rahvin
keeper of the flame
@hyena: i'm addressing each paragraph separately. you put the pieces together, i'm too lazy to add a dozen "quote" tags. 
1. i think the conclusion is not so dire because there ain't no conclusion.
2. "people i know" is a terrible movie, since they sort of plagiarized some story b.e. ellis never wrote - i know it must be hard to do, but they somehow managed - and cast a flaccid, devastated al pacino in it even though there really was no need for acting to follow the flimsy storyline. i wouldn't cry over have missed that movie, except for the fact that of course i did not miss it.
3. d'annunzio had no sense of humour whatsoever. add to this the fact that he thought too highly of himself and there goes your vita eccezionale (for the non-italians, non-literate out there, it means exceptional life). so far you've been pretty lucky in upgrading and outgrowing the model, i daresay.
4. nothing of what you clarify later suggests you ought to stop getting drunk at punk shows, if it wasn't for issues connected to your health. and i think there are many paths to reach such a conclusion anyway, regardless of high-brow job opportunities and less whimsical lifestyles. you could just decide to shift the irrational to some less obtrusive place. take me and writing, for instance. it clearly represents for me some mental "way out", and yet i'd hardly call it disruptive or hazardous to my health. of course this does not mean you should write or "get a hobby" as such, nor does it mean i don't have disruptive, fairly dangerous habits as well.
5. i think wolfy is being a lot more... cooperative with himself than in the past. i saw him on saturday night (his friend from genova was there too, the one called giovanna) and aside from getting lost for some 30' while getting from my place to the old monk pub he behaved in a very self-conscious manner. also, he seemed to get along fine with this girl, who looked like having a lot of cultural interests and a straightforward approach (although she's a little too opinionated on some issues).
6. the report you mention (for the readers: i've seen it in its full glory) was dead wrong on at least one aspect. i don't have it here to check back the exact wording, but in its mentioning your lack of consideration for the consequences of your actions seemed at times to stress the psychological side of said consequences instead of the factual one. as if it was trying to say that you somehow focus yourself on getting the desired result without questioning further the acceptability of your methods in the light of things like common sense, third-party approval, widespread consensus, moral standards.
now, i really beg to differ on that one, especially when it comes to moral standards, but i do understand how those checking on you could have been misled. it does look like your intuition and genius are totally unbound, because of the inner freedom of the solutions suggested and the outer freedom of the way in which you propose/expose yourself. yet i think i know better: the rationale behind your decisions has its foundations on a pretty deep background of values - and, on a few occasions, bias - that do work hard at directing your willpower and your mental output towards goals that match the requirements. you wouldn't come up with a dastard plan to grab the money and run or consciously getting some advantage while trampling a few people in the between, because this is not allowed by your motherboard's chipset, as it were. it's just that you hardly ever mention the boundaries, and the fact that many of your best ideas may seem far-fetched at least and contrary to public opinion and feelings increases people's chances to seeing you as somewhat ruthless.
this is addressing about half of what you wrote. i'm posting this first, then get back to the rest later. btw, i still need to know how i'm gonna get to your place on friday.
rahvin.
1. i think the conclusion is not so dire because there ain't no conclusion.
2. "people i know" is a terrible movie, since they sort of plagiarized some story b.e. ellis never wrote - i know it must be hard to do, but they somehow managed - and cast a flaccid, devastated al pacino in it even though there really was no need for acting to follow the flimsy storyline. i wouldn't cry over have missed that movie, except for the fact that of course i did not miss it.
3. d'annunzio had no sense of humour whatsoever. add to this the fact that he thought too highly of himself and there goes your vita eccezionale (for the non-italians, non-literate out there, it means exceptional life). so far you've been pretty lucky in upgrading and outgrowing the model, i daresay.
4. nothing of what you clarify later suggests you ought to stop getting drunk at punk shows, if it wasn't for issues connected to your health. and i think there are many paths to reach such a conclusion anyway, regardless of high-brow job opportunities and less whimsical lifestyles. you could just decide to shift the irrational to some less obtrusive place. take me and writing, for instance. it clearly represents for me some mental "way out", and yet i'd hardly call it disruptive or hazardous to my health. of course this does not mean you should write or "get a hobby" as such, nor does it mean i don't have disruptive, fairly dangerous habits as well.
5. i think wolfy is being a lot more... cooperative with himself than in the past. i saw him on saturday night (his friend from genova was there too, the one called giovanna) and aside from getting lost for some 30' while getting from my place to the old monk pub he behaved in a very self-conscious manner. also, he seemed to get along fine with this girl, who looked like having a lot of cultural interests and a straightforward approach (although she's a little too opinionated on some issues).
6. the report you mention (for the readers: i've seen it in its full glory) was dead wrong on at least one aspect. i don't have it here to check back the exact wording, but in its mentioning your lack of consideration for the consequences of your actions seemed at times to stress the psychological side of said consequences instead of the factual one. as if it was trying to say that you somehow focus yourself on getting the desired result without questioning further the acceptability of your methods in the light of things like common sense, third-party approval, widespread consensus, moral standards.
now, i really beg to differ on that one, especially when it comes to moral standards, but i do understand how those checking on you could have been misled. it does look like your intuition and genius are totally unbound, because of the inner freedom of the solutions suggested and the outer freedom of the way in which you propose/expose yourself. yet i think i know better: the rationale behind your decisions has its foundations on a pretty deep background of values - and, on a few occasions, bias - that do work hard at directing your willpower and your mental output towards goals that match the requirements. you wouldn't come up with a dastard plan to grab the money and run or consciously getting some advantage while trampling a few people in the between, because this is not allowed by your motherboard's chipset, as it were. it's just that you hardly ever mention the boundaries, and the fact that many of your best ideas may seem far-fetched at least and contrary to public opinion and feelings increases people's chances to seeing you as somewhat ruthless.
this is addressing about half of what you wrote. i'm posting this first, then get back to the rest later. btw, i still need to know how i'm gonna get to your place on friday.
rahvin.
