Henshin! A day in the life...

St. Valentine's Day

2010-02-14T09:38:00.000-08:00

Another Valentine's day finds me alone. It really is not all that bad, I would rather find someone I can really connect with than just find someone for the sake of being in a relationship. Nonetheless, posted below is the lyrics to one of my favorite songs. I think it is appropriate.

Komm, Süsser Tod

(Come, Sweet Death)

I know, I know I've let you down.

I've been a fool to myself,

I thought that I could live for no one else.

But now, through all the hurt and pain,

it's time for me to respect!

The ones you love mean more than anything.

So with sadness in my heart,

feel the best thing I could do

is end it all, and leave forever.

What's done is done, it feels so bad;

what once was happy now is sad.

I'll never love again, my world is ending.

I wish that I could turn back time,

'cause now the guilt is all mine.

Can't live without the trust from those you love.

I know we can't forget the past.

You can't forget love and pride.

Because of that, it's killing me inside.

It all returns to nothing,

it all comes tumbling down.

It all returns to nothing,

I just keep letting me down.

In my heart of hearts

I know that I could never love again.

I've lost everything,

everything that matters to me,

matters in this world.

I wish that I could turn back time,

'cause now the guilt is all mine.

Can't live without the trust from those you love.

I know we can't forget the past.

You can't forget love and pride.

Because of that, it's killing me inside.

It all returns to nothing,

it all comes tumbling down.

It all returns to nothing,

I just keep letting me down.

Remember these things from elementary school?

2010-01-31T12:40:00.000-08:00

During the sermon today, Fr. Way mentioned that despite being "an unrepentant technophobe" (his words), he recently accepted an invitation to FaceBook. I could write an entire post of how FB has declined since it opened to non-academic users (I am "an unrepentant elitist" in many ways), but I won't. After a great deal of searching, I managed to send him a friend request. For all its faults, FB is still addictive. As I was updating my profile, I rediscovered my old PhotoBucket account. Below is an image I uploaded a very long time ago.

(Sorry this is cut off: my HTML skills are not l33t)

This Venn diagram is what I use to categorize and systematically explore various philosophies. In particular, it helps explain the way I see the world around me. Keep in mind that this diagram, like all Venn diagrams, is purely schematic. There is no quantitative relationship between the size of a set as represented and its importance or actual size under any objective metric.

The fundamental conjecture underlying this diagram is that the entire universe can be partitioned into two sets: the world seen and the world unseen. The former encompasses everything that can be possibly be objectively measured. That is, not only what we can actually measure now, but anything we will be able to objectively measure in the future. It is the rational part of reality. The world unseen deals with things that exist but cannot be objectively measured. For example, how much a person feels any particular emotion is clearly not something that is objectively quantifiable. Personally, I believe there is a spiritual component to reality, and this falls into the world unseen. Even this first division allows some classification because some believe the set of the world unseen is void. As a side note, I further believe that the seen and unseen are coexistent and can influence each other, though not in a measurable manner (consistent with the definition of the unseen set).

Science is the systematic quantification of measurable quantities and therefore rules the world seen. Consistent with Gödel's Theorem, science can never span the entire set. That is, the difference set (seen)-(science) can never be void. Now, it is certainly possible that the contents of the minimum difference set are irrelevant, but this consideration is unimportant for the rest of this discussion. The world seen is extremely important because it comprises the vast majority of our day-to-day life. Rationality is critical for understanding the physical world and its importance cannot be overstated. Without reasoning and critical thought one drifts though life like a derelict ship without a rudder. Even those whose psyches are more emotion-based must in the majority of their lives make good decisions, and by construction, the rational is always the most reasonable (and virtually always the best decision in any given circumstance).

Religion deals primarily with the world unseen, but must inevitably overlap with the world seen at some point. Philosophies in which religion stays completely in the world unseen are extraordinarily unreliable because they are by definition arbitrary. As soon as religion specifies what should actually be done in the world seen, it has crossed the partitioning. Once the overlap with the world seen occurs, one is faced with three possibilities: (i) science is assumed correct and overrules religion where there is a disagreement, (ii) even if science and religion contradict, both are correct, and (iii) religion is assumed correct and overrules science. The second possibility is clearly unacceptable because it intentionally introduces a logical inconsistency in worldview. Thus, every viewpoint I have heard boils down to (i) or (iii). I argue that in case of contradiction, science must prevail. Science is self-correcting and always reflects the current state of knowledge about our world. To me, this implies that only religions consistent with reality within our observable purview can possibly be correct. Exploiting symmetry suggests that religion serves in the world unseen what science serves in the world seen. Indeed, the science/religion overlap suggests that religion can be viewed as an extension of science into a completely different realm unaccessable to pure science.

When we actually make decisions, we are nearly always caught between the two worlds. Religion can assist rationality by narrowing or eliminating variables to be considered. For example, Machiavellian ethics will certainly allow personal advancement, in accordance with a purely selfish rationality. However, we know the morals about not burning bridges and treating others fairly, etc. At some point the Machiavellian adherent will make a mistake and suffer the karma he has accumulated. It can be argued that he failed to consider all the possibilities and weight them appropriately and the outcome could have been logically predicted. Religion helps encode generations of experience into a moral sense that, had this person taken heed, could have foreseen the likely outcome and readjusted his strategy. Consider also the case of eugenics. Practitioners believed they were justified by science, at least as it was understood at the time, but we now know their error. Had they considered the principle of the worth of all humans they could have avoided the resulting horrors.

I have intentionally been rather vague as to what religion precisely I endorse. In fact, this is completely beside the point. In my own life I have taken Christianity as a basis and try constantly to test and refine what I believe. I believe there exists a kernel of truth. Very nearly everything has some truth in it, and my sworn duty is to separate the gold from the dross, accumulating as much of the former as I possibly can. But that process is reserved for a later post.

Happy Birthday

2010-01-30T18:09:00.000-08:00

Well, I just got back home from a birthday party. Whatever images this brings to your mind, discard them. The birthday girl, Crocker, turned 75. Nevertheless, it was quite the fête. Held in the Lubbock Senior Center, there were perhaps 10 rows of tables (3 tables to a row) arranged around a large dance floor. By the time people finished arriving, the tables were pretty full (at six people per table, the maximum seating capacity would have been around 180 people, giving a reasonable estimate of 90-110 persons). There was a band playing country Western ... "music" ... for dancing. Most of the men there were cowboy-types with HUGE Stetsons.

I was surprised at the method by which I was invited. Crocker also attends St. Christopher's. For those of you unfamiliar with the format of an Episcopalian service, during the Eucharist one remains kneeling from the Sanctus through the post-Communion prayer. This means while you are waiting your turn to approach the altar and waiting for the rest of the congregation to be communicated. At St. Christopher's there is also a special anointing for whomever desires it. Anyways, I was kneeling in meditation and Crocker comes up and asks me if I dance with girls. Nothing could have been further from my mind at that moment. She then whispered the details of the part she was planning, intimating that she wanted young people present.

Consistent with her initial invitation, she was very keen that I would actually dance that night. While I do not know how to do that kind of dancing, I was willing to give it a shot. But who to ask? I knew only a few other attendees (from St. Christopher's), so I thought I would ask someone I know. Specifically, Nadine seemed to know what she was doing, but I just could not bring myself to ask her: she is Larry's widow. I know that seems like a stupid reason, but I just couldn't ask. Crocker did scold me a little for not dancing as she requested, and I did have to deceive her when I left, but all in all I think everything went well. It would be extraordinarily self-centered of me to believe that Crocker's enjoyment of her party had anything to do with me.

As far as the deceit, she asked me if I had to go, and I replied in the affirmative. I did not have anything I had to do, but I could not stay for my own internal reasons: I had my fill of the party and was ready to leave. Therefore, it was not a lie per se, but a social deception constructed with the best intentions.

In Memoriam

2010-01-18T16:57:00.000-08:00

I found out this morning that Larry Beavers (not a pseudonym), one of my friends from church, died last night of a massive heart attack. He was not young (late 60s-ish), but what is especially tragic is that he just got married about two months ago. His death was not anticipated, and the suddenness is worse than anything. Most of my emotions are grief for his wife and relatives. Not because he is dead, we all will die, but because it was so unexpected. It is a weird sensation to know I will never see him again in this life.

Therefore, in memory of Larry:

Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine
Et lux perpetua luceat eis.
Te decet hymnus, Deus, in Sion
Et tibi reddetur votum in Jerusalem.
Ex audi orationem meam!
Ad Te omnis caro venie.

Kyrie eleison.
Christe eleison.
Kyrie eleison.

Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem.
Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem.
Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem, sempiternam.

Agnus Dei qui tollis pecatta mundi, dona eis requiem.

Man that is born of a woman hath but a short time to live, and is full of misery.
He cometh up, and is cut down like a flower.
He fleeth as it were a shadow.

Agnus Dei qui tollis pecatta mundi, dona eis requiem.

In the midst of life we are in death. Of Whom shall we seek for succor?

Agnus Dei qui tollis pecatta mundi, dona eis requiem.

I am the resurrection and the life, saith the Lord.
He who believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.
And whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die.

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures.
He leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul.
He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil, for Thou art with me.
Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies.
Thou anointest my head with oil, my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,
And I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me,
"Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord,
For they rest from their labors."
Even so, saith the Spirit.

Lux aeterna luceat eis, Domine.
Cum santis tuis in aeternam, quia pius es.

Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine,
Et lux perpetua luceat eis.

+++

Athiesm is not Science!

2010-01-02T14:43:00.000-08:00

Over Christmas, I ended up going to a Barnes & Nobles in Briarcroft. You can tell a lot about an area's demographic based on the books in the local bookstores. Since Denton's B&N is packed with excellent books in the science section, that was the first place I visited at this B&N. I was, however, extremely disappointed: at least half of the books were misplaced! For example, biographies of Charles Darwin belong in the biographies section, not in the science section. But the majority of the misfiled books were on athiesm. As the title says, athiesm is not science.

Atheism is a philosophy, even practiced as a religion. Science deals with how things work, philosophy deals with why things are the way they are. I want to make it very, very clear that I am not arguing against atheism itself. Although I am a Christian, this post is not about why I am not an atheist. What needs to be addressed is the common assumption that athiesm is endorsed by science, or worse, that science requires atheism.

The primary criteria of scientific hypothesis is that it must be testable and repeatable. Hypotheses on the nature or existence of God are well outside these criteria. At the end of the day, each person picks his philosophy with respect to diety(ies) for himself. What I find really irritating is that atheists in particular latch on to science and claim its objective validity for their own philosophy. Two ideas seem to be very common.

First, I have heard athiests claim now that science has explained human origins, vis evolution, religion is no longer necessary. Ignoring for a moment the fact that atheism is a religion, evolutionary studies within science propose logical explanations for how species came to be. They are not repeatable and hence do not carry the same weight as theorems of science. That does not mean that evolutionary studies are invalid: they provide much good insight into how the world works. But to make the claim that one knows how everything came to be is well outside science. This is a philosophical distinction, but it is important.

Second, it is sometimes said that religion is uneccessary because science will one day explain everything. This is not an error in and of itself, but it needs to be pointed out that this cannot be strictly true and it is an article of faith. I can very confidently say that science will never know everything and remain trustworthy because Goedel's Theorem applies. It states that no sufficiently strong formal system can be complete and consistent. This is a well-proven theorem, not a supposition. Science is a massive formal system that attempts to assign a truth-value to propositions. Goedel's Theorem states that if it is complete, it will be inconsistent (for example, allowing both p and ~p to be true). If it is consistent, there will be undecidable propositions, i.e., the truth-value cannot be determined. It may very well be that the undecidable propositions are not very interesting, but the fact remains that science can never know everything there is to know. Even to say that science will know all relevant facts is clearly a matter of faith, not science. The applicability of science to matters outside testability and repeatability is metaphysics.

Please note that I am not arguing against atheism here, but I do feel very strongly about people abusing the good name of science to promote their own religion (and that includes any religion, even Christianity). This is probably a sore spot for me because science is objectively true. When it is conflated with personal philosophies, those philosophies can be accepted with the same ring of truth, regardless of their actual merit. The objective truth is morally neutral and very powerful: it cannot lend its strength to weak, biased, human belief systems without resulting in harm.

Feliz Navidad Azul

2009-12-27T17:15:00.000-08:00

I know it has been a while since my last post (13 days, actually), but I have a good excuse: the dog ate my homework. Not really, but the power adapter on my laptop went out, my desktop is on the fritz (it generates kernel oops like there's no tomorrow, even memtest died on an unexpected interrupt: the motherboard is failing), and I was out of town for Christmas. I have, however, revived my old Inspiron 1100 (the crapiest of a crappy series sold by Dell) through the power of Fedora Core 12 and am using it as my home machine for the time being.

You can call me a grinch, but I really do not like Christmas. I don't like anything about it. It would be very easy to make this post about why Christmas sucks so incredibly hard, but that's not what this post is about. The past few (nine) years have been turbulent, to say the least. This year my goal was to be more positive. Instead of tearing down others' rosy perceptions of this season, I wanted to celebrate it in a way that was meaningful to me. I have to say that while the basis of this resolution was already fermenting in my head, it was solidified when Bob snapped at me for being so negative, having been driven over the edge when I attacked Christmas. It was a wake-up call that I desperately needed.

One of my biggest beefs with Christmas is the rampant gaudy commercialism. Not having any money anyways, I bought no one gifts and received none in return. And that's fine with me. Even if it sounds weird, I am actually happier having received no presents: my best gift this year was that I got to spend a few days with my best friends. To sully that with cheap consumerism would be to slap a pricetag on the priceless. (In the interests of full disclosure, I did receive a box of See's candies from my parents a few weeks ago, but I think that was a combined birthday/Christmas gift.)

Christmas Eve was a bit comical. My friends, Carrie and Ashley, and a mutual friend, Johnathan, went to Ikea to look around for a bit (they also had Swedish meatballs, per their Ikea tradition, and I had lox, which is my Ikea tradition). I bought a stuffed toy weasel, whom I promptly named Yuki no Itachi ("Snow Weasel"), or "Itachi-san," for short. The name comes from the fact that it had started snowing outside. Our plan was then to see Avatar in 3D at a local Imax at 3pm. But, when we got there, the showing was sold out. All the Imaxes in the area are on the same showing schedule, so the next one we could get was at 7pm. We headed to Johnathan's place in the Plano area and stayed there until it was time to go to the theater. In Dallas, snow never really causes a problem because it doesn't stick. But it was sticking anyways. When we got out of the movie, the roads were all but impassible. It would have been a 45 minute drive to Carrie and Ashley's place, assuming all the roads were open. Rather than returning that night, we stayed at Johnathan's place and drove home Christmas morning.

On Christmas Day I sent some Christmas texts and called family members, but I could not summon the strength to make extended calls or texts. That is, there are a bunch of people from church whom I meant to call and did not. The day was more exhausting because of spending the previous night without meds or my CPAP. Even though I felt a little anxiety and psychological strain from the holiday, it was very manageable.

Much of Christmas Day and the next we all spent watching Bones (Ashley got one of the seasons as a gift) and I returned to Lubbock today. Now that I am not constantly bombarded with other people and activities, the emotional baggage of Christmas past is starting to catch up to me. I feel like I haven't solved anything, only delay the frustration, anger, guilt, and countless other negative emotions. But perhaps these feelings are immutable and the best I can do is bear the ill while concentrating on the good.

A word of encouragement

2009-12-14T17:01:00.000-08:00

To lighten the tone a bit, I want to share with you something I have not had the chance to share with many people.

Rarely have I received verbal, explicit encouragement. This was particularly true during my time in college. But one time, at the end of my second year, my advisor asked me to do research for him during the coming Summer. He told me my salary, and after a surprised response from me, he said, "You're worth it, Grimes." That brought me to a dead halt, a lump rising in my throat. To the best of my recollection, no one had ever praised me for doing well before.

Fulminating during my college and graduate years, I entered my first postdoc position with a full-blown case of imposter syndrome. Thankfully, this is now under control. But any suffering is for naught if no lesson is learned. And one of the lessons here is to encourage our neighbors from time to time. False flattery is of no use: if it is not sincere and truthful, it will eventually backfire and cause more damage than the intended good.

There are other sources of encouragement, too. One that I hear nearly every week is found in the birthday prayer:

Watch over Your servants, O Lord, as their days increase.
Bless and guide them wherever they may be.
Strengthen them when they stand, comfort them when discouraged or sorrowful, raise them up if they fall.
And in their hearts, my Thy peace, which passes all understanding, abide all the days of their lives.

Whatever your views on religion may be, words are powerful things. Even if you remove references to God and recast the sentences in present perfect tense, it is still meaningful.

I am not one to get all gushy and insist on continuous empty feel-good platitudes, but that does not exclude legitimate expressions of emotion.

Situation Ethics

2009-12-07T16:29:00.000-08:00

Despite the declared theme of revisiting old blogs, I have have posted only one so far. The next posts on my list are rather lengthy and need a little bit of thought. In the meantime, I have realized this is one forum where I can express a whole thought without needing for it to come up in a natural context. Therefore, this post is about ethics and morality.

As might be guessed by the title, I have been (and continue to be) very strongly influenced by the system of situation ethics put forward by Fr. Joseph Fletcher in his book bearing the same title. There are several ways one can begin a discussion about ethics and morality. This world contains a bewildering variety of religious beliefs, even to the point that it is not unreasonable to recognize every person's particular belief system as their own religion. For the sake of simplicity, I am limiting my arguments to Christianity. This in no wise diminishes the applicability to other systems of belief, but allows me to concentrate on the important points.

Many Christians would probably ask why we need to re-examine our systems of ethics and morality. After all, don't we have the 10 Commandments and the direct guidance of Scripture? The 10 Commandments et al. are certainly good guidelines, but they cannot possibly be absolutes. For example, if you could lie to save someone's life, you probably would. Most people would agree it is acceptable to lie to prevent a murder. But if you take the Commandments as absolute, then you are left in the curious position of claiming it is sinful to do the right thing. The problem with any set of rules is that it is impossible to take into account every possible situation. Anyone who has ever dealt with bureaucracy will readily agree. I submit to you that nothing is absolutely true unless it holds in every single circumstance. Even one counterexample is sufficient to prove it is not absolute.

If no set of legalistic rules is sufficient, then on what shall we construct our ethics? Antinomianism is one possibility, but it is not generally considered an acceptable solution. Most people require some degree of reasonability. A better solution is found in utilitarianism. Typically, this is stated as "the most good for the most people." This is a dangerous ideology by itself, being vulnerable to all sorts of abuses (e.g., eugenics). The metric here is ambiguous. Correcting it, one arrives at the central statement of Situation Ethics: "The correct action in any circumstance is to increase the most agape for the most people." The Greek word agape is used here instead of the English translation, love, because of it's unique implications and the word "love" is highly overloaded. Many books have been written as to the precise meaning and implications of agape, but it suffices here to note that it is non-erotic "true love." Indeed, a better understanding of "the right thing to do" involves a better understanding of agape.

At this point, I will acknowledge this still does not give us a magic formula for doing the right thing in any particular circumstance. I like to look at it as being similar to the concept of electron correlation in Chemistry. We can describe what it is, and even construct systems of computing it. But when it comes to actually carrying out the calculations, we find that all but the very simplest systems are ludicrously intractable. In Situation Ethics, we must act in the way that increases the most agape for the most people, but this requires us to predict the future. Any honest person will admit it is humanly impossible to predict the future to such accuracy that the best thing to do is always known. Thus this ethical system in its very construction acknowledges our limitations and the complexity of reality. Rather than a set of rules to be followed, it provides a compass that unfailingly points the correct direction, if only we will read it accurately.

In most day-to-day situations, the usual rules apply. In general, one should not murder, steal, etc. But by demoting legalism to its rightful place it becomes more natural to be able to function in anomalous and stressful environments. Going back to the earlier of example of lying to save a life, it is clear that lying is the right thing to do. Some object to this extremism, however. But the example need not be extreme. What if a 5-year-old asked if you liked their drawing and you honestly thought it was the most hideous thing ever? Would you crush the child's feelings out of a perverse sense of justice? The right thing to do is to tell a white lie. Cory ten Boom's family hid Jews in their house during World War II. When the Gestapo asked if they were hiding Jews, they told the Gestapo they were! In her memoirs, ten Boom claims that Gestapo did not believe them and that the Jews were saved because she had the bravery to do the right thing. I submit to you rather that Cory ten Boom was a complete moron: God saved their lives from her idiocy. Even Jesus commanded us to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves."

One final point to make is that in the agape calculus, you cannot neglect yourself. Self-sacrifice is not always the right thing to do.

I would have written more, but I have not yet made dinner and I am starving.

I am a robot

2009-12-05T14:58:00.000-08:00

While old blog posts provide a steady stream of material for me to discuss, on occasion I will be making original posts. This is one such post. I have decided to replace actual names with pseudonyms to prevent searches from turning up these posts. With a little imagination, I am confident those familiar with my life will be able to decode the proper names.

A couple weeks ago I was stupid enough to try JWH-018. It is a novel synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist with a similar CB1/2 binding profile to THC, but with around 4-5 times greater affinity. Whether as an overdose or an interaction with the lithium I take (or a combination of both), I ended up having a grand mal seizure. Before I took it, I let Ranger, one of my roommates, know what I was doing. After dosing (via vaporization), I laid down on my bed as it started to take effect. I remember being angry at myself because as I experienced the high, I remembered how much I disliked it. This is a very strange concept to most people: if you don't like it, why do you do it? There is no justification, it is irrational. For this post, I choose not to pursue this direction, but rather continue on with the story.

At some point in time, Ranger noticed some strange sounds coming from my room. He did not feel comfortable barging in, so he asked Nezumi to check on me. Nezumi went in and saw that I was in trouble, but did not immediately call 911. Instead, he searched online for information on the drug I used and ended up calling one of my colleagues, Dean. Dean and his wife Leela came over (they live only a couple blocks away), and as soon as she saw me, Leela turned me on my side and called the ambulance. I have a very vague, blurry memory of people around me while I was in bed, but lost consciousness soon after. The next thing I remember was being in the hospital, unable to breathe (I did not realize I had been intubated) and in restraints. A woman appeared in my line of sight and confirmed my advance directive (I have an active do-not-resuscitate order). Then I lost consciousness.

When I woke up again, they removed the breathing tube (this was extremely unpleasant) and restraints. A nurse told me where I was and that my mom had called. They eventually gave me my phone, and I checked the call log to see who was involved in this mess. My heart sank when I saw Dean had been called, and sank much further when I saw my boyfriend Bob had been called. At this point, I went to sleep, and was discharged the next morning.

Many details have been intentionally omitted from this account because they are irrelevant to what I wish to relate below.

Last night I was hanging out at a local bar with Dean and Leela. Alcohol is well-known for removing inhibition. Leela wanted to talk to me about what had happened, and the alcohol certainly removed her inhibitions. I knew the subject was still on her mind because earlier in the night she went to get a cigarette from my pack, thinking it was Dean's, and I stopped her. She said to me, "I saved your life, you owe me." This was rather tactless, but I know that she is not mean-spirited and she would never have said something like that sober. Later she broached the topic with me. She kept telling me, "You could have died!" I understand this, I really do. But she did not believe me. She kept reiterating how scared she was. What if no one had heard me? What if Nezumi never called for help? What if I had suffered brain damage? I reassured her that her actions saved my life. It does not matter what could have been, because the fact is that she had the presence of mind to do what needed to be done. That is what happened, and no-one can ever take that away from her.

Leela was much reassured, but still could not accept that I actually did understand the situation. To use the word "understand" is a bit of a misnomer. She did not believe that I comprehended the severity of the situation because I did not respond with the emotion of fear. I tried explaining that I honestly have no fear of death. I do feel guilt and sadness about the pain I caused to those around me, but I do not feel fear. To Leela this was simply unfathomable. I posed the question, "When have you ever seen me emotional, about anything?" She thought for a moment, then said, "I AM A ROBOT, I AM A ROBOT. That's you."

I know that I am emotionally retarded. When I was young, I learned how to turn off my emotions. Without emotion, you cannot feel fear and pain, but you also sacrifice happiness. A certain amount of emotion is necessary on a day-to-day basis, so I developed a system of observing the responses of "normal" people to situations and rationally constructing a model for how emotions "ought" to work (as least on a phenomenological level). This model runs as a more-or-less conscious process, which can be consciously stopped if the need arises. It formed a prominent part of my life when I had a girlfriend, as I relied exclusively on my observations of other couples to try to act the part.

I like to fool myself into thinking that my "synthetic emotions" are sufficient to trick those around me. These ersatz emotions are the closest thing I have to the real deal. That is, I do experience desire, repulsion, love, pain, happiness, despair, joy, hate, and so forth, just not in the way that most people experience them. I am trying to develop my emotional side, but reversing 20 years of internalization is really fucking difficult and perhaps even impossible. The most direct summary I can make is that what was said hurt me grievously, all the more because I know it is true. Who likes to have their deficiencies pointed out to them? How much more painful is it when that deficiency is already the cause of angst?

Leela also just could not get over why Nezumi did not call emergency services, and she was very adamant about blaming him. He told her at the time that he panicked. Later, he felt he owed me an apology and explanation. It turns out that he had the same mindset as me: do not call 911 unless it is really really necessary. He was not sure if I was using an illegal drug (it is not), and did not want me to get in trouble. It is very likely that reality is a combination of the mindset Nezumi revealed to me and panic. I can understand that. He had no ill intentions and no harm came from his decisions. I cannot blame him for doing the best he could, and in my opinion no guilt attaches to him. That does not imply that I think he acted wisely. Indeed, we both understand now that calling 911 in a timely manner is of overriding importance. It is human to make mistakes, and when that happens, the only acceptable path is to learn from it and avoid the same mistake in the future.

First Real Post

2009-12-01T17:03:00.000-08:00

Originally, my public blog was started as part of an assignment in Digital Literature (which, appropriately enough, was an online course). The assignment included at least two posts, if memory serves me correctly, and I am neglecting those as they had nothing of substance. Taking a cue from the lectionary, I am tackling the blog posts in order. Just as the lectionary is designed to make sure none of scripture is neglected through forgetfulness or avoidance of difficult topics, I am choosing to discuss blog posts in chronological order (skipping fluff posts as I see fit: I am still the author of this blog after all).

Without further ado, this post is from Monday, 8-July 2002:

Hello reader.

Do unexplainable, freaky things ever happen around your house? I was debating whether to publish this experience, but I think it will be entertaining (and possibly even thought-provoking {gasp!}).

It started Tuesday night. I had watched History's Mysteries or Unsolved Mysteries or some such show that night. It featured mummified corpses, and showed a few of them in detail. That night, I woke up suddenly at about 3am. I was absolutely, completely awake instantly and saw against the opposite wall of my room an image of a warrior-skeleton. I know that sounds odd, but that is the best way I can describe it. The head was a skull, very sinister and dark, and it rested upon a massive, solidly-built body. I call it a warrior because it appeared to be clad in some sort of thick shroud draped upon his shoulders, with heavy epaulettes over this. His left arm was at his side, but his right was bent at the elbow and slightly extended with the hand open loosely in front of where his sternum would be. This image had startled me awake. I realized, of course, that it was merely a mental image inspired by the program I had watched. The "skull" was a Mayan calendar hanging on my wall, and the "body" was my over-filled and messy bookcase. Still, the image was burned into my mind. The neighbour's dog started barking, so I loaded the bb gun that my roommate has hanging over the mantle and placed it beside my bed. The dog did not bark after that, so I did not use the gun.

The next morning, I shot a few rounds of bbs into a paper target, to improve my aim. I unloaded the gun and relaxed the springs before placing it above the mantle. It is better for springs to be stored relaxed than tensed, so I know and remember very clearly that I did this. Later that day, while I was working on one of my research papers, I heard an odd metallic clinking sound. It did not sound like something falling, and I could not immediately place the sound. So, I got up and started looking through the house. The gun was still above the mantle, but it was cocked. The doors were still locked, and I was the only one home. I released the springs, and discovered that the gun had actually been cocked as though it was loaded (which it was not). That is, it was as if the top carriage had been retracted, rather than just pulling the hammer back. Due to the stiffness of the spring, it is energetically impossible for this to have occurred from equilibrium without a significant input of energy. In other words, someone or something had to intentionally expend effort to pull the carriage back and replace the gun to its original position (there is not room where it hangs to do it while staying on its hook).

Those who know me, know that I am an insufferable skeptic. I look for the most scientific and logical explanations for phenomena. I also am very aware of my mental condition (in that, I can tell the difference between when I am imagining something and when it actually occurs). This event is not satisfactorily explained. I really do not know how it happened, and I am very reluctant to attribute it to supernatural forces. What was the purpose of the event? Who, or what, did it? These are questions that I would like answered.

I do realize the first story is pretty lame. It is included mainly for completeness, but also serves to show that I did have the presence of mind to critique my experiences rationally. Yet, it still puzzles me how that gun could have been cocked.

The most important comment I want to make regards the final paragraph. "I also am very aware of my mental condition." That is simply not true. I know now that the amount I really understand about myself is so incredibly minute in comparison with what is a complete mystery to me. Since that post was written, I have come out of the closet, suffered protracted clinical depression, attempted suicide, and struggled with substance abuse. I do not understand myself or why I do things sometimes. In particular, I do not understand how emotions are supposed to work or how to deal with them, but I am trying. I cannot in good faith claim to be fully aware of "my mental condition." Further, I was taking Acutane at the time, which I realize now altered my mental state (even to the point of hallucinations by the end of the course). Thus, in all humility, my posted statement is hereby amended.

いっらしゃいませ! はじまりましょうか?

2009-12-01T16:36:00.000-08:00

For the past couple years, I have been meaning to revisit the blogs that I started in mid-2002. One of the blogs was public ("A Day in the Life of...") and the other was private (REDACTED). More recently, I have wanted to get back into writing on a more regular basis, but lacked subject material. Therefore, I have decided to revive old blog posts that are no longer online and expand upon them from my new vantage point. It is particularly propitious that the blogs were originally posted on blogspot, which has apparently been subsumed into the Google conglomerate as Blogger, this very site. I was not planning on going with Blogspot (cum Blogger) again, but I am a Google whore.

P.S.: For the inquisitive non-Japanese reader, the title means, "Welcome (to my place)! Shall we begin?" It is spelled phonetically since my grasp of kanji is tenuous at best.