Saturday, January 21, 2012

existentialists shouldn’t live on hills

i walked past a restaurant with some friends in this new city which i moved to with a higher cost of living and no income into a house right at the top of a hill with a beautiful panoramic view of things like buildings and hills and trees and a harbour and boats and the museum and behind the house is a big park and sometimes people walk through our property to get back to their house with probably less steps to climb up and in the park are baby pohutukawa trees with tiny blooming cradles of red. the restaurant had a ‘part-time staff’ sign up and i thought about fate and how fate is silly because things just happen, there is no invisible hand unless we are talking about market economics (which we are not by the way) and how i should probably apply for that job because of: 1. i need money; 2. i was thinking of staying in; 3. if i had stayed in i would not have seen that sign and; 4. it is in a very convenient location to my house (about a 2min walk)–also let’s not disregard the semantic significance of the word ‘sign’ perhaps and this is starting to sound a lot like fate, this getting a bit silly but also silly is maybe not taking certain opportunities when they arise and also silly is caring about all of this because everything is inherently meaningless anyway –why would i move away from familiarity into a place which is sort of just exactly the same futile existence but expensive and with more hills?

1 comment: