'And your date of death is ...'

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

In a recent interactive video, the English comedian Ricky Gervais was asked which of the following he'd prefer: to be told his death date and live longer or not to be told it but live a shorter life?

Death becomes us all. But would you like to know exactly when?

The person who posted the question didn't specify how much shorter of a life it would be so Gervais, whilst debating the merits of each possibility, suggested five years. I would have doubled that, to make it more impactful.

A grim choice

As unrealistic as the question is — although it does bring to mind the old joke about a doctor giving a man more time to live because he can't pay his bill — it, nonetheless, presents an interesting choice, if one imagines a choice was compulsory.

Gervais said it was an impossible question. Basically, choosing not to know, he would take (five) years off his life, something he might be aware of on his deathbed — if he got such a luxury when breathing his last that is. But electing to know would, he said, give him no comfort at all.

In contrast, I've often thought it would be nice to know when I'm going to die. In fact, the choice above makes it somewhat of a no-brainer for me.

By knowing when I'm going to die and in selecting that option I get more life years, well for one I can budget and plan better. If I were to discover that I've fewer years left than I'd thought, well then I could be less frugal than I am currently.  

In these pandemic times and all that has come with them — restricted movement, more uncertainty than normal, the feeling that we're going through dangerous societal changes — finding out that I'm going to be around less than I thought, well I'd actually take that as a positive right now.

'Rather than the quite impractical live-each-day-as-if-it's-your-last approach, it's better to try to add a sense of urgency to what you do.'

I'm all on for a long life as long as I'm active and fully with it — as with it as I've ever been that is — right up to my last days. The idea of spending years bed bound, suffering from dementia or the like doesn't appeal at this remove.

An urge to live

Flipping the consequences in the above choice, however, makes it far trickier for me. That is, if being told my death date resulted in a shorter life, say by ten years.

For example, imagine I had to make the choice today, aged 36. In my head, whenever I do think about this, I figure that I haven't even reached the halfway stage of my life, barring a fatal accident.

So, if by choosing to know when I'm going to die reduced my time on this planet by ten years and I got an answer of, say 40, I'd be in a state of shock, to say the least.

For one, it would mean that I was "originally" only going to live to 50, far fewer years than I'd envisaged. Secondly, and even worse, by opting to know, my life has been cut by 20 per cent and I've just been left with four years to live.

That is, I certainly hope, a most unlikely example. Of course, one never knows, though. And most of us have plenty of sad reminders of this.

In a more general sense, that we don't know when the Grim Reaper will come a-knocking, that it could be much sooner than we think, lends itself to the saying, 'Live each day as if it's your last.'

That's fine in theory. In practice, it's rather more difficult.

Altering such an approach slightly so as to make it less dramatic — and less damaging, as it potentially could be if and when you discover it's actually not your last day — is to look to add a sense of urgency to your life (as our "friend" Jordan Peterson explained in a recent podcast interview).

This should help one focus on more immediate issues, to work towards attainable goals and worry less about things that are a long way off, never mind reflecting too much on past mistakes or regrets. It's an outlook I'm trying to adopt, with some difficulty, in any case.  

Live in the moment (as best one can — the powers-that-be are making that more difficult these days) with a glance to the future whilst never losing sight of past lessons learnt. As simple as that, eh?
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

 

OK, covid's not the flu. But it's not yellow fever, either

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

'Stop comparing covid-19 to the flu. It's much worse than that.' 

So goes the retort from those who view the coronavirus pandemic as a significant threat to much of humanity, responding to those who say it has been over-hyped and disingenuously documented as the chief cause of death in many cases.

To have a covid-19 shot or not, this is the question.

The truth is out there

Depending on which side one lies — that's one's position in this context, not, um, "untruths" — evidence and experts can be sourced to "prove" one's argument.

Basically, if one believes that covid is very serious indeed, then opposing views are dismissed as mere conspiracy theories. 

It doesn't matter if the experts quoted by those crazy conspiracists had previously been respected professionals. That they are now against the mainstream — or at least those dictating policy — means they're pursuing a particular agenda or they're simply wrong.

Conversely, should one think that this pandemic has been blown out of all proportion, then those on the other side are seen as naïve, completely consumed by the irrational fear and panic being promulgated.

The natural position for a journalist or analyst should be scepticism. Just because something comes with the official seal of a government or international body (read the World Health Organisation here), it doesn't automatically mean that it is unquestionable. 

Prepare yourselves for this, but such authorities don't always get things right or tell the truth, whether that's done innocently, ignorantly, insidiously or otherwise.

Alas, as much as one might like to follow the X-Files mantra of 'trust no one', in today's highly interconnected, interdependent world, we can't independently check and verify everything every time.

On a very minor level, I trust the staff at the panaderías I frequent to prepare my perico (coffee with milk) and bake los panes de chicharróna hygienically. When travelling on an aeroplane — remember those days? — we place confidence in the engineers et al. who built the craft and the pilots flying it to get us to our destination safely.

'It's understandable and should be acceptable that some people don't want a covid vaccine. Yet what we're seeing is a global plan to ensure such folk are discriminated against.'

With that in mind, during this pandemic where we have a number of competing narratives doing the rounds and a lack of consensus in the scientific community, about the best one can do is observe one's immediate environment and act accordingly.

  
Personally, I was in close contact with two people who a day or two later got quite sick from covid-19, one older than me, one younger. They weren't hospitalised but it did hit them badly enough. 

That's two people I know who got ill. There's a good chance I've been in contact with others who also came down with the infection of which I'm not aware.

Considering the supposedly highly infectious nature of covid, I've either been quite lucky and just haven't taken in enough of a viral load or I have some sort of immunity already.

A vexed vaccine

This then makes me question why I should be forced to take a vaccine against something that, it seems, doesn't affect me that much.

OK, you might say there's no compulsion to take the vaccine. In theory, yes. But one looks set to be at a distinct disadvantage in many walks of life without having proof of covid inoculation, international travel being the obvious one. Effectively, without being vaccinated I am currently banned from visiting my family in Ireland.

To this end, it irked me enormously to hear the UK Conservative MP, former Secretary of State for International Trade, Dr Liam Fox, whilst calling for restrictions to be eased, argue that those who don't get the vaccine shouldn't expect the same access to travel and other public events as those with the jab.

Speaking on Spectator TV, he said, 'People who don't get their immunisation can't expect, for example, to have the same international travel as people who do get it. That's always been the case. If, for example, you decide you didn't want to get a yellow fever jab you couldn't go to certain countries in Africa. So the principle is no different than before.'

However, Dr Fox, it actually is rather different. Or at least should be viewed differently if people were thinking straight.

Unlike yellow fever, we know that covid-19 is quite a discriminatory infection. Many of us have little to fear from it and some of us, as mentioned above, may already have naturally acquired immunity. Also, yellow fever's death rate is substantially higher than that of covid-19.

Thus, it's understandable and should be acceptable that some people don't want a covid vaccine. Yet, what we're seeing is a global plan to ensure such folk are discriminated against.

Throughout the pandemic we have seen how rather than unite to tackle a common problem, humanity has been deeply divided, be it in relation to lockdowns, mask-wearing or, now, the vaccine.

With such entrenched positions, the covid wars are set to last for some time to come.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Breaking up (with WhatsApp groups) ain't hard to do

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

'The hardest part was leaving the WhatsApp group.' This is a common refrain you'll hear from recently retired sports stars, those who are part of teams that is.

The rather weird world of WhatsApp groups.

Groupthink

I find this rather perplexing. Do they really find the act of no longer virtually engaging with a group of people more difficult than actually not being part of the clique physically?

Maybe it's just me, but I tend to prefer to meet (most) people face to face rather than communicate via social media or other such means (there are, of course, those who I have no desire to meet by any means — the feeling is no doubt mutual). 

For sure, the pandemic has made in-person meetings more difficult yet, on the same token, it has made me appreciate real-life interaction even more so.

I guess the hard part of leaving a WhatsApp group, particularly one that is a forum for something that has been a central part of one's everyday life, is the fact that, normally, the person departing presses the leave button him/herself. 'This is it, we're parting ways and there's no going back.' Extinguishing oneself virtually, so to put it.

In defence of those sports stars who have found 'WhatsApp group removal' an emotional moment, many of them who I have read about were retiring earlier than planned for one reason or another.

For if you've reached a moment where you feel you've nothing more to give, then moving on shouldn't be such a burden. 

In fact, I would have thought leaving behind the social media chitchat would be somewhat empowering. One chapter ends, on to the next. What's more, one can still meet former teammates individually should one wish to do so.

Now, I must state that I can't speak for being part of WhatsApp groups linked to sports teams. WhatsApp wasn't a thing the last time I was fully involved with a team.

Yet, I have been and am part of various social media groups across a range of interests. I can say with confidence that my leaving of any of them would not result in sleepless nights.

'The ability to instantly interact with a bunch of people who I've either only fleetingly met or haven't met at all is not something I see as desirable.'

Indeed, I've unexpectedly left a number of groups in recent times, one of which I actually founded. It wasn't a big deal my side, although perhaps some other members raised eyebrows owing to the manner I abruptly left, I don't know.

No friend of mine

To be honest, I find many social media groups rather tedious affairs. Of the ones in which I remain, it's largely for self-publicity reasons when the need arises, as well as for getting rapid responses to the odd query or for receiving potentially useful information.

The ability to instantly interact with a bunch of people who I've either only fleetingly met or haven't met at all is not something I see as desirable. The disadvantages outweigh the advantages as far as I'm concerned.

You see, I tend not to befriend people too quickly. It's a process that appears to take even longer the older I get, and it's certainly unlikely to happen over social media. It could be said I'm leaning towards the Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle's school of thought, 'A stranger is a cunt you haven't met.' Indeed.

The only real advantage I see with WhatsApp groups is that members generally don't send voice messages. I'm not a fan of rambling monologues, although I have been guilty of same in the past in one-on-one WhatsApp engagements. 'Do unto others' and all that.

In mitigation, in certain circumstances, a voice message is more desirable than a written one. They should be used sparingly all the same. (Here's a thought, WhatsApp. How about setting a daily limit on voice-message minutes per user? Like two minutes free and after that one has to pay a premium.)

On a broader scale, in terms of the various instant-messenger services available, WhatsApp certainly appears to have captivated the Western world. Where's Viber these days?

Like most of these things, I have a kind of schizophrenic relationship with it. That is, 'can't live with it, can't live without it'.

Or at least I've convinced myself of the latter. I can certainly live without WhatsApp groups. By extension, I'm sure I could live without WhatsApp. 

However, I feel I'm not quite ready to fully break up with it just yet.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

 

Scaling down survival mode

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

Whether one agrees or not with the coronavirus pandemic response taken by most of the world, the fact is we've all had to live with the constraints for well over a year now.

School's still out in many parts of Bogotá, even if some kids would like to see it back.

Fear mentality

As is well known, and as is the case for so many causes of death, those who have had most to fear from covid-19 are the elderly, followed by people with underlying conditions.

For the rest of us, the majority, the risk the infection represents is minimal. 

However, the extraordinary measures introduced across the globe to reduce contagion resulted in irrational reactions by some folk who in reality face greater threats to their lives than this virus. (Some will say, altruistically, they've done it to save the lives of others. All they may have done, though, is caused more harm to themselves and others.)

The lifting of this fear mentality is not something that will come easily. This is particularly so when we have overly cautious leaders who continue to suffer from covid monomania and a majority in the media who submissively follow the official line. It has been as if no other cause of hardship and death really exists.  

This myopia appears most acute in high-income countries, places where many enjoy a comfortable existence, relatively speaking, with restrictions less impactful. While Colombia has had its lockdowns and the like, the approach of late has largely been 'carry on regardless'.

Except, that is, for arguably the most pressing area where a return to "normality" is needed: primary and secondary education. Most schools are continuing with sub-standard virtual learning. 

OK, we have seen some in-person classes with reduced capacity and alternate days, but it's the private schools that have been more proactive on this front. The public institutes, as they tend to do, lag behind. Thus, the divide between the privileged and the rest deepens.

'The monster is the irrational fear that continues to dominate public discourse and policy.'

The thing is, because of health concerns amongst teachers and other staff — misplaced as they are for many — plus the general state of covid fear being promulgated, no one is in a major panic to go back to pre-pandemic ways.

Monster mash

In the same way that people mistakenly call Frankenstein the monster — Frankenstein was, of course, the monster's creator — coronavirus is not monster-in-chief, it created the conditions for a scarier one to emerge.

That monster is the irrational fear that continues to dominate public discourse and policy. Even those of us who have questioned the pandemic response can't avoid being caught up in this.

I, for one, went into survival mode, financially speaking in any case. 

So even though one has been free to travel around Colombia largely unrestricted for months now — the national strike disturbances notwithstanding — nonchalantly moving around the country, eating into one's steadily diminishing savings just hasn't seemed prudent. (OK, my own future would have been uncertain pandemic or not, but the overall atmosphere doesn't help whatsoever.)

As is the case for millions of others across the world, the lack of a steady income muddies the waters further. When one isn't sure where the next significant payment is coming from, it makes it more difficult to ease off the financial brakes.  

A more liberal approach would be to not get bogged down in cash concerns (for those who have the luxury to do so, that is. Most of my Colombian friends live, at best, from week to week). Bet on things improving both personally and on a grander scale in the not-too-distant future. Calmer waters are on the horizon.

While there may be truth to that, my conservative side dominates my thinking here. Or based on last week's post, some of you might say my doomsday, glass-is-half-empty view darkens the landscape.

Whatever the case, there are certain things beyond our control. The best we can do is to have mechanisms in place to ensure those uncontrollables have less of an impact on us than they might otherwise have if left unthought of.

That is to say, survival mode is somewhat permanent. It's just that certain events see us scale up this modus operandi more so than others. They also tend to make us more risk-averse in numerous ways, damaging as that may be over the medium to long term.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

 

Hold tight, the worst is yet to come

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

If you've ever listened to and/or read the work of Canadian cognitive psychologist, linguist, and popular-science author, Steven Pinker, you'll know that he's been at pains to tell us, replete with facts and figures, that as a species we've never had it so good.

In countries such as Colombia, a post-pandemic boom is hard to envisage.

Wild West

Life expectancy is up across the globe, child mortality levels have never been lower, there are fewer devastating wars, the list of positive indicators, when looked at over time, is practically endless.

Indeed, even the millions, nay billions, who have been spooked into believing that covid-19 — that is to say the infection caused by the coronavirus, not the highly questionable, damaging measures introduced to curtail contagion — is an 'unprecedented threat' need only look back at history to realise that as pandemics go, we've got off lightly.

In fact, as many high-income nations marvel at the rapid rollout of their vaccination programmes and with it a decline in hospitalisations/deaths linked to covid-19 — cause-and-effect questions aside — talk is shifting in some quarters to a roaring twenties for the 21st century, akin to what some countries experienced in the 1920s after World War One ended and the Spanish flu petered out.

Yes, it is true that practically everyone has been disrupted in some form due to lockdowns and a halting of what was once called "normal life". 

However, it would appear many in the comfortable classes who have been able to continue working and earning throughout the pandemic largely as before — a prolonged home office being the main change — have boosted their cash reserves. And now, green light pending, they're ready to splurge.

It is also true that most countries have increased their debt burden in order to keep their economies ticking over after having shut down a host of finance-generating activities. (That debt does have to be paid back, doesn't it? Or is it just numbers on a page? Or a stick to continuously beat the masses with? 'Time to tighten your belts again, guys.')

Whatever the case, hope exists that with post-pandemic elation, we'll spend our way into a boom.

That's the optimistic take. Yet, as hard as Steven Pinker et al. try to convince us otherwise, the age-old human tendency to believe that the current epoch is the worst, that the apocalypse is nigh, is unlikely to lessen in intensity.

On the contrary, the indicators are that the opposite will happen.

I say this because of a vociferous, activist and, importantly, influential group of largely affluent people from the global West that sees virtually everything associated with Western values and its way of life as the root of all our problems. 

The fact that their own comfortable existence, nay their existence at all, is thanks to the West's achievements doesn't seem to register.

Now, I must state that I'm all for correcting what we recognise as bad practices. Materialism and its disposable, waste-heavy living tend to bring out the worst in human behaviour. Finding truly sustainable, reliable energy sources to continue to drive positive advancements is not just worthwhile, it's essential.

However, those West-is-evil virtue signallers tend to be spectacular hypocrites. 'Everything must change, except us.' 

They thrive off an alarmist agenda, convince themselves that they're doing their bit to save humanity/the planet, safe in the knowledge that they'll never have to face the real consequences of finding that delicate balance between progress and sustainability, between life and death.

'It very much feels like a rather open, liberal period is giving way to one that is quite the opposite.'

That the worst is yet to come is due to what I see as the pursuing of a regressive agenda, one that if implemented would actually deepen the divide between the haves and have nots. A case of, 'everything's been built on false premises, tear it all down and start again.'

To give such an approach its due, the argument can be made that there would indeed be a temporary decline while we readjust to new ways but we'd soon power on again, cleaner, greener and leaner.

Changing times

Staying largely positive, take the following observation from the epilogue of J.M. Roberts' mammoth The Penguin History of the World, 1997 reprint:

'There are still no reasons to believe that the ways of discovering techniques to meet problems in the past cannot again be brought to bear successfully. We have no grounds either logical or empirical for thinking that the steady accretion of control over nature which has marked all history until now will not continue. All that is different is that change is quite simply more sweeping and faster than ever before. But this applies to the search for solutions as well as to the emergence of problems.

We know of nothing in the nature of the problems now facing the human race which in principle renders them incapable of solution. They may be more urgent and potentially more damaging, but this is only to say that their solution may require more urgent and radical methods, more drastic political and social change, not that they are insoluble.

We may have to decide to live in a different way, but we need not assume mankind will be extinguished ... We have plenty of evidence of human adaptability in the past. The only clear warning which does stand out is that, whatever we do, we are likely to be gravely misled about the future if we simply extrapolate present trends. We must prepare for discontinuity as well as continuity.'

How continuity and discontinuity manifest themselves will be the key to success. Or failure. For me, the signs are not good.

It very much feels like a rather open, liberal period is giving way to one that is quite the opposite.

This brings to mind the remarks of Steppenwolf in Herman Hesse's classic novel of the same name, worthy of being reprinted in full here:

'Every age, every culture, every custom and tradition has its own character, its own weakness and its own strength, its beauties and ugliness; accepts certain sufferings as matters of course, puts up patiently with certain evils. Human life is reduced to real suffering, to hell, only when two ages, two cultures and religions overlap. A man of the Classical Age who had to live in medieval times would suffocate miserably just as a savage does in the midst of our civilisation.

Now there are times when a whole generation is caught in this way between two ages, two modes of life, with the consequence that it loses all power to understand itself and has no standard, no security, no simple acquiescence. Naturally, everyone does not feel this equally strongly. A nature such as Nietzsche's had to suffer our present ills more than a generation in advance. What he had to go through alone and misunderstood, thousands suffer today.'

It certainly appears that some people seem intent on ensuring that suffering is a widespread constant. In an Orwellian sense, suffering is joy. Indeed.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

 

Calling out the keyboard warriors

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

'The pen is mightier than the sword.'

It could be said that when this was first coined — by English author Edward Bulwer-Lytton in 1839 — those who preferred the pen over the sword still had to know how to handle themselves physically. The risk was ever-present that they might be challenged to a bout of fisticuffs as a result of what they wrote.

To the battle station ... (Photo from pexels.com.)

Soft hands

Even if they never had to take a punch, their lives back then were much less comfortable and involved an amount of slogging compared to many of their equivalents today. 

These are namely the smug, do-gooder hacks who pontificate to the masses they claim to "understand" from a safe distance and the ubiquitous keyboard warriors.

While one could perhaps excuse some — some, that is — journalists for acting in good faith, there is less room for forgiveness for those who spend hours trolling on social media, save from them not actually having a real social life.

This latter cohort's main purpose is to attack and belittle. They rarely if ever have anything informative to say.

'Social media has provided them with a platform to overcome their many shortcomings in physically interacting with Homo sapiens.'

And why not when they tend not to face any real consequences for their actions? It's safe to assume that if they were dragged out from their virtual undergrowth to debate in a real-life public space they'd be rather different, less pugnacious characters.

One can picture the types. Mollycoddled individuals, constantly told how wonderful they are by their parents whilst getting everything handed to them. Social media have provided them with a platform to overcome their many shortcomings in physically interacting with Homo sapiens, allowing them to engage where otherwise they would simply be dismissed and ignored.

Of course, one can simply refuse to interact with them on their terms in the first instance. Give the dog a bone and all that.

However, at times, it's difficult to avoid being lured in to their virtual combat. Also, for a brief period, it can be fun. The problem is, if you go down the rabbit hole, it can take an amount of mental effort to find a way out. It's usually not worth it.

Thus, the best strategy is not to enter in the first place.

As I've said before, social media are mere tools; addictive they can be, but tools they are nonetheless. Ultimate power rests with the user.

Engage if needs be — and in many industries, social media have become indispensable in order to gain a competitive advantage or to remain "relevant" — but engage on your terms.

The pen and the sword, after all, are only as effective as the people wielding them. There's a time to write and there's a time to get out and "fight".
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

 

Santandercito, keeping the satiated dullness at bay

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

I've stated previously how I'm not at all averse to routine, as long as I feel it's not too detrimental to my health and well-being.

Bogotá's Santandercito: Rough and ready.

Downwardly mobile

On the other hand, I've also let it be known that a monotonous 8-6 gig is not for me. While I might be traversing the same physical ground on a daily basis — something most of the world has been forced to do for much of the last 16 months — the important thing is that there's an amount of variety to what I'm doing.

Of course, 'being my own boss', as I pretty much am these days, means I put as much variety into what I do as I see fit, constrained both financially and legally as we all are to varying degrees.

Throughout the pandemic, however, 'spicing up one's life' has been rather difficult. It may be one explanation as to why I've found myself being pulled right into Bogotá barrio living. That is, not just socialising in my stomping ground of Santandercito but actually taking up residence there.

Yes, my living quarters are far from ideal. And lest people say 'you get what you pay for, tight-fisted Corrigan', I'm forking out the most I've ever had to for accommodation during my almost ten years in Bogotá.

'A period of small-town living might be the answer to some issues I've been largely ignoring to address. Mentally recharge and evaluate my options from, quite literally, a different viewpoint.'

My main bugbears are a lack of natural light entering and the noise from above. I'm on the ground floor while the landlady and her extended family occupy the other two floors. A two-metre squared open space from the plastic roof down projects some light into my living space. 

It also, unfortunately, ensures I hear all the chattering and regular shouting from above as if I were actually in the same room as my noisy neighbours. Kids, who'd have 'em, eh?

Unsettling issues

Some say that for the rent I pay I could find something better. In Bogotá, for a place that's largely independent and contract-free, I'm not so sure. I might find an apartment with better natural lighting but it would probably be lacking in something else. I've moved around the city enough to know that's it hard to get past mediocrity, such is life.  

That aside, there's a certain energy on the streets that I feed off. Even in the "strictest" days of coronavirus-containment measures, there was a bit of welcome life about the place.

Now, as a resident, I get a mild buzz wandering through the barrio and greeting the various folk I know. Some are just familiar faces, no more than acquaintances, others are people I regard as good friends.

To borrow from the renowned clinical psychologist and best-selling author Jordan B. Peterson, my opting to take up residence here could be linked to a shunning of the 'satiated dullness' of a comfortable existence. (Peterson said this in relation to Fyodor Dostoevsky's critique of the socialist utopia, so a rather different context. Having said that, I found nothing dull about Venezuela's, um, "socialist utopia". Also, I'm not so sure how and where I could find a comfortable existence these days.)

It must be noted, though, the location hasn't that much to do with living comfortably or not, financially speaking in any case.

Nonetheless, as Bogotá is due to start roaring again like it did pre-pandemic, a more relaxed existence could be found outside the metropolis. For I can't say that I'm currently in Bogotá for the money really. Far from it. Indeed, it could be said the small amount I earn is offset by a somewhat hedonistic lifestyle, at times anyway.

A period of small-town living might be the answer to some issues I've been largely ignoring to address. Mentally recharge, evaluate my options from, quite literally, a different viewpoint, before facing into another stay-or-go dilemma with a visa expiry date only months away.

There really never is a dull moment in this unsettled existence, is there?
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".