“what for?”
“saja”.
absence of reason really means it lacks importance.
“why?”
“nothing”
is something else. it reveals concealment. either out of shame (because of absence again, perhaps?), or out of fear of being misunderstood. or perhaps we really haven’t thought about it ourselves. or really don’t feel like revealing to anyone anything, either because it takes the effort of explaining or we do not like to be judged. nothing can mean everything.
alas, one only communicates or shares something if he or she feels it important enough. this is not communicating. this is merely recording. it is not meant to be read. it is not worthy to warrant any response. a mental note, albeit a readable one, something that denotes a passing thought, one should not take these seriously. leave me, leave me be.
and this is why i don’t really use facebook anymore. there is no point in moving if there is no desire/will to communicate. or really, there is nothing ever worthy to be talk about. everything just dissolves into waste. forgotten. as if you could carve a memory/experience out of facebook chats and comment replying. the virtual can never replace the actual. or reading about love can never substitute love itself. heh.
just as darwin’s scribbled ‘i think’ is interpreted as doubt on the whole shakiness of his ideas, in which people begin to dismiss his thoughts, then one shouldn’t be looking into the particular to interpret the whole. ah, all i’m saying is don’t pigeonhole. taking things out of context, and misunderstanding it is the worst thing you can do, dear.
if there is anything that i learned from reading walden, it is reduce things and needs to the only bare essentials.
this includes talking.
perkaraperkara 