Theme: APP DATES
06.02.2021
Which Sunglasses
Does Viper
Wear?
I’m not really up for it but inspired to relaunch my profile on Tinder. Just to prove another concept?
Maybe.
But mainly, I want to play …
I think the above is pretty funny as a profile picture!
My old ‘going for kissing dates’ profile is not relevant anymore.
It feels outdated although I loved it so much because it served me well.
Took me about 2h to get new one right
See who is up for playing
What’s that? (Strikethrough)
#expats “Know your Dutch: Which is the most authentic question?”
You know your work is good
when you hear someone commenting
“You couldn’t make that Sh*t up!”
Even when we’re
not replying,
we’re communicating.
If someone is silent,
silence is the answer
If you think about it,
it will never come!
Lol, I’ve been coming up with funny stuff.
And posting all over the place.
Giving treatments.
DATING APPS
Are we making love to the apps or the people on the apps?
App users are content creators.
Users are Frontend.
Apps are Backend.
Who makes money and who pays money?
Good question.
Better question:
Who creates more value?
App users (frontend) are creating value for themselves (and one other person) by having the experience.
Apps (backend) are creating value for many.
Is backend therefore more valuable?
Maybe.
The intensity of experience is different.
Frontend live it.
Backend creates it.
Which is more fun? Both?
Together?
Is that what dating is?
My Tinder profile is suddenly gone. Maybe it’s a sign that this is not my playform. Platform.
It’s got too commercial it seems …
Going the wrong way.
Where to next?
PSYCHOLOGY
DISABILITY
What is it?
An ability which not many people have?
Could it mean that everyone is
Somehow
Some way
Disabled?
Lately, I started watching
SPLIT
By M. Night Chalayan (whatever)
Interesting.
Split personality disorder
I always felt that I have different very distinct personalities.
They seem to play nicely together.
Diplomatic characters.
Not one is trying to outplay an other.
But what if one of them becomes a bully?
Will there be a victim to serve by assuming the role of the victim?
The bully by assuming the role of the bully in order to facilitate the experience for the victim?
To give it life?
What comes first, chicken or *death (egg)?
(*this was a typo … Freudian slip?)
Someone has to come first …
Someone who hasn’t been playing nicely.
Who was it?
Bully or victim?
I look at you both …
Thing 1? Thing 2
It triggers a role play.
An experience.
Role play needs the imagination of more than one involved.
Imagination usually needs referencing.
Without reference and knowing the subject, what would they imagine?
So both, bully and victim, must have references to draw from to play their role.
Where do their references come from?
From experience?
Does it mean that the bully experienced being the victim and the victim experienced being the bully in order to play their role well?
Bully and Victim coexist.
Simultaneously.
The chicken/egg analogy is genius.
Chicken giving birth to egg and egg having given birth to chicken.
(“having given ..” interesting choice of tense …)
Presuming that there MUST HAVE BEEN one first.
Because we see them separately.
The big bully and the small victim.
The big chicken and the small egg.
BIG AND SMALL
BIGGY SMALLS
RIP
We assume that there must be one first. In order to trigger the other.
OK, again:
If I say “chicken giving birth to egg and egg giving birth to chicken” it doesn’t sound right,
Since we can see clearly that both actions are not happening at the same time.
Our conclusion: One had to be first.
Strangely in my head I assume that the chicken gives birth to the egg first and foremost, although I know that the opposite is also true.
What do I have in my head about the bully?
Bully giving birth to the victim.
Egg or chicken?
Chicken.
What do I have in my head about the victim?
Egg.
I assume.
In my mind it’s like this: If one assumes one role, the other must automatically assume the other role.
Otherwise there is no (role) play.
So this is really just a one-sided philosophical discussion:
We assume that the ‘aggressor’ starts the trigger.
In this case the bully.
And we judge/treat accordingly.
But where is the other side of the same philosophical discussion taking place?
The assumption that the victim is the ‘aggressor’ who starts the trigger?
Anywhere?
Mostly not.
I hope more though because herein lies the ’treatment’.
We have to assume Aggressor = Victim and treat from there …
And argue both ways.
EXPERIENCES
Why are these experiences necessary?
Because we believe we need to experience?
Experience is human life.
The tension between Thing 1 and Thing 2.
What are yours doing?
Are they hurting each other or are they play fighting?
Does their constant squabble get on your nerves?
“Thing 1 started it!”
“Not true, Thing 2 started it!”
Why do we have the need to take sides, to assume?
Anyone who ever been a par(en)t of siblings rivalry knows that you sometimes just wanna shout:
“Shut uuuuuuuuuuup, the both of you. I don’t give a shit who started! Just shut the fuck up.”
Or maybe just “SILEEEEEEEEENCE”
Is that meditation?
Shouting at your children?
I should organise a workshop.
And charge.
I’m launching a little challenge for myself:
NO SMOKING CHALLENGE
DETAILS: No smoking for the whole day. See what happens
MEANING: Challenging my NEED concept in a new way
Challenge launch: 7th February 2021
