I’ve been quite anchorless of late – 6 months or thereabouts in this house has not helped. I feel like I don’t belong. My old place was mine and I had control over it; it was an anchor for 3 years.

Now I have a feeling of being buffeted from place to place without something to ground against.

I realised this morning that I have been using my relationship as my anchor. And as the relationship changes, I feel myself becoming more and more cranky. Relationships change. Of course they do. Therefore using it as the rock that holds me down is lacking in sanity.

But it’s what I think I’ve done.

It’s a philosophical problem with real ramifications in my life unfortunately. Observational evidence suggests that this happens every single time I find myself outside the comfort zone, without something to call “mine”, to fall back upon, to feel safe.

And I keep using physical structures, jobs, relationships and people as the anchor point.

Which works for a time. But then if I move, the physical structure is gone. If I change job, or find it boring or unpleasant, that’s gone too. Relationships are really problematic to use as anchors because I fall into the trap of “the more it stays the same or is stable, the happier I am”, yet relationships change with time; so no point using them as an anchor.

Using people as anchors is basically codependence by another name, so that’s not intelligent either.

Change is a part of life. But I need something that’ll be unchangeable and which I can use as a touchstone, a reference-point; I need something that will always be there.

And that, in a nutshell I think, is the attraction of an all-powerful “god”.

But “god” is not for me. Not at this point at any rate.

Can I anchor to myself? That would be the smart monkey option: I can trust me, can’t I? I can rely on me, surely? Certainly the outside package will change over time, but it’s an adjustment that occurs and isn’t noticed so much rather than a sudden violent change.

It is, I think, the concept of “locus of control” that I learned last year at school. The responsibility of our own lives which is held by us or handed over to others for safe-keeping. And when others don’t do what we expect, we feel betrayed and dejected. Taking responsibility back, we control ourselves.

So can I anchor within?

It’s worth a try, surely?

But what happens if I’m unable to do something, either because of skills or inclination?

Then I’m in the self-hate trap: I can’t do something because I’m not good enough. The anchor is then on shaky ground, or lost altogether.

Shit.

My cat? No, lifespan of 7 -12 years tops. And he’s got claws and bitey teeth.

My bookshelves? Physical items. Useless.

Chocolate?

The planet? Has its possibilities…?

If this is sounding needlessly existential, you’d be right, and wrong. It’s a big problem for me and one that I would really like to be sorted out. It’s causing problems and I want it gone.

What do I like which is there on an ongoing basis?

I get attached to Winter and colder weather and when that’s gone, I get cranky. Here’s another example of a bad choice.

Melbourne? Location. No. It’d work for a while, but if I have to travel, I’m back to square one.

Australia. See above.

Me.

I think I have to just rely on me. This is the most workable solution, though has flaws. But as things go, it’s the only thing that’s remotely going to work on an ongoing basis. And I’ll be with me for my whole life.

Today there was a moment that could not be said to be my finest hour. It was a snap decision which it would have been better to sit on a while and to consider before firing off a reply.

Still, it could gave been worse.

So, on a totally unrelated topic, I’d like to write about open versus closed systems and query why theres so much vitriol spilled around this subject in computing circles.

In my considered opinion, and it’s my blog so I’ll write what I want to, I’d suggest that this topic is completely over-blown.

It comes down to a fundamental issue: are you someone who wants to fiddle endlessly or someone who just wants something to happen?

Now, these two ideas are not about “skilled” or “unskilled”, hackers versus luddites; there are plenty of very intelligent people who could hack something if inclined to do-so but for reasons of their own choose not to. For that matter, there are plenty of unskilled people who get an itch to pull something apart to see how it ticks.

Take the car.

Here is a machine that gets you from “A” to “B”. Many of us are quite happy stick fuel in one end and drive it around without any inkling of how it works on the inside. And then there are those who make it their business to know every nut and bolt and what to do in the case where the thing doesn’t work.

Non-skilled versus skilled.

A refrigerator is another example: it keeps things cold. We open and shut it and it just keeps going. Until it doesn’t of course, at which point we either call a specialist or buy another.

In neither of these cases do you hear anyone complaining about the merits of open and closed systems. The car mechanics work happily as do the refrigerators repairers.

And a refrigerator is a pretty closed system.

Why then is there so much passion around open and closed systems in the IT industry?

Surely there is a use for both in the world, for those who just want to do things without having to hack through screen after screen of configuration, and for those who like that sort of thing, the car drivers and the mechanically minded can peacefully co-exist can’t they?

There’s a place for both I think, and neither is better or worse than the other. They’re just different.

Why is it that the more overloaded you get the more likely it is that a part of your anatomy will get itchy?

Why is it that clarity of communication is routinely absent in academic texts to the point where you need to know what the author is writing about in order to understand what they’re writing thus making it pointless to read the text in the first place.

Why can’t I just leave things alone?

I’ve had such a sharply defined sense of right and wrong for so long that I wonder about the shades if grey that I’m missing. The sense of fairness that I can’t help but defend to the bitter end often to my own cost.

I wonder where it came from?