October 15, 2017


This is my brain on dating and intimate relationships thus far.


If the main idea of partnership with a male is re-distribution of the male's 
financial assets, to me personally, that is no basis for an emotional bonding. 
Furthermore, a competition between CV's and academic degrees is of no 
interest to me. None. I'll always have something better to do than to talk 
about someone's wealth or his degrees.

Degrees are a nothing but a cosmetic curiosity at most, unless one is applying 
for a specific job. Elsewhere, they'd better remain what they are: titles only. 
Titles have any bearing only if they lead to certain pragmatic outcomes: e.g. level 
of argumentative or cognitive skills. 

Trying to build personal attachment on neutral, non-living substance, such as 
money or status, is utterly meaningless. Only people with low self-esteem 
build anything on cosmetics.  

If a woman _needs_ a man primarily to fulfill her personal dreams, there's a 
risk, that she appreciates the man only as a means to an end - not as a 
unique, special partner. The same is true for men, who are hunting for a 
breeding machine simply for their own genetics to pass on. 

The problem is that was there any good will in a person, he/she would not 
reduce someone into being just an enabler. 


Partnership between a man and a woman generates dependencies in-between. 
In a healthy relationship, they are hinged to the compatibility of their personalities. 
The man and the woman complement each other's gaps physically and mentally. 

In practice, this has nothing to do with status or money. A good solid relationship doesn't 
exist, because one of them needs a pedestal, or to be the permanent winner in ridiculous 
competitions, such as titles, politics or science. 

It exists, because the partner's appreciate each other, trust each other, encourage each 
other to develop themselves as individuals and also as a couple. And because they feel 
they share something unique together. They set the principles of their relationships 
privately, and do not see any inherent value in copying past or other relationships.

The trust in-between means, that should either some time feel that they no longer 
belong together, a good will between them doesn't end at the time a relationship does. 

As wise people commit to only people and environments they truly appreciate, the 
likelihood of a break-up is astronomically small. But the knowing of a peaceful atmosphere 
even at a time of departure, brings ease. It only deepens the respect between the man and the 
woman, should the theoretically small likelihood of it actualize.


No respect, no communication. Never get involved with people you don't respect. 
It's not for you to judge what they deserve, but certainly a chance to be respected 
by someone else is for anyone to give.

If someone is in agreement with you all the time, something important is probably 
being left unsaid. And also, never wish for perpetual synchrony. The idea is not to live 
life together without conflicts. It is to have meaningful conflicts. In a hierarchical 
relationship, where the one and the same person is always calling the shots, there's 
a risk that conflicts only worsen the oppressiveness of the relationship, while the leader 
learns nothing from them. 

Someone who is belittled and reduced into an icon, is never good enough of an 
inspiration to a person always competing against the very people who he's supposed 
to care very deeply.


Trust developed via the three features above. If trust doesn't develop, there's 
nothing that could replace it. Ever.

For me personally, the comeuppance of these four principles while dating, has 
turned out to be impossible. 

It doesn't mean I don't have hope. But it does mean, that I invest my hopes on 
other issues than the obviously scant likelihood of ever being someone's partner 
again. Although it hurts a bit to admit it, 

such realism pays itself back later on as fewer number of sad surprises.

October 14, 2017


Without fairness and good-will, collectively motivated deeds go in vain. 

In greater detail:

Financially, households are indebted at the moment in an unparalleled fashion
What does that tell us? Whatever analyses we draw from it, one thing is 
certain: the potential risk behind this would be minimal, if people have a solid 
sense of responsibility. In a practical sense it would ensue, that the loans will 
get paid in their due course, and also, that exaggerated loan requests do not 
even occur in the first place. Fundamentally, a responsible person is aware of 
his/her potentials and competence, as of incapacitations as well. 

We need people honestly recognizing their responsibilities. Just imagine 
how it would improve our society, if people were more responsible even 
in just two issues: their health and their finances. Anyone can start right 
away. And if incapacitated, a smart person asks for help, and does not 
let pride and denial get in the way of greater good.

And if we 'go crazy', we could even toss in a third theme: human relationships. 
Responsibility of behavior around other people is not a minor factor in the 
entity called societal safety. Anyone can categorically refuse to make empty 

Whether it is gratitude or critique, fairness is the lifeblood of both. A 
belittled response or an unfounded criticism both lead to the continuum of 
improvements becoming halted. At a personal level it's a setback - a 
depressive or a confusing state - and at a collective level the system 
lays idle instead of running forward. If people's sense of fairness is 
exaggerated in its self-servingness, or in its self-belittle, the interaction 
with the outside world becomes distorted. 

It is just as destructive to be tangled up in a vision, where anything important 
in life revolves around one's own belly, or that the actions of one person 
would not make any difference.

Particularly when a conflict is developing, we need a sense of justice. 
If this was a top enough priority, at the moment we'd be looking 
into our past, and wondering: 'how on earth our politicians ever made 
appointments to government positions prioritizing political motives 
over substance knowledge. How could we have been so lost in 
conflicts of interest!' 

What a primitive society we still are.

Also, find the time to recognize other forms of life than your own. You are 
part of a great system called nature - its health is your health. 

Pause and reflect over what option is least harmful to all whom it 
may concern. 

The sort of people who live only amidst their own kind, often fail to recognize 
more than one type of societal contribution. And when this happens, their 
idea of an ideal collective is actually a group of their self-replicants. Considering 
that as we're indeed talking about society, their irony is at a poetic level.

In order for a society to get to its best it can be, it needs to recognize variety, 
so that we could empower all the useful, pragmatic potential there are in 
people. For variety is a fact. 

Why else would we have imagination and creativity? We really 
need all the inputs we can get from all walks of life through a system, 
where the end-product would be a healthy living environment for all. 

Imagine if all we had was a hedge-fund manager -mentality. Or an 
artist declining to adhere to anything else except to a totalitarian 
artist's freedom. Or a political fundamentalist spending all his life 
in a religious-type of war against other parties. 

May this post also serve as praise and defense for all good-willed communities, 
no matter how mosaic they may seem. Not everyone is blessed with a wonderful 
spouse/biological children if children at all/mother/father/relatives/friends, so 
whoever the people are who share their good will with you, they are priceless. 

Instead of thinking less of those, who haven't gotten as much as you, spare your 
arrogance and instead, help them get forward. Otherwise, what's the use of 
mocking those, who you yourself most likely used to be at some earlier point in 
your life? 

When has uppity attitude ever improved things? 

September 04, 2017


Short conversations and confrontations of varying contexts with men. 
Occurring not so long ago.


- You want a wooden table with these measurements painted in white, 
preferably transparent, rustic white - not glossy and evenly finished?

- Yes. When do you think it'll be ready?

- Erm, probably in about two months.

- And the price, with these details?

- NN €

- Whoa, that's... well, it's a lot of money, but considerably less than 
with other competitors.

- I know. But the price is just for you.

- ...but why 'just for me'?

- Well, I can also add some, say a thousand, if you wish. *grin*

- I see, ok. So you'll send me the paperworks via e-mail?

- No, I don't do those. One needs to have trust. 

Not happening.

If it's too much asked to have the seller provide the details agreed upon 
on paper, it's a huge red flag. 

Never cease to expect bumping into a man, who thinks you're a perpetual 


- So when will you be returning to our 'base'?

- When my current boss and our boss have made an agreement. 

- But what is your own wish?

- My only wish is to have a job somewhere. I really don't care how long exactly 
my current episode lasts, as long as I don't fall off the wagon at any point.

- But it would clarify, if you yourself made it clear, when you wish to return. 

- But the picture is nonetheless a lot bigger than my preferences of returning. 
Wouldn't it be more practical, that the head of our department, who in any case 
overlooks the entity, decided, which timepoint would be most suitable for 
my return?

- If that happens, you're going to hang loose in our schedules. I'm not saying, 
you are about to fall off the wagon, but it may happen, that your return is 
always postponed, if you don't make a clear decision about when you're coming 

- I thought I was making it easier for everyone! As I don't have preferences, others 
could. And besides, I already asked a month ago. Our boss said, there are some moving 
bits in the picture, and it was not possible to say anything further. So what's the point 
of throwing in a timeline? Clearly a useless deed, unless of course, the situation 
has changed.

- Oh, I see. And sure from that point. But it may require, that in order for the issue to 
progress, you need be the deciding force.

- I seriously have no other wishes than to have no hiatuses in my life job-wise.

- But then we don't know, when you would like to return... 

And the loop went on a few rounds more. 

It seemed, that he assumed, that if I do not state a certain wish, whatever date they 
decide, I will be dissatisfied with. And all mayhem will happen. And that his persistence 
was the symptom of this assumption.

Well, it's my job for Pete's sake. Livelihood. Bread and butter. As long as there is 
one, I'll  stand my ground whenever necessary. Where there need not be lines drawn, 
I'd rather not draw them.


- Hey, erm.... would it be possible to have my desk lifted up a bit? 
It's a tad low.

- Sure. 

- No hurry. Any time is fine, in say, from next week on.

- How's Monday? 

- Very good. 

And so the Monday came.

*knock knock*

- Oh hey. Right. Come right in. So here. If you could lift it up some 10 cm, 
I'd have better ergonomic posture. I tried to find the tool to lift it, but the one 
in the room back there did not fit.

- Yeah, no. We have the right one here.

- Good. 

And so the two men rolled up their sleeves. Two engineer-looking types, a bit 
fussy round the edges with a 1-2 week old beard, both in their 40-50's. 

Confusingly enough, as they bent over to the floor to adjust the table, their 
pants glided 'fashionably' to the mid-butt-cheek -level. 

I could distinctly even see individual butt-hair sticking out, and in fact, there 
was probably more butt-hair bathing in the air, than there was fabric showing 
from their underpants. 

All this I realized in a microsecond, and right after, turned my head away, 
and 'found' something very important from the blank walls to fixate my eyes 

The image carved on my retinas, though, was a laborious one to wash out. 
Without their butts bulging in, I'd remember them as the handymen. Now 
they're the butt-men.

I've never understood that part in contemporary male fashion, where their 
pants fail to ever reach their waist.

Mind your butts, lads. Please. 

August 20, 2017


- So erm, my ideal girlfriend has got a master's academic degree _at most_.

- Why the roof ends there?

- Well, it's just that I'm traditional in these issues. 

- And this tradition is obviously of the sort, that you don't consider prudent to 
be questioned?

- No. 

- I see. Do you have an academic degree yourself?

- Yes. 

- You like to be on top, when it comes to academic ranks?

- Traditionally men are placed higher in hierarchies of knowledge 
and expertise, yes.

- Sure, but the key issue is whether or not that system is worth 
preserving and repeating - by you? Categorically? Independent on 
the actual personal characteristics and values? 

- Tradition. It counts. I already said so.

- Indeed. And if that broken record is the the end in your thread of 
arguments, if you don't mind me saying so, clearly - with women - the years 
spent at the University did not teach you to go any further than titles. 
At least in this instance. You mistake cosmetics for actual substance. 
Not exactly an intellectually stellar achievement.

- I just think that women aren't as qualified as scientific thinkers.

- We're humans all the same. Why not judge for yourself, case by case, unless 
that's also against tradition. By the way, do you also support the tradition of 
seemingly obvious favoritism of mothers in custody trials?

- The system is flawed against dads, in many cases. Of course I don't 
support it.

- I could say the same thing: "Dad's aren't as nurturing and caring 
as mothers. Traditionally, mothers assume greater responsibility of 
bringing up their offspring."

- No, that's different. Mother's vs. fathers and less vs. highly educated aren't 
quite in the same scale.

- In both cases there are practices, that have been running for decades, and 
both are prejudiced against a certain group. Do you still think that 'tradition' 
is a worthy argument here? Consider yourself as the father getting lesser rights over 
your children just because you're a man, thereby assumed 'less ideal a parent'. 
Then consider an academic scholar, who gets dumped, or is considered 'less ideal 
a woman', only because she has a degreeSeem fair to you?

*Crickets chirping*


- We need a solid, absolute moral. Like in the Bible. Moral relativism 
pushes us towards a societal mayhem.

- What is absolute about Bible? Ten commandments? The stories about 
stoning someone, who worked on a Sunday? The way raped women 
were punished over being unable to combat and resist a stronger attacker?

- No, that just indicates the time to book was gathered. We understand now, 
that cultures were more brutal back then.

- You've just chiseled down relativism: putting events and practices into 
context with when they happened and what were societies like at the time.
Putting into context = having a scale = having perspectives. Bible _today_ is among 
the worst examples of a moral absolute. But a really poignant case of how moral 
relativism pushes through old absolute commands, and picks and discards.

- They are metaphors! And you can translate them onto today's world. They're 

- Sure. But whether or not it is wise, pragmatic or truthful to speak of 
absolutes, when clearly the stuff needs to undergo some heavy surgery, is for 
all of us to judge. And we should.


- Just incidentally, how much would someone have to pay in order for you 
to not drink alcohol anymore?

- Let me see.... Well, I think the amount that it costs me, would probably 
do it. 

- Really? That's interesting. The lowest bid thus far that I've heard. Some 
speak of tens of thousands, or even millions. 

- I mean I could see myself not drinking anymore in, say, 10 years from 
now. Because of the health benefits gained from not drinking.

Considering the responses I've heard, this one was at the decent end. 
It still makes me wonder about the logic, though: the need to have an action 
paid in money, although the very action already pays itself in health benefits?

Alcohol - bringing up the irrational in people.

July 23, 2017


A star has gone out.

When Chris Cornell left, I was confused. It's perplexing when people want 
to cut the continuum of their life by their own hand - people who seemingly 
even had their social safety nets in place. And people who seemed to have 
ways to connect to their surroundings - in this case, music. And others 
seemed to connect back at them. 

Now that Chester left, I'm heartbroken. Linkin Park helped me through my 
probably most tense years thus far. I was in my twenties, and felt a potential 
inside, but struggled to let it out right. Their music helped. A gap of some 
years got built from those times, but even after such a pause, the lyrics still 
come back to me right from the start.

There's no point in explaining the magnetism of Linkin Park to a person, who 
has never had difficulties in finding his/her kins of spirit. Or fitting in. Whereas 
we, who've had curvy roads up ahead, we know the shades of dim that may develop 
inside our minds, when people try to squeeze you into a mold that you out-shape
You're off-the-charts. 'We didn't count your type in', they think. No locus for you. 

And the locus cannot be flawed, they insist, so you must be. 

The constant bouncing back from encounters, that turned up deceitful -
it eats you up, and recovery is a burden. You're getting old by watching scar 
tissue develop every once in a while, amidst wondering, if it ever stops. 
Or if there's that much intact skin left to take any more hits or cuts.

For an introvert, remaining by oneself can absolutely be a solace. A gift. A treasure.
But not having a firm safety net of other trustworthy, understanding, sincere people 
outside that singular space, it can get scary. And if it does, you stop seeing 
colors, you lose horizon. You find "you are running like the sky is falling", you 
are talking to yourselfAt the other side of table is less and less an actual person 
- but rather, a book, a movie, a song, a scenery, or a documentary. You get confined 
into your own scull more and more. It's both your rescue and your threat all in one 
package. Remaining balanced is swinging on the tip of a sword. 

It is not a stretch to imagine, that hardships can pile up in a way, that even the 
most gifted, talented, popular and widely loved of people feel they cannot stand 
upright anymore. Indeed, you do need a hell of an antidote to counteract the poison, 
that some people spill around - whether you are a star musician or just a nobody 
from a neighborhood. Humans all the same. Especially, if that someone is one of 
those, who you've let really close, and suddenly, one time they just picked up their 
metaphorical knives and started claiming their greed or bitterness on you. 

I wish you a most peaceful rest, Chester. Sir.

Perhaps to you, your journey was now overdue. But for the rest of us, you will 
be eternally missed - with perpetual gratitude of putting yourself once out there 
through your music for the lesser of us to find, to have as an inspiration and to 
sing along - to have as a companion especially at times, when there aren't that 
much else to have as one. 

You turned many moments, that at first presented themselves merely as blunt 
instruments, into a meaningful path of personal growth.

Hats off.

June 02, 2017


Basically, the ultimate merit of conservatism is a fundamental reluctance to 
make changes. This way systems, that actually work, will also remain that way. 
Conservatism protects traditions, echoes from the past, or existing protocols. 

Industrial, technical and societal improvements, when they happen fast (e.g. 
several times during one generation) tend to provoke general enthusiasm to make 
changes just for the sake of it. And changing something 'just because' poses a 
threat of ridding something that needed no revision in the first place.

The ultimate flaw of conservatism is of similar type. The general resistance to 
change is no rational antidote for obsessive, constant and useless development. 
Non-selectiveness, whether it is of conservative or progressive nature, can protect 
or create harmful systems.

What conservative ideologies withhold, are - to a considerable extent - traditions 
being passed on. However, since traditions tend to collide with modern new 
challenges in the mix, some conservatives find themselves in a tight spot. 
Often, development, in a practical sense, is actually just an increase in options. 
This is a burden to conservatives. The traditional way has heavier competition now, 
and out of all the options the original choice should be able to stand out as a winner. 

This may lead to a situation where conservatives feel they cannot quite publicize 
all their views any longer - at least not without unwanted repercussions. The rest - 
the opponents of conservatives, if you will - now consist of a wider variety of opposing 
views than they used to. As recent decades have brought about an increase in the number 
of new rivaling ideologies and sub-ideologies, conservatives now battle against a 
multitude of fronts. 

As an example, there are still men, who  
- would disinherit their daughter(s) and leave everything only to their son(s)
- would not allow their daughter(s) to get an education, unlike their son(s)
- think that politics, theater or university is no place for a woman
- would deny their daughter(s) the right to vote
- order women how to dress themselves
- are customers of the oldest profession in the world
- in a setting of customer vs. prostitute, consider the latter as the one with no 

This has all happened, at a societal and global scale, and to an extent is still 
going on. Back then it happened because there was not much choice. Force and 
arms tend not to accumulate with women, and such a tendency came with a defeat.

Now imagine a woman
- disinheriting her son(s) and giving everything only to her daughter(s)
- forbidding her son(s) to get an education
- thinking that men do not belong to science, theater or politics
- opposing men's right to vote
- telling a man how he should dress up, so that it would not tempt her too much
- being a customer of a male-prostitute
- thinking, that she as an entertainment buyer has more dignity than he as a seller 

At a comparable scale, this has never happened, and men would never agree to live 
like that (nor should they). If such an era was looming around, men would make 
a vocal and a rebellious uprise. They'd orchestrate a coup d'etat, and assume power 

And as a rule, men fail to see the irony.

I don't support feminists for a number of reasons. 
But I do understand, if many women still feel angry, rebellious and even 
vengeful. However, revenge itself is never a solution to anything meaningful. 

Often a mere avoidance of unnecessarily loud individuals - conservative or 
progressive, men or women - keeps up the necessary peace. Furthermore, what should 
always be conserved, is self-respect - without harming others in the process.

What may also be required are long periods of solitude.

May 25, 2017


How can you quickly tell, if an ideology is destructive or not?

Suspicions should arise, when one or more of the following is true.

- Rights and privileges are unnecessarily unevenly dealt.

- It defines rights based on something that people inherently and involuntarily 
are - instead of something that they do. The condition people are born into, is 
taken as a primary merit or a permanent incapacitation.

- When rights and privileges are based on something outside the willpower of the 
person, it not only generates favoritism of the haves at the expense of the have-nots, 
but also undeniably accepts that the condition is permanent. One cannot evolve 
no matter how much meaningfulness he/she engages in, but rather, is doomed to 
his/her locus. 

- The superior ones cannot screw up their position no matter how destructive 
their actions are, and the inferior ones cannot upgrade theirs despite how much good 
they spread around. Perpetual immunity vs. perpetual imprisonment.

- After separating people this way to those on top and those below, the privileged 
ones would not accept to live like the inferiors do - a life without their special rights. 
Yet they expect the inferior ones to happily and willingly do so. 

- The superiors believe, that they could manage without the inferiors, but the inferiors 
who refuse to accept this system, they deem as fools.

- The superiors believe, that no other system can be as good. Naturally, it is oddly 
self-serving coming from the superior floor with all their unique privileges, but....

- ... self-reflection is not a strength of the superiors. The idea of dealing out or sharing 
their personal privileges with anyone, even the significant other, never visits their 
inner monologue. Their main focus is on self-affirmation and related confirmation 

- What may be defined as "a greater good", can be as self-absorbed as the delusion 
that the privileged ones should be the rightful gatekeepers of how much rights, if any, 
the inferior ones can ever have. 

- The ideology makes no attempts to align with other systems. Ideas of improving the 
ideology are redundant, as all the rights and privileges are already - and unilaterally - 
dealt. There's no room to move. And to have room, would be to accept that the system 
is flawed. 

Fat chance.