Saturday, May 01, 2004
Eternal childhood
Think there's no such thing? Maybe not, but we're sure TRYING.
It's not that long since TEENAGERS were considered adults; by the age of 20, nearly everyone was out of their parental home and married, and working on whatever they'd be doing for the rest of their lives. Meanwhile, in the current era, I know several people who are 40, FORTY, or older who are still living with their families, aren't even dating, and are working menial jobs or none. When do THEY become adults, I mean REAL adults?
There's a far bigger group of people out there who, in their 20's and even their 30's, are living like college kids; their homes are hardly better than dorms, with hand-me-down furniture and mismatched kitchenware, and no hint of the tidiness and graciousness that used to be associated with a home inhabited by adults, their cars are garbage cans with wheels (which are rarely paid for), they dress like street people outside of work and sometimes AT work, and they date casually, and play house together just as casually, as if it's possible, or even desirable, to never reach true adulthood... and thus perhaps live forever?
Why are we waiting longer and longer to live like adults? What do people GAIN by being kids with crow's feet? The main thing you hear from these folks is how they don't want to lose their freedom and independence by settling down; do you suppose any of them know how childish that sounds? After all, ONLY a child should expect to be able to live their life with no responsibilities, without having to take other people into account when making choices, without having to plan for the future, so why do we have so many so-called adults holding that up as an ideal?
We've become unwilling to appreciate any sort of pleasure that doesn't come running up to us and shove enjoyment down our throats, so to speak. Because the countless deep satisfactions of being married to someone you want to be with forever, having a well-cared-for home that you don't plan to leave after a 1-year lease is up, and forming a real family, aren't glaringly obvious when you haven't experienced them, it's easy to be seduced by the familiar pleasures of being a slob, spending $ faster than you earn it, and blundering through life with no goals... hey, I didn't say that *I* thought those things were great, did you expect me to make them sound glamorous, lol?
The point is: If you don't commit to real adulthood, and someone to share it with, you'll be missing out on the most intense enjoyment available to homo sapiens. Don't put it off until you're too old to build a good life; the sooner you get started, the sooner you'll get to the REAL good stuff.
It's not that long since TEENAGERS were considered adults; by the age of 20, nearly everyone was out of their parental home and married, and working on whatever they'd be doing for the rest of their lives. Meanwhile, in the current era, I know several people who are 40, FORTY, or older who are still living with their families, aren't even dating, and are working menial jobs or none. When do THEY become adults, I mean REAL adults?
There's a far bigger group of people out there who, in their 20's and even their 30's, are living like college kids; their homes are hardly better than dorms, with hand-me-down furniture and mismatched kitchenware, and no hint of the tidiness and graciousness that used to be associated with a home inhabited by adults, their cars are garbage cans with wheels (which are rarely paid for), they dress like street people outside of work and sometimes AT work, and they date casually, and play house together just as casually, as if it's possible, or even desirable, to never reach true adulthood... and thus perhaps live forever?
Why are we waiting longer and longer to live like adults? What do people GAIN by being kids with crow's feet? The main thing you hear from these folks is how they don't want to lose their freedom and independence by settling down; do you suppose any of them know how childish that sounds? After all, ONLY a child should expect to be able to live their life with no responsibilities, without having to take other people into account when making choices, without having to plan for the future, so why do we have so many so-called adults holding that up as an ideal?
We've become unwilling to appreciate any sort of pleasure that doesn't come running up to us and shove enjoyment down our throats, so to speak. Because the countless deep satisfactions of being married to someone you want to be with forever, having a well-cared-for home that you don't plan to leave after a 1-year lease is up, and forming a real family, aren't glaringly obvious when you haven't experienced them, it's easy to be seduced by the familiar pleasures of being a slob, spending $ faster than you earn it, and blundering through life with no goals... hey, I didn't say that *I* thought those things were great, did you expect me to make them sound glamorous, lol?
The point is: If you don't commit to real adulthood, and someone to share it with, you'll be missing out on the most intense enjoyment available to homo sapiens. Don't put it off until you're too old to build a good life; the sooner you get started, the sooner you'll get to the REAL good stuff.
Thursday, April 29, 2004
With a whimper rather than a bang, sigh
Tonight was the final night of Mad Mad House, and I'm hoping like crazy that one of the vampire shows, or some show, or maybe a movie, will snap up Don the sexy vampire, because I'll be VERY bummed to never see him again. He managed to be even more appealing than before on this final show; they made him go BOWLING, and he did it even though he didn't want to, because he thought it would be hypocritical not to. Although he had never bowled before, and his super-long nails made it uncertain whether or not he could even get his fingers into the holes, he beat the pants off of all of them.... it must have been his magnetism at work.
Sadly, though, he ended up NOT seeing through the sociopath OR making an insightful judgment in the final eliminations; it doesn't matter, as I'd still jump on him so that he'd NEED to be an actual immortal being to get over it, given the chance, hehehehehe.
So, the show: the first half of the 2-hour endgame was focused on going from 3 (the frontrunner, the sociopath, and the pleasant girl) to the final 2, and it centered on the final challenge, which was how long they could hang in the air standing on a hook. The sociopath, who is all talk and no substance, was by far the first to drop out, which was enjoyable to see; sadly, they gave him the opportunity to screw over the girl of his choice by hanging extra weight off of her, so of course he picked the frontrunner, which led to her losing... and suddenly the pleasant girl was immune from elimination and guaranteed to be in the top 2.
Karma kicked the sociopath's butt, thanks goodness; evil is at its base blind and stupid, and the sociopath, in his eagerness to stick it to the frontrunner, failed to recognize that if the frontrunner won, it would be him vs the pleasant girl at the elimination, and he would probably win, and so he should have given HER the weight to be SURE that he survived the elimination, but he failed... it was him vs the frontrunner in the elimination, and he LOST, and so didn't even get a shot at being the big winner.
The 2nd hour was really a waste of time, as the 5 "rites of passage" that they put the top 2, the frontrunner and the pleasant girl, through, were wimpy, boring, and lame. They then brought back all the eliminated guests and let them carp and rave, which to me is monotonous, but is probably good for the ratings... and of course they ragged on the frontrunner, which led to the judges revealing that many of them had been eliminated because of their incessant badmouthing of her, and how it was too easy to attack someone so beautiful and talented, and... I KNEW she was doomed.
If a woman is smart, strong and ultra-capable, people of both genders will tend to automatically start out judging against her; to counteract that, she needs to be exceptionally accommodating, docile, sweet, etc... and if she isn't, even the authority figures will be against her, and will side with the group that attacks rather than the innocent victim, as they almost always do. The ONLY time that those in authority will speak up for the victim is when they're about to kick her/him in the head... and this time was no exception.
The judges had nothing to say in defense of the frontrunner, or against the attackers, all through the process, and suddenly at the end they were talking about how impressive she was... so of course she was eliminated. The one who was the frontrunner from day 1, who, despite being smiley and friendly to everyone all the time (but NOT docile), was disliked from day 1, the one who was worth more than all the rest of them put together times 10, LOST,
The beautiful, pleasant girl, who never did anything, who flubbed all the trials until the final one when she was given a win that she didn't earn..... this girl who never challenged anyone, never intimidated anyone, who everyone could look down on a little because she was a stripper and a single mom... this girl who always had her boobs hanging out, but other than that was just a backdrop for those who were actually making an effort.....
The beautiful girl who was pleasant and nonconfrontational was the one that was given the prize..... I guess some reality shows DO show reality after all.
Sadly, though, he ended up NOT seeing through the sociopath OR making an insightful judgment in the final eliminations; it doesn't matter, as I'd still jump on him so that he'd NEED to be an actual immortal being to get over it, given the chance, hehehehehe.
So, the show: the first half of the 2-hour endgame was focused on going from 3 (the frontrunner, the sociopath, and the pleasant girl) to the final 2, and it centered on the final challenge, which was how long they could hang in the air standing on a hook. The sociopath, who is all talk and no substance, was by far the first to drop out, which was enjoyable to see; sadly, they gave him the opportunity to screw over the girl of his choice by hanging extra weight off of her, so of course he picked the frontrunner, which led to her losing... and suddenly the pleasant girl was immune from elimination and guaranteed to be in the top 2.
Karma kicked the sociopath's butt, thanks goodness; evil is at its base blind and stupid, and the sociopath, in his eagerness to stick it to the frontrunner, failed to recognize that if the frontrunner won, it would be him vs the pleasant girl at the elimination, and he would probably win, and so he should have given HER the weight to be SURE that he survived the elimination, but he failed... it was him vs the frontrunner in the elimination, and he LOST, and so didn't even get a shot at being the big winner.
The 2nd hour was really a waste of time, as the 5 "rites of passage" that they put the top 2, the frontrunner and the pleasant girl, through, were wimpy, boring, and lame. They then brought back all the eliminated guests and let them carp and rave, which to me is monotonous, but is probably good for the ratings... and of course they ragged on the frontrunner, which led to the judges revealing that many of them had been eliminated because of their incessant badmouthing of her, and how it was too easy to attack someone so beautiful and talented, and... I KNEW she was doomed.
If a woman is smart, strong and ultra-capable, people of both genders will tend to automatically start out judging against her; to counteract that, she needs to be exceptionally accommodating, docile, sweet, etc... and if she isn't, even the authority figures will be against her, and will side with the group that attacks rather than the innocent victim, as they almost always do. The ONLY time that those in authority will speak up for the victim is when they're about to kick her/him in the head... and this time was no exception.
The judges had nothing to say in defense of the frontrunner, or against the attackers, all through the process, and suddenly at the end they were talking about how impressive she was... so of course she was eliminated. The one who was the frontrunner from day 1, who, despite being smiley and friendly to everyone all the time (but NOT docile), was disliked from day 1, the one who was worth more than all the rest of them put together times 10, LOST,
The beautiful, pleasant girl, who never did anything, who flubbed all the trials until the final one when she was given a win that she didn't earn..... this girl who never challenged anyone, never intimidated anyone, who everyone could look down on a little because she was a stripper and a single mom... this girl who always had her boobs hanging out, but other than that was just a backdrop for those who were actually making an effort.....
The beautiful girl who was pleasant and nonconfrontational was the one that was given the prize..... I guess some reality shows DO show reality after all.
Do YOU want a relationship with an "equal"? REALLY?!! (CAST YOUR VOTE)
Everyone talks a good game these days about wanting a relationship with someone who is neither "above" them or "below" them in areas like intelligence and success, so that they can be "equals"... but is there any truth to it?
I was brought up short when I read the Sunday funnies last week and saw in "Cathy" that she expected to give up paying for ANY of the bills once she was married... just like the traditional woman. This strip was funny (in addition to being horrifying) because it held a kernel of truth that we can all recognize; there are plenty of otherwise modern women who, however smart and successful they are, STILL want a man to be "above" them and so be a quasi-daddy to them once they're married... yet another sign of the failure of feminism.
Worse, some smart/successful women have been admitting that they don't have much respect for, or sexual interest in, men that are "below their level"... and some men, not surprisingly, who are admitting that they feel intimidated, put off, or just not interested in women who are "above them." This is one of the many ways that feminism has failed women, by creating situations where the women work hard on their educations and careers, thinking they're getting a better life, only to become LESS attractive to men, and, worse, less attracted TO perfectly acceptable men that they would have liked just fine under other circumstances; what does it gain you to make more $ but have no family life?
Neither gender is too unhappy for the most part if they are in the traditional roles, with the man being smarter and/or more successful, though; the double standard is alive and well.
Most people are no longer motivated directly by the desire to be "traditional," of course; these days, we go more for what "feels right," for whatever suits our emotional needs, which can lead to either the traditional roles or to both partners battling for the favored role traditionally held by men. The latter possibility means that, because greater intelligence/success means greater relationship power, some people of both genders would like to be "on top," or at least not have the other person "above them"; this can lead indirectly to equality, sort of, but not of an admirable kind (there's nothing admirable about "you're no better than ME").
There ARE certainly people who want their partner to be their equal, and some of them even achieve that; although that sounds ideal, if one of the partners gets a better job or decides to pursue an advanced degree, the whole thing can come tumbling down unless both parties are REALLY secure in their feelings of self-worth.
What confuses things even more, and clouds our perceptions, is that people often don't feel able to tell the truth about how they'd like their relationships to be. It's not PC for people to admit that they want to be "above" their partner, so one assumes that fewer people say it than feel it, especially among women, since it's "unwomanly" to want to be smarter/more successful than the man. It would be almost embarrassing to admit that one wants their partner to be above THEM, so one assumes that folks stay mum about this one, too, especially MEN, who don't want to seem "unmanly"... and all this leads to us having no idea whatsoever how anyone feels about any of this.
*I* think that equality is the most enjoyable arrangement, since it leads to being able to interact in a way that feels like a stimulating partnership rather than like parent and child, but there is still that leaning towards the man being "above" the woman in intelligence, success... height, age, strength, courage, skill in practically everything... that exists in both the male AND the female halves of the population, not just here and there but pervasively. Is it biological, cultural, or both? We'll have to have a few more generations of women able to educate themselves and have careers to the same degree that men do to tell... I sure HOPE it's cultural, but that doesn't mean it will end up that way.
Where do YOU stand on this issue? What, in your most secret heart of hearts, do you REALLY want your position to be in the intelligence/success areas compared to your partner? Vote in the poll, and we'll see. :-)
I was brought up short when I read the Sunday funnies last week and saw in "Cathy" that she expected to give up paying for ANY of the bills once she was married... just like the traditional woman. This strip was funny (in addition to being horrifying) because it held a kernel of truth that we can all recognize; there are plenty of otherwise modern women who, however smart and successful they are, STILL want a man to be "above" them and so be a quasi-daddy to them once they're married... yet another sign of the failure of feminism.
Worse, some smart/successful women have been admitting that they don't have much respect for, or sexual interest in, men that are "below their level"... and some men, not surprisingly, who are admitting that they feel intimidated, put off, or just not interested in women who are "above them." This is one of the many ways that feminism has failed women, by creating situations where the women work hard on their educations and careers, thinking they're getting a better life, only to become LESS attractive to men, and, worse, less attracted TO perfectly acceptable men that they would have liked just fine under other circumstances; what does it gain you to make more $ but have no family life?
Neither gender is too unhappy for the most part if they are in the traditional roles, with the man being smarter and/or more successful, though; the double standard is alive and well.
Most people are no longer motivated directly by the desire to be "traditional," of course; these days, we go more for what "feels right," for whatever suits our emotional needs, which can lead to either the traditional roles or to both partners battling for the favored role traditionally held by men. The latter possibility means that, because greater intelligence/success means greater relationship power, some people of both genders would like to be "on top," or at least not have the other person "above them"; this can lead indirectly to equality, sort of, but not of an admirable kind (there's nothing admirable about "you're no better than ME").
There ARE certainly people who want their partner to be their equal, and some of them even achieve that; although that sounds ideal, if one of the partners gets a better job or decides to pursue an advanced degree, the whole thing can come tumbling down unless both parties are REALLY secure in their feelings of self-worth.
What confuses things even more, and clouds our perceptions, is that people often don't feel able to tell the truth about how they'd like their relationships to be. It's not PC for people to admit that they want to be "above" their partner, so one assumes that fewer people say it than feel it, especially among women, since it's "unwomanly" to want to be smarter/more successful than the man. It would be almost embarrassing to admit that one wants their partner to be above THEM, so one assumes that folks stay mum about this one, too, especially MEN, who don't want to seem "unmanly"... and all this leads to us having no idea whatsoever how anyone feels about any of this.
*I* think that equality is the most enjoyable arrangement, since it leads to being able to interact in a way that feels like a stimulating partnership rather than like parent and child, but there is still that leaning towards the man being "above" the woman in intelligence, success... height, age, strength, courage, skill in practically everything... that exists in both the male AND the female halves of the population, not just here and there but pervasively. Is it biological, cultural, or both? We'll have to have a few more generations of women able to educate themselves and have careers to the same degree that men do to tell... I sure HOPE it's cultural, but that doesn't mean it will end up that way.
Where do YOU stand on this issue? What, in your most secret heart of hearts, do you REALLY want your position to be in the intelligence/success areas compared to your partner? Vote in the poll, and we'll see. :-)
Soul poll results
Thank you to all who participated in my first poll. Here are the results:
Soul poll
What sorts of animals have souls?
All living creatures have souls 56.8% (50 votes)
None-only humans have souls 25% (22 votes)
Some of the more advanced mammals, such as dogs, cats and apes, have souls 8% (7 votes)
All creatures have souls, except for really primitive ones like bugs and worms 6.8% (6 votes)
All mammals have souls 2.3% (2 votes)
All warm-blooded animals (mammals and birds) have souls 1.1% (1 vote)
total votes: 88
You can still vote in the poll here:
http://www.blogpoll.com/poll/view_Poll.php?type=java&poll_id=3313
and see the latest results here:
http://www.blogpoll.com/poll/view_Results.php?poll_id=3313
Considering how few people I've encountered that believe in ANY non-humans having souls, I'm astounded, but VERY pleased, by these results. :-)
Soul poll
What sorts of animals have souls?
All living creatures have souls 56.8% (50 votes)
None-only humans have souls 25% (22 votes)
Some of the more advanced mammals, such as dogs, cats and apes, have souls 8% (7 votes)
All creatures have souls, except for really primitive ones like bugs and worms 6.8% (6 votes)
All mammals have souls 2.3% (2 votes)
All warm-blooded animals (mammals and birds) have souls 1.1% (1 vote)
total votes: 88
You can still vote in the poll here:
http://www.blogpoll.com/poll/view_Poll.php?type=java&poll_id=3313
and see the latest results here:
http://www.blogpoll.com/poll/view_Results.php?poll_id=3313
Considering how few people I've encountered that believe in ANY non-humans having souls, I'm astounded, but VERY pleased, by these results. :-)
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Remakes
For nearly all movies that get remade, my only comment is, "Why?" When there's already a brilliant movie made of a given story, what possesses the Hollywood twits to do it AGAIN?!! Worse, why do they churn out remakes when whoever starred in the original was so perfect for the role that no one else can ever compare?
For example, Errol Flynn was BORN to be Robin Hood; he is the ultimate Robin Hood for all eternity... yet, not only did they remake it, they picked that wishy-washy stonefaced Kevin Costner to play him. Every time the ad would come on, "Kevin Costner IS Robin Hood," I'd shriek at the top of my lungs, "NO!! Kevin Costner is NOT Robin Hood!! Errol Flynn is Robin Hood, and he's turning over in his grave!! AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!"
I felt almost as strongly about the remake of "The King and I"; how DARE anyone play that role after Yule Brenner did it?!!
A final hideous example is the remake of "Sabrina"; Audrey Hepburn was the very embodiment of that role, and what were thinking when they decided to turn the role into a display of cleavage rather than class?
Even when you don't have an actor that was the best possible "version" of the main character, the remake of a movie usually makes you groan in dismay; if you see the remake first and like it, and then see the original, you are usually at a loss as to how you could have ever liked the remake.
There is the occasional exception, of course, and that's often due to particularly fortuitous casting; "The Preacher's Wife," for example, was better than the original movie, due to the dazzling presence of Denzel Washington-you just can't go wrong with Denzel.
Sometimes, too, you get a remake that is very different than the original, and skillfully-enough done that it's actually worth watching. An example of this phenomenon is what set me off on this train of thought; I'm currently 2/3 of the way through the miniseries version of Stephen King's book "The Shining," which was originally made into a regular movie starring the unbeatable Jack Nicholson. The miniseries sticks MUCH closer to the book, has spooky happenings that are less gory but more frequent and unsettling, and, best of all, showcases my favorite element of the book; the hedge animals.
So, I've been presently surprised, and am looking forward to the last installment Wednesday night... but they'd better not remake any more Errol Flynn movies anytime soon...
For example, Errol Flynn was BORN to be Robin Hood; he is the ultimate Robin Hood for all eternity... yet, not only did they remake it, they picked that wishy-washy stonefaced Kevin Costner to play him. Every time the ad would come on, "Kevin Costner IS Robin Hood," I'd shriek at the top of my lungs, "NO!! Kevin Costner is NOT Robin Hood!! Errol Flynn is Robin Hood, and he's turning over in his grave!! AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!"
I felt almost as strongly about the remake of "The King and I"; how DARE anyone play that role after Yule Brenner did it?!!
A final hideous example is the remake of "Sabrina"; Audrey Hepburn was the very embodiment of that role, and what were thinking when they decided to turn the role into a display of cleavage rather than class?
Even when you don't have an actor that was the best possible "version" of the main character, the remake of a movie usually makes you groan in dismay; if you see the remake first and like it, and then see the original, you are usually at a loss as to how you could have ever liked the remake.
There is the occasional exception, of course, and that's often due to particularly fortuitous casting; "The Preacher's Wife," for example, was better than the original movie, due to the dazzling presence of Denzel Washington-you just can't go wrong with Denzel.
Sometimes, too, you get a remake that is very different than the original, and skillfully-enough done that it's actually worth watching. An example of this phenomenon is what set me off on this train of thought; I'm currently 2/3 of the way through the miniseries version of Stephen King's book "The Shining," which was originally made into a regular movie starring the unbeatable Jack Nicholson. The miniseries sticks MUCH closer to the book, has spooky happenings that are less gory but more frequent and unsettling, and, best of all, showcases my favorite element of the book; the hedge animals.
So, I've been presently surprised, and am looking forward to the last installment Wednesday night... but they'd better not remake any more Errol Flynn movies anytime soon...
Monday, April 26, 2004
Online life is weird, too
A member of one of the many "friendship groups" that I've drifted through in my years online had a birthday a couple of months ago; although some of the weirdness that stalks online "friendships" had ended our association some time back, no harsh words were actually spoken between us, and I thought I'd take the high road and send him a message on the forum we're both still members of. The system showed that he had read the message, but he didn't respond, and I shrugged and forgot about it... until a few days ago, when I thought of him out of the blue. Moments later, I logged into my inbox, and found a notification that I'd gotten a forum message from... you guessed it. I have no idea what motivated him to respond after all that time, as he didn't say, and didn't reply to the note I sent him in return, and no idea why I picked up on his decision to VERY belatedly acknowledge me; this is one of the reasons that it's easy for some folks to pooh-pooh the idea of psychic phenomena, as it tends to be erratic... at least, as far as we can see with our limited understanding-it might be VERY consistent looked at from a wider perspective, one that includes more knowledge about how the engine of karma works.
Today, I was thinking of another online "friend" that I'd drifted apart from, who I'd written to several weeks ago and never gotten a reply from even though he's normally quite prompt with his responses, and... I don't even need to say it, right?
When the "coincidences" start piling up, even *I* will get uneasy and tense, and that is the kiss of death for the enhanced perceptions; this time, I'm going to try to keep that from happening, and see what I can see.
Today, I was thinking of another online "friend" that I'd drifted apart from, who I'd written to several weeks ago and never gotten a reply from even though he's normally quite prompt with his responses, and... I don't even need to say it, right?
When the "coincidences" start piling up, even *I* will get uneasy and tense, and that is the kiss of death for the enhanced perceptions; this time, I'm going to try to keep that from happening, and see what I can see.
Sunday, April 25, 2004
Messages from my subconscious
The smartest part of your brain is the part that, frustratingly, you have little direct contact with-your subconscious. This area of your mind has access to all of your memories, does your best analysis, and is the seat of your creativity; all of this can be seen in your dreams. It's common for the solution to a problem to show up in a dream, and for the best ideas that writers, painters etc get to come from dreams; even more importantly, your subconscious will send you messages about YOU, and what's going on in your life... but it does so in CODE. To decode the messages, it helps to have an idea about general dream analysis (there are many websites and books devoted to this), AND to know what your own personal symbols are, which you pretty much figure out over time as you see cause and effect between your waking life and your dreams (you'll get a deep feeling of "rightness" when you decode something correctly).
One of my own recurring dream themes is of being in a house that I "know" to be my own, but that I don't recognize; this is generally seen as a symbol of new opportunities opening up in your life. Last night, I had an extreme version of this dream, where I was standing in the middle of the "new house" and saw that there were ESCALATORS leading up and down; that was a new one on me. I see the inference of the house being huge, like a department store or airport, as being very positive, showing how things are opening up for me the more I try to tune in to things beyond my senses, and the very fact that I associate escalators with fancy stores and airports adds symbolic layers of "getting new stuff" and "going places," mentally speaking.
There was another new element to the dream; one of the rooms had a big stack of mini refrigerators, all of which were running, but empty. They have a lockerish feel to them, and lockers represent my emotional state, but for them to all be full of cold air and nothing else-that's an odd twist. My reaction to them in the dream was that they were left by the previous owner, in the way that you often "inherit" a fridge when you buy a new house, and should just be gotten rid of, except for maybe one or 2 that might be useful in the endless rooms to make getting a soda not such a trek. I'm currently leaning towards seeing them as a symbolic representation of old feelings that I had held onto, preserved in cold storage, so to speak, that I've let go of and no longer need a place to keep because they're GONE; noncoincidentally, I've recently begun successfully combating my mind's attempts to flood me with worries when I'm trying to go to sleep by telling myself "I can't do anything about it now, so I'm not going to think about it now," over and over if necessary, until the urge to dwell on them passes. I'm now at the point that I can drive away those sorts of thoughts, and the tense, anxious feelings that go with them, pretty effectively; they won't be stowed away each night as I fall asleep for use the next day any more. I hope. Further "proof" of the validity of the idea of this being related to that emotional battle is that close on the heels of the idea of maybe having one of the fridges in my room was that I wouldn't be able to go to sleep with it in there making noise and distracting me; it's amazing how intricate our unconscious symbols can be.
I also had a dream last night about a certain famous hottie... er, but I won't describe THAT dream, or what it "meant." ;-)
One of my own recurring dream themes is of being in a house that I "know" to be my own, but that I don't recognize; this is generally seen as a symbol of new opportunities opening up in your life. Last night, I had an extreme version of this dream, where I was standing in the middle of the "new house" and saw that there were ESCALATORS leading up and down; that was a new one on me. I see the inference of the house being huge, like a department store or airport, as being very positive, showing how things are opening up for me the more I try to tune in to things beyond my senses, and the very fact that I associate escalators with fancy stores and airports adds symbolic layers of "getting new stuff" and "going places," mentally speaking.
There was another new element to the dream; one of the rooms had a big stack of mini refrigerators, all of which were running, but empty. They have a lockerish feel to them, and lockers represent my emotional state, but for them to all be full of cold air and nothing else-that's an odd twist. My reaction to them in the dream was that they were left by the previous owner, in the way that you often "inherit" a fridge when you buy a new house, and should just be gotten rid of, except for maybe one or 2 that might be useful in the endless rooms to make getting a soda not such a trek. I'm currently leaning towards seeing them as a symbolic representation of old feelings that I had held onto, preserved in cold storage, so to speak, that I've let go of and no longer need a place to keep because they're GONE; noncoincidentally, I've recently begun successfully combating my mind's attempts to flood me with worries when I'm trying to go to sleep by telling myself "I can't do anything about it now, so I'm not going to think about it now," over and over if necessary, until the urge to dwell on them passes. I'm now at the point that I can drive away those sorts of thoughts, and the tense, anxious feelings that go with them, pretty effectively; they won't be stowed away each night as I fall asleep for use the next day any more. I hope. Further "proof" of the validity of the idea of this being related to that emotional battle is that close on the heels of the idea of maybe having one of the fridges in my room was that I wouldn't be able to go to sleep with it in there making noise and distracting me; it's amazing how intricate our unconscious symbols can be.
I also had a dream last night about a certain famous hottie... er, but I won't describe THAT dream, or what it "meant." ;-)
