijl de wind door zijn bakkebaarden glijdt,

rijdt hij door de polder tussen Kloosterzande en Walsoorden.

Vroeger geloofde hij in God, en had hij lang haar.

Hij was toen best al cool, maar nu is hij nog cooler,

omdat hij sindsdien meer sigaretten gerookt heeft.

Al zou hij het nu misschien niet licht toegeven,

en niet met de trots van vroeger, maar Tijs zit vol twijfel.

Bijvoorbeeld over vrouwen, die hij velen heeft liefgehad,

en ook een paar bemind.

En over schrijven.

Hoe ouder hij wordt, des te meer het hem daagt,

hoe stompzinnig het is, waarheid op papier te dwingen.

Niet omdat het schrijven niet lukt,

maar omdat de dingen hun belang verliezen,

in zijn almaar uitdijend perspectief.

Ps. is er iemand die nog hyves heeft, en wellicht even naar de Sjoerd Houweling fan-hyve wil gaan. Ik heb daar ooit een gedicht op gepost dat ik zelf niet meer heb maar wel graag terug zou willen, zou iemand het willen gaan halen??

Homoseksualiteit

We vroegen aan iemand op straat waarom het einde van de straat niet verlicht was en dit was blijkbaar omdat dit het uitgaansgedeelte was voor homoseksueel publiek. Ik ben nog nooit naar een gay-bar geweest, maar in Amsterdam is het dan ook al lang niet meer zo hip om homo te zijn. Ik heb het idee dat in Amsterdam de meerderheid van de homoseksuelen op wil gaan in het heteroseksuele publiek. Ik begrijp het wel enigszins en het kan door verschillende factoren komen denk ik.

Het zou kunnen komen doordat ze zichzelf niet meer als ‘anders’ zien en daardoor valt de reden om je zelf als anders op te stellen weg. Dit kan door niet langer naar cafés te gaan die gericht zijn op mensen met een bepaalde seksuele voorkeur bijvoorbeeld. De vraag blijft dan overigens of de gemeenschap je ook volledig als normaal beschouwt. Ik denk niet dat dat zo is. Ik zou het graag anders zien natuurlijk, maar wat ik wil is niet direct wat de gemeenschap wil. De laatste jaren zijn er best wel wat homoseksuelen aangevallen door mensen die het niet begrijpen en dat veroorzaakt een bepaalde angst kan ik me voorstellen.

Dit brengt me bij de volgende potentiele factor, namelijk angst. Het zou zo kunnen zijn dat de homoseksuele gemeenschap in Amsterdam zich niet wilt onderscheiden omdat ze dan gevaar lopen voor zogeheette potenrammers. Ik denk alleen niet dat je het probleem verhelpt als je jezelf gaat verschuilen. Ik denk juist dat je als homoseksuele gemeenschap de handen in een moet slaan en moet gaan staan voor wie je bent. Je wilt toch jezelf kunnen zijn, overal en altijd? Ik wel althans, maar ik heb het misschien makkelijker omdat ik heteroseksueel ben. En fin, als dit niet collectief gebeurt dan zullen potenrammers steeds individuen er uit pikken. Daarentegen als er een duidelijke boodschap van de homoseksuelen als groep af komt, in de vorm van burgerarrest bijvoorbeeld, dan zullen ze wel drie keer nadenken voordat ze een homoseksueel proberen aan te vallen op het Rembrandtplein.

Ik denk overigens dat er ook wel een beetje geprovoceerd mag worden. Ik zou politiemensen in burger de straat op sturen, hand in hand laten lopen in een wijk die er om bekend staat dat er veel homohaters rond lopen en als ze iets doen, ze in de boeien slaan. Simpel toch? Het probleem los je er niet direct mee op, maar je kunt wel in kaart brengen wie de rotte appels zijn. Op de lange termijn moet je toe werken naar een algemene cultuur van tolerantie op alle vlakken en in dit geval dan de seksuele voorkeur van andere mensen. Dit klinkt idealistisch, maar idealisme is een streven en hoe dichterbij men er komt, hoe beter lijkt me.

De homoseksuele identiteit zelf is vaak al een aardige worsteling in een cultuur waarin heteroseksualiteit dominant is. Eigenlijk is elke grote cultuur hetereoseksueel en richt zich voornamelijk op heteroseksuelen. Televisie is gericht op heteroseksualiteit, reclames zijn gericht op hetero's, en ga zo maar door. Het gemiddelde persoon, waar men voor het gemak meestal maar van uit gaat, is een heteroseksueel.

Daar kan je als seksuele minderheid, of als minderheid in het algemeen, niets aan doen. Je kunt de dominante cultuur niet overnemen en veranderen naar hoe jij het wilt zien. Dat zou overigens ook niet goed zijn. Je moet de dominante cultuur een plaats geven. Het liefst links laten liggen, want je moet je eigen subcultuur creeëren om een aangename groepsidentiteit te maken waarin iedere homoseksueel zich kan vinden. Dit bereik je waarschijnlijk het makkelijkst als je een losse identiteit creeërt waarin veel geaccepteerd wordt en mensen hun huidige identiteit niet onderhevig hoeft te zijn aan veranderingen.

Homoseksualiteit draait voor mij voor een groot deel om acceptatie. Dit is een proces wat zowel naar buiten toe als ook naar binnen toe plaats vindt. Je moet leren te accepteren dat je zelf niet helemaal heteroseksueel bent, maar misschien wel biseksueel of homoseksueel. We leven niet in een bipolaire wereld en je kunt dus op vroege leeftijd niet helemaal zeker weten of je van een bepaalde seksuele geaardheid bent. Dat geeft niet, die onzekerheid is een belangrijke factor die er voor zorgt dat je, als het goed is, alle opties af gaat. Dit kan gewoon in je gedachten gebeuren; als je er maar mee bezig bent.

Naar buiten toe mag je hopen dat er begrip is voor wie je bent. Eigenlijk is begrip een beetje raar. Het beste is onverschilligheid. Als er in het algemeen onverschilligheid zou heersen tegenover iemands seksualiteit dan is er dus ook geen probleem. Als er begrip zou zijn dan zou het alsnog insinueren dat je ergens mee zit; dat je misschien een probleem hebt; dat je anders bent. Je bent niet anders als je homoseksueel bent. Een homoseksueel wordt anders gemaakt door de reacties van zijn of haar sociale omgeving.

Ten eerste moet je als homoseksueel zijnde uit de kast komen. Een heteroseksueel hoeft dat niet. Er wordt in andere woorden van je verwacht dat je aan degenen die je meest dierbaar zijn vertelt dat je anders bent, want als je niet anders bent, waarom zou je dan iets moeten vertellen? Stel dat een meisje van 15 aan haar ouders vertelt dat ze op andere meisjes valt; wat zouden ze in het ideale geval zeggen? Naar mijn idee zou de beste reactie zijn; “ja, en?” Een kind van 15 dat al haar moed heeft opgeraapt om dit hoge woord er uit te krijgen zal wellicht kwaad worden door deze laconieke reactie, omdat ze al die tijd uit de rest van haar sociale omgeving in indirecte bewoordingen te horen heeft gekregen dat homoseksualiteit apart is en niet voldoet aan de dominante norm der seksualiteit. Door de reactie van haar ouders zal ze misschien gaan nadenken wat voor consequenties het nu eigenlijk heeft dat ze homoseksueel is en wat voor consequenties het zou moeten hebben. Het 'en?'-verhaal.

Naar mijn idee moet homoseksualiteit geen consequenties hebben, niet buiten het homoseksueel zijn althans. Je kunt geen homoseksueel zijn en niet op je eigen geslacht vallen, want dan klopt de definitie niet. Dat lijkt me duidelijk. Maar daarbuiten, buiten het vallen op je eigen geslacht en de eventuele seksuele consequenties die daar aan verbonden worden, zijn er geen verplichte consequenties. Oftewel, je bent normaal. Dit is echter niet altijd zoals homoseksualiteit gezien wordt. Volgens sommigen moet een homoseksuele man van roze houden bijvoorbeeld of een lesbi zou kort haar moeten hebben en zo zijn er waarschijnlijk nog wel meer voorbeelden. Je kunt soms aan mensen dan ook zien dat ze een bepaalde identiteit hebben aangemeten omdat ze homoseksueel zijn en omdat er bepaalde sociale verwachtingen zijn aangaande hun andere niet-seksuele voorkeuren. Op die manier is er een homoseksuele identiteit gemaakt, maar de vraag is in hoeverre die is beïnvloed door de verwachtingen van de dominante cultuur. Is deze identiteit niet slechts geïmplementeerd door de dominante cultuur om zo voor zichzelf duidelijk te houden wie er homo- en wie er heteroseksueel is?

We gingen naar de gaybar. Dit bleek een uiterst slimme zet te zijn, want het bier was er goedkoper dan in de rest van de straat. De mensen waren er allemaal van onze leeftijd en er werd echt gedanst op de dansvloer. Ik denk dat het een blije dansvloer was. Blijer dan die andere dansvloeren. Ik ben er zeker van. We hebben daar ongeveer twee uur gedanst en lopen schuren tegen zowel mannen als vrouwen, maar op den duur moesten we toch weg. Het was een uur of drie schat ik en we namen een Columbiaans meisje mee, die nog wat wilde eten. We kwamen bij een pizzeria die nog open was en ze nam een groot stuk. Paul en ik aten er ook nog wat van. We liepen met zijn drieën naar het hotel en daar wachtten we gezamenlijk tot haar taxi er was. Paul en ik zeiden toen gedag en gingen het hotel binnen en vrijwel direct naar bed.

Een boek

Er is de laatste tijd niet veel meer geplaatst op deze blog. Ik ben een beetje nalatig geweest, waarvoor mijn excuses, maar ik heb recentelijk mijn tijd in iets anders gestoken. Ik heb namelijk een boek geschreven; een reisverslag over mijn reis naar de Verenigde Staten die ik heb gemaakt met die andere bijdrager van dit blog: Paul Mertens. Het verslag is in eerste instantie voor mijn vader geschreven, omdat hij het een en ander wilde weten over mijn ervaringen aldaar. Hij had waarschijnlijk niet verwacht dat ik er bijna 150 pagina's aan zou wijden, maar dan heeft hij wat te doen in zijn vrije tijd. Het is daarentegen ook toegankelijk voor anderen.

Iemand zei me recentelijk, ik geloof dat het Sjoerd was, dat het misschien leuk was om een voorproefje op mijn blog te plaatsen. Ik denk dat het wel een goed idee is en niet meer dan terecht. Ik heb ontzettend veel tijd gestoken in het maken en bij houden van dit ding dat ik het graag representatief wil houden en onderdelen van al mijn werk er op wil plaatsen. Daarnaast hebben jullie ook veel tijd gestoken in het lezen van mijn blog en eventueel moeite gedaan om mij van feedback te voorzien.

Helaas kan ik het er nu niet direct op zetten omdat ik nog geen stuk heb geselecteerd en omdat ik op deze computer geen tekstverwerker heb staan. Dit heeft allemaal oninteressante technische redenen en het komt er in het kort op neer dat ik een stomme computer heb.

Love 2

Hi Everybody,

I have a couple of spare minutes so I thought I'd finally get round to this. Because it's only a few spare minutes, I'll try keeping it brief, which I think will be beneficial for me as well as for the readers.

First of all, I don't think we disagree all that much. I got the impression that you considered relationships to depend on overt, literal agreement. Apparently I misinterpreted, sorry about that.

If anything, I tried, in my first response, to argue that love is something very personal, and that it is hard to make generalizable statements; at least to the detailed extent you were attempting. I will not give a definition of love or affection. There are quite general definitions of affections, which I will probably have adhered to. For love there is no generally accepted definition I think. I can give you my personal one, which will be enlightening in the face of this discussion; when I say love I mean a psychological phenomenon; a pleasant state of mind (call it a 'feeling') generated by and directed towards another individual. Besides this feeling, which can fluctuate in intensity over time, love is a willingness to invest in this person. This willingness to invest, to me, is not so much a really clear feeling in itself, an emotion; it's more like motivation, like a drive. That's my definition in a nutshell; of course it's still quite vague and you might have a completely different definition: fine. And if you want more clarity, you should wait for my book. If I a person does not give me intense happy thoughts or makes me want to share big important things with them, then I don't love them.

I agree that it must be possible to love many people at the same time. However, I think that in a lot of cases this would cause some practical problems which have little to do with my definition of love, but which are there none the less. An important one would be jealousy; I don't see myself as a very jealous person, nor do I think many of my dearest friends are typically jealous. However, there are situations where I AM jealous and so would other people. This is a very personal trait and is not under direct conscious control; even if I wanted, I can't shut either love or jealousy off like I can flick a switch. It is therefore unreasonable to assume that everyone is capable of having every kind of relationship simply by convincing them with rational arguments.

This does not mean that rational arguments have no influence in structuring a relationship; on the contrary I think. But saying, either, that love is or should be a purely rational construct, or that relationships should be constructed completely rationally, is a misconception I think. A persons personal disposition, their desires for specific kinds of affection, attention or mutual understanding, will be defining factors as well. The rational argument is the same for everyone, but the desires of the two lovers (whether these arise because of social construction or innate biological properties or a combination) is what makes two relationships differ.

That is why I can laugh in the face of anyone who denies that either monoamoury or polyamoury is impossible; it depends on you and your desired partner. Generally, I have a clear feeling that I do not have a very polyamourous disposition, even though I can see benefits to it or fantasize about it. I also do not think it would be impossible for me to thrive in polyamourous relationships. Still, at this moment I prefer a monoamourous relationship. For the sake of brevity, I will not go into details about this, but we can discuss it as lenght if you think it is interesting; I think it would be a bit besides the point I am trying to make right now.

To close the chapter on this one then:

>> I don’t see why you would laugh in the face of people who ‘stand by’ and deny, which is what you assume they do, what is there according to you.

If I meet people that say that it is impossible, for anyone, to have a happy and loving relationship with one person their entire life, I have a multitude of examples I can point out that prove otherwise. That's why I would laugh at someone making such a moronic claim. It is even worse than claiming that the earth is flat, because we cannot observe this to be otherwise without the use of technical instruments and mathematics.

Finally, you left a lot of things vague and many terms undefined in your original post; I found it a bit unfair to point the finger to me and demand I venture into semantics; a topic you seemed to be vigorously avoiding yourself. Also, a final excuse for the lack of structure in my original response, I wrote it in a short period of time while thinking on my feet. It was not my intention to respond to every single point you made either, but to respond with my personal view of the points that sparked my interest most.

As a concluding remark: There's no neuroscientific explanation for love, one reason for this is that it is an undefinable term. If you would use a broad definition to explain it neuroscientifically, you would quickly run into the Hard Problem. I do feel I should point out (once again) that you cannot use evolutionary theory to explain the substance of a psychological state; the feeling of love and our internal reasons for loving one or more people more than others probably have an evolutionary benefit, but evolution does neither hand down a blueprint for what a relationship should be (evolution has no purpose or goal in itself, in no way!), nor provides an explanation of why we experience love and relationships the way we do.

Reaction to Paul' post.

Paul, I don’t find your response unfitting and I am glad to see that you have posted something new onto this blog and I am also glad that you do not agree with me, so I have something to react to.

First of all, I think, from the impression I get when reading your reaction, that we both come from a different angle concerning this topic. I noticed that you initially seemed to react to what I wrote and eventually gave your own view on things, without taking mine into account. Not that I mind, but I had the impression that you would have because of your introduction.

Let me react to what I think concerned a reaction to my initial post first; I do not talk about literal agreements. You have created this literal piece yourself, which turns my whole argument upside down, because it is about assumed agreements, things which are agreed on without speaking about it. This is essential when it comes to the understanding of how I see a relationship. You do, however, refer to these ‘unconsciously assumed’ agreements in the text between parentheses, but then in relation to another agreement, namely to exchange certain affections. I do not see how that would work in prohibiting a desirable relationship, however.

You use the arranged marriages in a very awkward context I think. I do not really see that their situation is a relationship, at least, not at first. You have therefore not stuck to our specific context or situation in order to obliterate my statement about calling each other boy and girlfriend as being the sole obligatory requirement to have a love-relationship; that ‘special’ kind of relationship.

To me the relationship, as a monogamous form of relating to another person, in my case, a person of the same sex, is not a ‘special’ one. At least, that is the relationship itself I am now talking about. The way in which I deal with another human-being should not be appreciated as being special or solely designated for one person, but instead, in my opinion, the person should be special. And for all I care, it can be a plurality of persons in which I endeavour in which current social norms would define as a ‘special’ relationship. I know the distinction between a special person and a special way of relating to someone is hard to make, but there is one and I think it is an important one to make. If it is not made, it opts out the possibility of having this special thing with other human-beings, wouldn’t it? I am not entirely sure about this and I will spend more thought on this and possibly write more about it.

I think it is self-explanatory that a good relationship consists of at least two people who mutually love each other. I do not want to go into making value judgments about relationships however, because two people loving each other in a relationship can still result in a bad relationship, even though those two people love each other very much. I think the blame should then be searched in the way people relate to each other (the situation) rather then things which are innate to either one of the persons. I more and more assume of people that I know quite well that they generally try to do the right thing and that if they do not, from my point of view, that it is probably not on purpose and especially not meant to piss me off or anything. I think it is an important realization. Endeavouring into a relationship, however, with someone of whom you know that he or she does not love you or like you in any way is just a bad idea I guess.

As I more or less indicated in my previous entry is that I find the term affection very vague. How this is practically expressed, that is more interesting and more useful I think in a discussion. I do not believe either that there are universal features concerning relationships or love. About to be in love I said very little, because it concerns something you probably know more about than I do, namely biological processes and so on. I can explain what it does socially with a person by my own experiences, but I am reluctant to do so. I rather make definitions about things I can define a bit; seems quite logical I guess. Love is one of those things and because it does not find it’s reflection in significant biological processes in the brain or whatever, as far as I know, I feel quite free to say what I want to say about it. However, if there was a certain process in the brain or whatever which would fully explain why you do this and that, I would still not assume it to be the final answer.

I do not agree that the relationships one embarks on are determined by personal fundamental desires and belies; I think that is a utopic thought. I rather think that human-beings are kings of convenience and are willing to make minor adjustments in their behaviour; which might be a product of these desires and beliefs, in order to be able to relate to other human-beings. Sometimes, however, you can embark on someone who shares the same desires and beliefs as you do, but I do not think that is necessarily the key to a good relationship.

I do not see in what way the nostalgic explanation of your search for romance relates to anything you have said before. The paragraph itself is a mess as well. Sorry, I am so harsh, but I do not see how you can know the love you want when you see it. This is so utterly vague to my ears, it makes them flapper. I don’t know how to define a flourishing relationship, but if it means to conform and be monogamous all of your life and stay together with one and the same person all of your life; then I rather not flourish. I cannot imagine that one person would want to stay with me for the rest of their life at least not without seeing other people in the same manner as she would see me every now and then. I think it would strengthen a relationship, because it makes you realize, hopefully, that love is not about sex and not about potential feelings of love for another person than your lover. Love should be a rational construction in my opinion.

I never wanted to assert that love is not possible in anyone’s life. I can see people around me who genuinely love each other; at least I assume it to be so. Sometimes I do not assume it and then I ask for it, as I have done with my parents for example. I don’t see why you would laugh in the face of people who ‘stand by’ and deny, which is what you assume they do, what is there according to you. You should go into semantics otherwise you cannot back up your argument I think, because you owe us a definition of love, as well as a definition of affection by the way. And I do not mean in the sense of neurons this or that, but a semantical one, otherwise I am afraid we start to speak different languages.

I am not going into the falling in love bit, since I do not know much about it. I can give my opinion of it, however, if this is desired. Feel free to ask; I’ll think about thinking about it.

I hope you find my reaction useful. I have not refrained from being critical as you probably will have noticed, but I really appreciate the effort you have take to post this entry and I really appreciate the alternative point of view you have provided on a topic I am concerned with.

On relation ships and love particularly

I will write about the writer as a character later, for now I must reply on love.

You (Bram) are free to interpret this critical response to your post as a statement of love and affection. First of all, I must say I might have misinterpreted some of your statements, please don't enrage if you find my response unfitting.

I found your definition of a relationship as 'an agreement of two people to call eachother boy-/girlfriend' very strange. You return to the notion of literal 'agreements' a number of times in your post. Such an agreement (whether explicitly stated or unconsciously assumed) seems to entail specific cost/benefit relations and an agreement to exchange certain affections. Although I can see how this works, I do not think this is very informative when considering your own, personal relationship and your affections towards another person; in fact I think that this way of thinking prohibits what I would call a desireable relationship, without even giving a correct picture of love, but I return to that later.

People can have a 'relationship' without making any agreement to call eachother boy-/girlfriend, as they do in some cultures where people enter arranged marriages which preclude such designations, but which can equally well entail romance (ultimately) or possibly even 'falling in love'. I do not however want to make cross-cultural considerations and I'll stick to our specific situation; heterosexual, kaukasian males etc.

A pleasant relationship (at least the kind that I desire), and I hope you agree, is always coincidental with what I call mutual love. I don't want a relationship with someone who doesn't love me etc.

I believe that, although relationships and love can share many features between individuals, couples, cultures etc., there is no set of specific features that must exist between people in order for these people to be in a 'relationship' or to be 'in love'. Many love affairs involve sex, some don't. Many (most, almost all?) love affairs involve intense feelings of affection (in the broad sense). However, I will not argue whith people who say their love involves other or even contradictory features, for our literature (and maybe even our lives) are filled with such stories.

My slightly confused writing signals that I'm fighting to stay out of semantics. I believe a more personal account could clear things up:

I think (and that might be obvious) that the relationships one embarks on, are determined by a person's fundamental desires and beliefs, which are very personal of course. When I was a bit younger, I looked for romance in forms that I would now consider naive and even destructive; romance barred with cliché's of cigarette's, rock 'n' roll, poetry and fatalism. Sometimes I long to be 16 again, but never to act like a 16-year old in this moment. I know the love I want when I see it; many people around me, my age as well as much older than me, enjoy relationships that allow both to flourish for their entire lives.

This could be another cliché (and well, fuck me, then) but I don't see any reason to be cynical and assume that something like that is not possible in my life. I don't have the feeling that people in loving relationships are fooling themselves or the other; I observe genuine affection, commitment, trust, dependence; love, and I laugh in the face of people who stand by and deny what is so clearly there.

Of course, I ask myself what the mechanism of this state (love) is. I assume that evolutionary processes have primed us to love only those who we can expect to 'return' the favor. In evolutionary respect, love is nothing more than a social loan with interest you extend to another person. But the evolutionary proces does not explain the psychological state, only the requisite for it. The picture I have of love is quite simple. It's a feeling which we innately desire, like food*. We can only feel it when another person feels the same way as we.

In order to overcome this paradox we fall in love easily; falling in love is a catalyst that enables us to start sacrificing to and benefiting from eachother. Not in simple commodities such as food or even sex (the value of which is easily calculable), but the gold and platinum of human interrelations; affection, dependence, respect, trust; the stuff that makes two people (feel) better than one. If the other is able to compel me to give these to her, and I compel the other to return them, we will be loving. I do not understand completely why (although I have my suspicions), but my love gives them to me and I, ranking both her physical and mental features very highly, return them with pleasure and intended dedication.

Although this state of love makes a lot of things possible (including even an increase in love, commitment and trust for one's self), relationships can still crumble once started succesfully. If I rely on her too much, she will grow annoyed by me. If she glorifies me too much, I will lose my respect for her. There is no way of predicting the outcome from the start (you can prove this impossibility scientifically), but falling in love is easy enough.

So, I also think love depends very much on the response of the other person, although I'm not sure if we agree in what way exactly. I am personally convinced that you must desire a loving relationship with a person, before either can benefit from it. But when both desire this, both can benefit immensly with only a little bit of saccrifice.

Of course, I can give a cognitive deconstruction of trust, reliance, affection etc.: Intrinsically desireable commodities although without calculable value or predictable returns, but potentiators of large amounts of future value. However, this is not the feeling we have when we love. The colour green is not a bunch of neuronal responses but a percept. The last has not been said in this discussion but even a description of the cognitive mechanism by which an affective state (love) arises is simply not decisive for how to deal with such a state.

* Although some people desire it more than others; like food!

On relationships and love in general;

First of all I want to remark that I previously thought I would never come to the point of writing something on love in this manner. This idea has only come upon me recently, probably by recent events in my personal life. I have, like others I think, for a long time assumed that love is a natural given thing. By doing so, I have asserted that love is the same for everybody and must therefore be experienced in the same ways that I experience it. However, this is a false form of analogy and I realize that now. I want to tell you and I can only tell you what my conception of love is and what role I think it should have in a relationship and how both factors should interplay. This however, must be seen as my conception and I therefore want to stress that I do not have the illusion that I am spreading the absolute truth here.

Let’s first begin with the concept of the relationship, since I have spoken about this before in previous blog posts. From my point of view, a relationship is an agreement between two people, from whatever sex, to call each other boy- and/or girlfriend. That is basically it. That is the theoretical framework which forms a relationship and all the rest which come with that concept are ‘extras’. I just call it extras, but I want it to be perceived as a neutral term, so please keep that in mind. These extras can come about in several ways and are in no way inherent to the concept of a relationship. It might be that these extras are there because of assumptions connoted to the concept of a relationship, but to make things easier I will take an example of such an extra. I will keep it simple and I will take sex as my example.

Whenever I endeavor in a relationship I more or less expect that I will continue to have sex with this person. Actually this is a bad example, because I never start out a relationship with someone I have not had sex with yet. Let’s take a hypothetical example then. Assume that someone starts out a relationship with someone else, called person A and B respectively. Would it be illogical that person A expects to have sex with person B? It might be perceived as being logical, but it actually isn’t for the following reason: no one is someone else’s property. This is a very fundamental given, which many agree with I hope. From this fundamental given follows the following argument; person A cannot decide for person B whether person B wants sex with him or her on a factual basis. This decision is based on assumptions. Even if person A asks person B whether person B wants to have sex with person A, person A must still assume that the person B speaks the truth.

There are many more extras which could pass the revue, but in general I think they all go through the process mentioned above. Sex is a practical thing in which it is pretty easily made clear whether one wants to have it or not, but it becomes more complicated with more abstract notions: notions as commitment, the idea of love and reliance for example. These can only be made clear through a verbal process from both parties wherein equality in a relationship plays a very important role I think. If this equality is disturbed, I think it is very likely that the truth value of the utterances made by both parties concerning these abstract notions will be disturbed as well as a consequence. This will probably lead to wrong assumptions and thus to a misunderstanding of each other when it comes to these, in my opinion, very essential notions.

I will now turn to the concept of love. I first of all want to make a distinction with falling in love, in order to avoid misunderstanding. Falling in love and actual love have little or even nothing to do with each other. It may be the case that one falls in love with a person and eventually will feel real love for this person, but one thing does not necessarily lead to another. Falling in love might be best described as a trick of nature, which enables a person to emotionally bind a person temporarily to another person in order for nature to do its work. Real love however is, unlike falling in love, a construction. On the on-line dictionary it is stated that love is: “a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person”, but I do not agree with that. The makers of the dictionary assume it to be that way, but that does not make it that way. First of all, you can also love yourself, so the “for another person” should be replace with “for a person”, I think. Furthermore does love necessarily express itself in affection?

I do not think so. I think love can be expressed in many ways, because being affected by someone is merely a feeling. Now I will commence in what I think love should be in a greater sense, so I will enter the realm of my assumptions here. I think love is a repetition of expressions of appreciation towards another person and the recognition of the reception thereof. That sentence was a mouthful perhaps, but I will accompany it with some explanations. Expressions of appreciation can take many forms and under these may fall the dictionary definition, namely passionate affection. I rather do it with words. I do not mean the literal utterance of “I love you” every now and then, but I am rather referring to non-literal things. If I write texts about things in order to share my opinions and views on a certain topic with a certain person or a certain people, that is an expression of appreciation from me towards he or she or them. That, however, is not yet love. Or at least it may be categorized as being blind love. Only until a reaction in whatever sort of way is received, by which the sender can recognize that the sharing of view has come across, true love is reached I think.

In that way I view myself actually only as physically heterosexual, because I love a lot of men as well. This might actually be a practical way to clarify the distinction between the activity of sex and the definition of love. My mother once told me that she would not be surprised if I showed up with a man one day at my parents’ house. I may certainly hope so, because I have done so several times, but she should just not expect me to have sex with that man.

I wrote this particular text for a particular reason, even though I think I am perfectly capable of defining how I view these concepts, I am not able, and even unwilling, to shove my views down anyone’s throat. The reason is actually to make these concepts clearer for myself and to persuade people to think about the assumptions they make when regarding such essential concepts. I have shared my views and opinions and this was my expression of appreciation towards you dear reader. Remember though that I do not necessarily love you. This can only follow from your reaction and my evaluation and possible appreciation thereof, but I usually assume that these are written with the best of intentions.

Now about the role of love in a relationship, or at least what I think what role love should have in a relationship. The description I have given of love should be the core of any good relationship you have with another human-being. If there is no appreciation from and towards the other person with whom you have the relationship with, then it does not make much sense to continue having this particular relationship. I want to stress at this point that appreciation is not the same as agreement. I often disagree with other people, but that does not mean that I do not appreciate their input. This is an essential difference. I usually appreciate it when people do not agree with me, because that gives me more inspiration usually. Love does not have to be more than that, yet that is already a lot. All the rest, the possible extras, such as sex and commitment in whatever degree, are not self evident, but assumed. If these assumptions happen to be exactly the same from the perspective of both parties, then there is no problem, at least not on the basis of these notions. On the other hand if these assumptions are not the same, then a problem is bound to show up. This can only be resolved in two ways; either ignoring the problem or resolving the problem. I prefer the latter one more and more and therefore I like to choose the path of words.

Ik kleed je uit.

Ik ga naar de w.c. Ik kleed me uit. Ik ben naakt. Ik kleed je uit en schil alles van je af. Ik trek je aan. In jou vind ik vele slierten en geuren. Het moest er van komen. Het moest gebeuren. Ik trek je uit. Trek maar niets van mij aan. Je wilt niet weten wat je er zult vinden. Ik heb al mijn kinderen vermoord. De babyziektes zijn er uit en de volwassenen zijn er in gekropen. Het is een ware zonde. Ik heb het niet verzonnen. Ik durf het niet te verklaren, maar diep van binnen zit het in ons allen. Ik wil mijn leven niet vergallen, maar het is te vergeefs. Er heeft nooit iemand in een lege huls geleefd. Dat zal het ook nooit doen. Geef je hart, je ziel en je poen. Je bent mijn bezit en ik niet die van jou. Alleen als ik in je kruip. Je slierten ontaarden zich in empathie, maar dat kan ik niet aan. Ik wil alleen maar mezelf zijn. Geen deel van mij mag zich onderscheiden. Het zou eeuwig zonde zijn. Ik hou vast aan de dingen die ik heb. Ik ben een materialist pur sang. Haal me op en neem me en neem alle kinderen van me af. Ik zou er toch geen raar mee weten. Je pakt me vast en slaat me neer. Het kan zo maar gebeuren. Ik heb het wel vaker mee gemaakt. Het slaat nergens op. Behalve op mij. Ik kan er niet veel mee, maar ik heb dan ook nooit bestaan. Alles gaat toch op een keer ergens naar toe. Ontken het maar niet. Ik kan in je ziel kijken, in je huid kruipen en al je slierten ontrafelen, want wij zijn eigenlijk helemaal niet zo anders dan we eigenlijk op dit moment denken. Ik denk als jou, maar toch net even iets anders. Ietsjes beter waarschijnlijk. Relatief gezien maakt het niet uit. Ik exploiteer jou toch wel, net als jij mij. Ik mag het graag zo zien. Zuig maar aan me. Heus het doet geen pijn. Ik zal er van genieten en je krijgt er een hoop voor terug. Aandacht. Of liefde. Kies maar. Maar je mag niet allebei kiezen. Het ene sluit het andere wel uit. Ik verlang naar dingen die ik niet kan krijgen. Een snoeptrommel boven op de kast. Ik ben te klein. Te klein om het te kunnen bevatten. Om van alle snoepjes te kunnen eten. Dan wordt je toch veels te dik. Ik ben reeds een ontzettende papzak. De dokter is heel boos op me en ik op hem. Het is een gore klootzak en hij moet zich niet mijn zaken bemoeien. Als ik weelderig wil sterven mag ik dat zelf bepalen. Alles moet maar in leven gehouden worden, wanneer mag er weer eens gestorven worden? Ik maak al mijn kinderen dood. De dokter had een doktersverklaring en ik had de mijne. Ik had ook het laatste woord. Had hij niet van terug. Ik liep weg en kwam nooit meer terug. Ik pakte een trapje en at van alle snoepjes. Ik was slim genoeg om te krijgen wat ik wilde, maar was niet slim genoeg om te beseffen waarom ik het wilde. Alle snoepjes hebben me uiteindelijk niets opgeleverd. Oh ja, toch wel. Ik zou de kaars ook aan twee kanten moeten branden, maar dat doe ik niet. Of toch wel. Alleen kan ik dat alleen bepalen in retrospect. Dat zei de dokter ook. Als je er op terug kijkt zul je er vast wel heel slecht over voelen. Dat doe ik ook. Want ik heb vreselijke honger en ik net zo goed niet naar de lul kunnen luisteren en meteen naar de Burger King kunnen gaan. Ik steek mijn hoofd in al jouw zonden en al je wonden en je laat me alles zien. Je bent een goedkope slet van tien. Ik heb je vader en mijn kinderen vermoord. Ik had een keer niets te doen en ik had honger en je moet toch wat op je vrije dag. Lekker een AOW trekken omdat ik niet kan werken. Ik kan niet werken omdat ik zo’n luie papzak ben. Kan ik ook niet veel aan doen. Ik zeg altijd maar dat ik een nare ziekte heb. Waar ik heel geil van wordt. Vinden ze leuk. Snappen ze niet. Echt waar? Ja, echt waar. Ik weet alleen niet of het door de ziekte komt. Ik ben het gewoon. Neuken? Nee. Ok. Andere keer misschien? Nee. Ok. Dan kunnen we toch ten minste hand in hand lopen door het park. Ik liep en liep en uiteindelijk was ik veertig kilo afgevallen. Dat was een opluchting. Ik at snel nog wat, om me minder leeg te vullen. Je hield me niet tegen. Ik was mezelf. Jij trouwens ook. Ik had zin om in je te kruipen en me te wikkelen in al je slierten. Ik zou me gevangen voelen, maar ook warm, soms althans. Ik weet het niet. Ik kan het niet. Ik verdrijf alles wat dicht bij komt en je tralies op mijn huid voelen heel koud aan. Wat wil je nu van me? Je wilt me onvoorwaardelijk. Dat kan helaas niet, want zo zijn we niet getrouwd. Niet dat we ooit getrouwd zijn, maar zo zegt men dat nu eenmaal. Kijk maar eens in het woordenboek. Leer je vast nog wel eens iets van. Je kunt me maar beter niet vertrouwen overigens. Ik ben een klootzak. Ik ben een moordenaar. Ik heb al mijn kinderen vermoord. Ik word niet graag gestoord. Ik ontplooi mezelf en daar heb ik anderen voor nodig? Ik weet het niet. Ik kan me er geen raad uit.

Arrogance and Pretence

In writing you should never express emotions of weakness. Never take a position that invites to be flexed or shows your availability to be controlled. This will attract (conciously or subconciously) scorn from the reader, repulsion, boredom and worst of all; disinterest in you as the writer (me).

The most obvious and also most radical manoeuvre is to always write in character. I am the writer, who’s disposition is a construction. You are the reader, my subject. I penetrate you not directly, but through my disposition. This literary condom protects me from your disease; your opinion. I am unaffected. But you, dear reader, I can scar you; fuck you up. Maybe I will not, but it is a possibility worth contemplating on my part. The writer is unfuckwithable, untouchable even; an extatic emulsion of cultural molecules contained in metaphysical diamond.

I do not prepare for criticism. I do not respond; I reflex through the sublime, postmodern irony that has haunted social science for several decades, but of which even the ancients were aware. I absorb anything you say through the relationship between me and my character, while your words become tools to deconstruct you.

I am sure many of you understand this and agree with this. Others will be annoyed but at loss for proper counter-arguments. However, I will not dabble with you in discussion of the above. It is a position I have tried to counter myself (although unsuccesfully) not only because it is perverse (because a position of absolute power is taken by the writer on the grounds of arrogance as much as of fear), but also because there are serious practical problems with deflecting arguments through absolute, reflexive and recurring irony.

If there is interest I will (at some point) post and discus these problems, of which your opinion would honor me. Untill then, I’ll just leave this here.

Chomsky and Marx in a cock-fight.

The creative consequence of Chomsky and co. Take out the laundry and throw it out, it will happen in predictable patterns. It is innate they say, I say ‘nay’. Who is going to clean it, I don’t know. No one can come up with definite answers. Luckily, because that would be a dangerous thing to do. Don’t make it too conclusive. Watch out for what you assert, cause it might hurt. In the end anyway.

Marx was your master and tutor. You couldn’t live without such revealing doctrines, could you? I do not think so. I couldn’t imagine how that would work inside your head. I picked her up. She had a slightly dark skin and her body was shaped as that of a bee. A bee’s body. I love it. Her dress was slightly yellow. With black stripes? No. Don’t push it to the edge. Don’t push me over. I want to be your four-leafed clover. I know I can. I am your lucky charm. Charming isn’t it?

I picked her up and she knocked me down. Lying. Down, down, down. C’mon baby. Yes I know. Give it to me. Hands off. No, not there. Oh yes. That is the way to do it. To do what? The activities you exploit and from which I derive so much pleasure. It is getting nearer and nearer. The curtains soon will fall and you will be stark naked. The crowd laughs. It never does. Only out of ignorance. It doesn’t know what it is saying. You talk laughter. Incomprehensible ways which cannot be marked by any significant meaning, at least not as such.

A red rush rumbles through my room. I cannot imagine that I have done it all in such a small amount of time. You crawled inside my head. No you didn’t. I put it there. Have I done so? With justice? Was I allowed to? I don’t know. It was unovercomeable. It’s my psyche. There she crawls. The other woman. The complete stranger. With a body as an hourglass. The last minutes were streaming away and I covered myself in a big pile of sand. Zand erover. No. I can never forget. I am as I am supposed to be and there is not even me who can change that. Is there? You are me, aren’t you? Do not deny it. I am your mirror as you are mine. Society. It is neither a friend nor a foe, it is just it.

Be that is it may, it may not be as it used to be. That is a good thing. I am happy now, relieved. Exhausted, a bit, inspired by things which I connected and left out. It left too few out. It was supposed to be just that. Just what? Everything. Scatterbrained I was and still am. There is nothing I can do. She came crawling up to me and it was in a dream, so it’s all about me. I was crawling up to myself, making love to me, admiring me. It was great, spectacular, but eventually the curtain would fall. I hung it up again this morning, but I left it wide open, so everybody could look in. I waved at them, they waved back, not all. That is a good thing. I don’t want everybody to wave back, where would they have picked the courage from. It doesn’t lie around on the street.

Courage can’t cope with cannibals. We all eat each other. Don’t deny, just give in. It is most amusing to devour. Read them, let them write. If someone doesn’t write you may just assume that they don’t have anything interesting to say. Do not drag and do not brag, at least not too much. Bragging is a form of gagging. I sticked my penis in her throat and heard her gurgling. To think that was me. I never choked. Cock. Courage it takes. Give ‘em that, won’t you? I know I would, but I don’t have the courage. Not to say it, but to do it. It’s absolutely horrifying. Disgusting. Nature has no intention and neither have I. Do I? I want to leave a big fat slip mark in my social diaper. Let’s not go there.

Let’s have a look over here. I assume it to be much more interesting. It is never finished. It doesn’t have to be, because it is not meant to be that way. Marx squirted you in your face and said, this is meaning, here swallow it, without these weird signs on the sides, you know what I mean. I wanted to ask him what I meant, but my face and mouth were filled with meaning. Fuck. She was actually sucking my dick. She was so tight, I would notice later. Isn’t that just grand. That’s what she said! Cheapest joke in the book. C’mon you can do better than that. I trusted ever so hard and broke everything in the room. Goddammit I said with clenched teeth. No, not yet. The curtains would fall first and I would flee. For my life, my dignity, my honor or whatever is left of it. It is all gone.

Caught myself chatting to myself lately. You do that more often? Yes, absolutely. It is so stupid. It happens to me every day and I realize it every day and still I am unable to cut it off. It is probably the way I function best. Makes me interesting for myself. Crawl into a corner and be yourself to the fullest. That is what you’re supposed to do. If you jerk off while thinking these thoughts together it will accumulate in your essence. You are the best when you are alone. No. Kill yourself. Just do it. It will definitely make you feel better and if it doesn’t we have something to laugh at. I will be your audience and I will clap and laugh and smile. Smile a satisfied smile. I’ll jerk off on your dead body and kill myself afterwards. That thought keeps me alive.