Twittering
Flickring
I'm a systematically disappointing spin-off of the best friend you'll ever have and the worst enemy you'll ever make. I hate the third month of the year, I love Betty White, I fear old age, I'm a decent writer, an okay pianist, a terrible jack-in-the-box of puns and tear jerking one liners, and I can't dance.
I make every error of human reasoning, I don't break promises, I'm not a solipsist, I can't waste time, I'm a hypocrite, & a flirtatious cornucopia of cliche causes and ironic effects. My heart and my head are the same like in shrimp, and I'm begging just begging to get my heart broken by the next Byronic hero that walks by.
Give me a polar bear, and I'll give you my soul-which is nothing but a blissful reminder of why you miss childhood, and a spinning vortex of stinging insecurities and paralyzing self-doubt.
Following
Listening
Last Deere Class. Notes.
The greatest intensity in a relationship is through opening up and letting go. It’s activity. Not passivity.
You want to be the one that forces them to open up…to get through those boundaries. That’s something in you that makes you want to feel special.
Whoever likes the other person less, is the one who has the power. And it is a game. It’s not a game like a hobby, but it’s a game because it means something more, you’re working towards an objective, and you’re playing with someone else to get there.
Isn’t there a certain sense in the catch 22 of love part of the experience?
When youre at the verge of falling & you want them to fall in love with you, do you want them to fall in love in a way where once they fall, they are stuck in love, or do you want them to feel overwhelemed as if they had no choice? You want them to be overwhelmed through their own free agency.
Love means wanting someone to willingly enslave themselves to the powerful, overwhelming feeling of that love. And we expect that as the obligation. YOu want to take possession of their subjectivity, not by force, but by their own act of giving it to you. That’s pretty fucked up. But that’s what we want. We want people to freely obligate themselves to us as apart of love. Not accidental, arbitrary, or easily dismissed.
Our descriptions of love sound like a disease.
You notice how there could be a wide open field, and you manage to step in the ONE pile of dog shit that’s in the field.
We often think that love, when we feel it, is enough. It’s not. And the field of human relationships far exceeds how we might interact with people at times, but sometimes, no matter how much is there, it’s not enough for the relationship to continue.
John Stamos…he just keeps going. He’s like Chuck Norris.
Dont you think the ease with which we dismiss Freud is a pathology to how right he is.
If you’ve hit the point of VERBAL communication, maybe you’re not paying attention.
2 experiments: 1. Make a LOT more eye contact than you do with everyone & watch what happens.
2. If you’re talking 1 on 1 with somebody, subtly mimc their body movements.
Those who love best, don’t need love.
Chuck Klosterman has mommy issues.
Comments
Here you can embed a comment system of your choice, such as Disqus or Haloscan. By default, comments will only be enabled on posts tagged enablecomments. More information here.