It's been about a year since I've posted how my life was going. I figure I can do it again without boring people too much.

I still work at the same place I did a year ago, although it was a new job then. I'm rakeofdoom's boss. The company went through a really harsh time over the holidays, shrank from about 110 people worldwide to around 60 -- lots of people left, lots didn't get their contracts renewed, and ten or so got laid off -- and got sold. My job is still secure, I think, although out of the five IT people we had, only rakeofdoom and I are still there, still with me in charge of things. It's been stressful. Very. Stressful. Especially this past week, for some reason.

Hmm. Relationships. ariata and I broke up in August, by mutual decision, on very good terms. We're still great friends. I think it was the most mutual parting of ways I've ever experienced, or even heard of. I dated anna_mcann for a month and a half in there (monogamously, for a change), I think September-October, but it went pretty badly. I've been single since then. It took me a while to get used to it, after dating ariata for three years, but I kinda like it now. I have a theory that I learn the most about myself and relationships in the periods between them, and this is no exception. I still can't put things into words, exactly, but I know I think differently about relationships now than I did when ariata and I started dating back in 2004.

I'm actually in that masters program I decided to apply for, the night/weekend M.S. in Information Management at the UW, otherwise known as the Exec MSIM program. I'm in the middle of my second quarter. It's been...boring. Initially, I figured I'd have to wade through a bunch of "intro" classes the first year, and get to the interesting stuff the year after, but it's actually been so slow that I've considered dropping out. Lucky for me, I randomly ran into a second-year student at a cafe I frequent, who suggested I talk with the assistant dean about it. The assistant dean happens to be the professor of one of my classes, so I did, and now it looks like I'll be able to skip the classes I already know cold (like the databases intro class...) and replace them with more interesting electives. I think that's awesome, and will really help me enjoy school. The details of this are still up in the air, though.

For a while, I became something of an outgoing introvert. I guess that's a contradiction of terms, but I mean that I didn't go out often, but when I went out I was really outgoing and met lots of people. I just didn't follow up with any of them. Between work and school, I've been really busy, and just hanging out with a few close friends whenever I've had spare time. I still go out dancing every weekend, and I've started to just "hang out" with people again, which is nice. Not having as much schoolwork this quarter helps, I think.

I've lost another 25 pounds, bringing me down to 240. I plan to lose another 20, and then stop at 220. I seem to drop ten pounds, then stay there for a couple months, then drop ten more. I've been fluctuating from 238-242 for about 4 months or so, now, although it just started to drop again. Still have no special diet to speak of; I just eat what I'm hungry for, and stop eating when I'm no longer hungry (as opposed to sated). I've noticed that I tend to eat more when I'm really stressed, which has been problematic recently.

Actually, stress has been a really big deal lately. Both ariata and anna_mcann, the two people I've frequently slept next to recently, have told me that I occasionally stop breathing in the middle of the night, then start again. I've heard of sleep apnea, but as I felt like I got enough sleep, I didn't think much of it. Now, I'm waking up 3-5 times in a night, and gasp in a breath as a realize I hadn't been breathing. Luckily, suffocating wakes me up. Unluckily, there's something wrong with my breathing hardware. That's kinda scary. It's much, much worse when there's something stressful at school, at work, or socially. It doesn't seem to matter how tired I am. Stress management or no, I think this requires a doctor.

I recently started studying chess again. I do that every couple years -- just start playing a lot, looking up theories, memorizing openings that suit my fancy. I've never been a tournament player, though I apparently play well enough to be one. One of these days I'm gonna play enough to get rated, but I haven't bothered yet. I just sit at Trabant with the chess board in front of me, doing work or homework or just dallying around, and play whoever wants a game. I might even find a tutor again. In six months or so, I'll probably stop playing again. It's what usually happens. I kind of do these things in waves. Next, it will probably be learning haskell (specifically, to wrap my head around monads), which has been on my "to learn before I die" list for a while. I just really like learning; if I'm not learning something, I feel like I'm slowly dying. Although, if I'm bored for long enough (this takes about three days), it actually gets kind of nice. Those three days are torture, though.

That's about the state of my world.

For all that I'm about the whole "sex doesn't equal love" thing, I'd never actually had "just sex" before last night. I'd always wanted some sort of relationship from it. The past two nights, though, I've brought someone home, handcuffed her, fucked her senseless till we both had a hard time standing, and then taken her home. And wow, that was some of the best sex I've ever had. I now understand why the bdsm afficionados enjoy themselves so much, and I'm only touching the tip of that iceberg.

I think I've been way too reluctant to push someone, sexually, if I'm actually interested in a long-term relationship with them. Even if they want me to. Even if they've asked me to. It's terrible, but I think I'm much less interesting in bed with people that I pursue relationships with. I've had the whole "respect the woman" thing drilled into my head to the point of absurdity, so if I sense any sort of resistance -- and sometimes it's only in my own head -- I'm likely to never bring it up again. And yes, just sit frustrated, and possibly look around for getting it elsewhere, irked at my partner for my own issues. I'm stupid that way, sometimes.

I've had sex with a few of my previous girlfriends after breaking up with them, and it was always much more interesting an experience after the relationship ended. When I wasn't scared of hurting them emotionally (because I thought them less likely to be hurt, not because I no longer cared), I was able to get past my hangups, and just play around instead of being so serious. It's like I was 18 again -- I learned more about sex in those few rolls than in the dozens (hundreds?) of times I've had sex inside the limits of a Relationship. It seems that if the explicit purpose of the meeting is for carnal pleasure alone, I don't have any weird hangups, and have tremendous fun. So does she, apparently.

Oh yeah, in case anyone missed the memo: I'm single now. For a couple weeks at this point. Trisha and I parted ways on good terms, we're still friends, and still enjoy each others' company. We just both think that being a couple was a bad idea for the both of us, so we stopped. After three years, and with little to no drama. I'm actually a bit surprised, human nature being what it is, but hell -- I'm not complaining. Things were slightly awkward for the first few days, as she basically moved out of my house, but even that seems to have passed already. I hold very few regrets regarding that relationship, and still hold her and her opinions with much respect.

I often do things that anger people.

Yeah, what else is new, right? Everyone does. One of the things that's somewhat different, in my case, is that I often know I'm doing it. I often do it on purpose, knowing that it will anger someone. ( I don't do it with the purpose of angering them... )

... so I'll just feel what I feel, I guess. My first response to most stressful things is an enforced apathy, so I'll have to wait until that goes away before I can get a read on how I actually feel about this. It's weird that I can't even figure out what I'm feeling, but there you have it. Forest through the trees, and all that. All I know is that my reaction is a strong one.

My dad just called me and told me he and my mother were having problems, and he's talking about leaving her.

My youngest brother is 16 now. I know for a long time my dad was sticking it out largely for the sake of us kids. I mean, there were other reasons, too, not just that. But, now that the kids are no longer very dependent on them, maybe those other reasons weren't quite enough to offset all the shit that is their relationship.

One of the reasons I'm so against high-maintenance relationships is because my parents' relationship took so much maintenance. Daily talks on the topic of "us" for weeks at a time, in and out of counseling since I was very little, and lots of literal, written contracts regarding behavior. I'm talking about mowing the front lawn before the back lawn, here, not about anything kinky. (Who knows? Maybe they have contracts about that, too.) Taking immense time off work to come take care of things in the family, rules about leaving work exactly at 5pm every single day no matter what.

I look at things like that, and the amount of time poured into simply maintaining the relationship -- not making it better, just preventing it from getting much worse -- and I really, really don't like it. I hear people talking about committing yourself completely to one person ... that's what my parents did. It sucks. My mother has no friends, and my father can't keep a job -- who wants to keep an employee who takes so much time off "for the family" that he's undependable? (Edit: After looking at some numbers from my Dad, I realized that this isn't actually true. He's had 9 employers in the last 28 years, with 5 months of being unemployed. This gives him a 98.5% employment record for those 28 years, with an average of 3.1 years per employer.)

Give me, instead, a relationship where we can just be happy with what we've got, little to no maintenance required. I'm happy? You're happy? Yay. When we have some spare moments, let's make the relationship even better -- but not in a way that requires maintenance. Lots of little things that require a little maintenance add up to LOTS of maintenance in the long run. Want a deeper relationship? Let's take a few hours and spend some time talking about what we want in our lives, or talk about how emotional things affect us. Let's share ourselves with each other, a one-time act that deepens our understanding of one another, and hence our emotional intimacy. Let's not make an agreement to have sex at least twice a week, or to see a movie once a week, or to give gifts once a month, or -- and this one is the worst -- never desire anyone else again. Let's let those things happen as we want them to happen, at the time. Strangely, when there's an actual dearth of something, the desire crops up anyway.

Now, when I promise to give you flowers every week, that's really sweet, isn't it? When I actually give you those flowers every week, is that really sweet? Maybe, especially at first, but after a while it's just the status quo. Let's say I don't promise, and I give you flowers somewhat sporadically, maybe averaging once every couple months, that's really sweet, isn't it? Even years down the line? When I've promised and don't bring the flowers, that's pretty low of me, isn't it? When I do something sweet that then takes lots of effort to maintain -- and that effort doesn't further help anything -- that's creating maintenance. That's stupid. It also makes it so the best I can achieve is status quo, and failing that is bad. Without the maintenance, giving flowers is a positive thing, and not giving flowers is the status quo. It's a difference between being able to make someone happy and being able to avoid making them sad. Stupid. Especially when you make lots of such promises.

That's about it. I'm happy? You're happy? Yay. No need to ask for more.

Actually, a lot of my philosophy stems from this concept. I don't look for problems to fix (badness to turn into neutral), I look for things to improve (neutrality to turn into good).I don't look back for mistakes I've made, I look back for things I could do better. I don't look for flaws in a design, I look for improvements that can be made. Personally, I think it makes it a lot easier to overall improve a situation, because instead of looking only at the flaws, you're picking the best way to improve the situation. Sometimes that improvement is made through removing a flaw. Sometimes that improvement is made by adding something new. In any case, things are how they are, and all you can do is go from there, so you may as well take right now as neutral and go for making it better.

In my last entry, I mentioned a few things about exclusivity and commitment. This sparked some conversations in the comments that brought a few other interesting things to the forefront of my mind, and they're actually a bit more organized now.

There are at least two types of commitment. There's the "de facto" situational commitment, which comes from the environment you're in, and then there's the internal commitment, which is a decision to see something to its end.

As an example of situational commitment, consider going to college. If you are halfway through college, and you've taken out loans to pay for the first two years, you will be screwed if you drop out, have loans to pay, and can't command a salary high enough because you have no degree. You are situationally commited to continuing, because there's an immediate cost to leaving. If, at that point, you no longer care about your schooling, it's still in your best interest to keep slugging along. You may eventually hate it so much that you leave anyway, but it's less likely. That's a type of commitment.

As an example of internal commitment, consider going to college. If you are halfway through college, but all of your college career is paid for by grants, if you drop out, you're fine. If you stick it out, you'll be sinking more of your time into the gamble of coming out ahead in the end, but there's no "penalty" for ditching besides discontinuing to learn. If you stick that out, that's an example of internal commitment. There's no "cost" of leaving -- actually, there's a cost to stay, and you're hoping that cost will be worth it when you get to the other side. That's a different type of commitment.

Imagine what happens to the first student if someone comes and somehow makes all his school loans go away. Huge inheritance, rich uncle, whatever. If he doesn't care about his schooling anymore, that student will drop out of school in a heartbeat. There's no internal commitment there.

Now, take a look at exclusivity in relationships, and how it affects commitment. If exclusivity is a requirement for the relationship (romance, business partnership, whatever), then you've got all your eggs in one basket, so to speak. You're forbidden from setting up alternate options, which means that if the relationship dissolves you're left with nothing, and have to start over from zero. You're setting up a situational commitment: There is a cost to leaving, making it the easiest choice to stay, even if your heart isn't in it. This is a huge difference from open relationships, where you explicitly have other options readily available, and leaving only means that you don't get to continue.

What does this mean? Well, just as with school, it means you're probably going to deal with issues that arise, instead of just leaving. It takes a really big issue to get you to leave, because the cost of leaving is so high. You'll have fights but will work things out, and you'll be safer joining money matters because your partner won't leave so quickly.

After you've been together with someone for a while, you can look at the relationship and realize you've built something good. You can look back and realize that, even if you weren't situationally committed, you'd stay with them, because you care about continuing the relationship. Perhaps you've realized that you're becoming a better person for it, perhaps you've realized that you really like spending time with them, or perhaps you've realized that their presence makes your life better somehow. This is the hope.

There's another option. After you've been together with someone for a while, you can look at the relationship and realize that you've built something bad. You can look back and realize that, if you weren't situationally committed, you'd leave in a heartbeat. If you build something bad enough, as with college, it might be worth leaving anyway. And if that cost of leaving were to vanish -- for instance, by randomly (or purposefully) coming across another option, like another lover for emotional support or a different business partner -- you would leave. Then, exclusivity becomes what's keeping you together.

That other option is really bad. It's like the student who hates school, but is sloshing through it anyway just to get through it, because it hasn't gotten bad enough to warrant the cost of leaving yet. That student will probably never finish anyway, and just incur more loans as he keeps taking the short-sighted easy decision of one more quarter until he can't stand it anymore. It becomes a balancing act between the cost of leaving and the cost of staying, and that's just not fun for anyone involved, especially if it continues.

With exclusivity, you're gaining a situational commitment. That is, you're manipulating the environment around you to enforce a situational commitment, regardless of where one's internal commitment lies. This isn't always bad, by any means. It's great if, for example, you need a kickstart to build something. It gives you the safety of an environmentally enforced commitment, while reasons for an internal commitment can be explored and possibly created. This is often an excellent idea, and can lead to the first option, above, where you'd stay with them even if that situational commitment were to vanish.

With an open relationship, you're avoiding that situational commitment. You don't have the option of depending on it while you build something. On the other hand, you also can't get into that choice between a rock and a hard place, where you have to decide between the cost of leaving and the cost of staying. All commitments that exist are internal commitments.

What does this mean? It means that your partner has no reason to leave you, other than wanting to leave you. It means that if they want to leave you, there's nothing external that's stopping them. I'll say it outright: They're more likely to leave you, and they're more likely to do it sooner.

But! If you can manage to actually build something worth keeping, that first option above, they won't want to leave. The ones who leave will either leave before something is built (the downside of being in an open relationship), or after something bad is built (the upside). Whoever stays, you know they stayed due to an internal commitment, which isn't subject to environmental fluctuations, like meeting a hot secretary at work, or a one-time better price on a business deal.

Really, it's all the same arguments as for and against a free or controlled market.

What does all this mean? Well, if you think you have good chances of building something without any need for environmentally enforced commitments, then try open relationships. If you think you have bad chances of building something without environmentally enforced commitments, try exclusive relationships. Or, if you're like me and place great importance on avoiding the possibility of that bad, second option, go for open relationships. If you're not like me and place great importance on avoiding the possibility of losing a great partner at the beginning due to environmental fluctuations, go for exclusive relationships.

Personal choice and all that, but I for one prefer to avoid situational commitments. I don't seem to have problems building relationships worth keeping, even without that particular safety net.

Tenuously connected thoughts.

It seems that many people conflate "commitment" with "exclusivity". They're not the same thing, obviously. I was wondering why a lot of people equated them, at least in interpersonal relationships, and then it hit me: If you are exclusive, you are committed. It's like putting all your eggs in one basket, which by default gives you reason to commit to protecting that basket. The reverse statement, if you are not exclusive then you are not committed, is not true. It's the standard bit of bad logic: If P then Q, so if not P then not Q. This is wrong, but a lot of poeple think that way, anyway. In any case, if you're unable to point to commitment, then your only measure of commitment in an interpersonal relationship would be looking to see if it's exclusive or not. If it's exclusivve, there's commitment, and if it's not exclusive, you really don't know. If you want commitment, and you're blind to seeing it directly, then why would you take that chance? Makes sense to me now.

I seem to have a different view of commitment to relationships than most people. I commit to making the relationship as good as it can be. Apparently, most people commit to making the relationship survive. That seems silly to me on many levels. First of all, the relationship always exists, even if it changes to become a bad relationship, or an apathetic one. You can't kill a relationship, you can only change it. Second, if you're committed to making it subsist, you're not focused on making it a good one -- and as it's easier (at first) to maintain a bad relationship than a good one, you're giving yourself motivation to make it a bad one. When you commit to making your relationships as good as they can be, the survival of the relationship kinda works itself out. After all, people like being in good relationships. It feels nice.

People are funny. How can you get so hung up on "this is the way it's supposed to be done" when people had vastly different dating patterns 20 years ago, and vastly different dating patterns 20 years before that, and different yet again 20 years prior to even that? It springs forth an intense sense of righteousness, anyway.

If you think you're worthy of being loved for who you are, do you need the safety blanket of exclusivity? It seems that people who are very insecure will want someone who will validate their insecurity, in the form of not caring for them, giving them evidence that they have no reason to be secure. Hello, abusive relationships and swinging. It seems that people who are a little insecure will want someone who will validate their insecurity, in the form of caring for them only if they have no other options. Hello, stereotypical monogamy. It seems that people who are secure in themselves will want someone to validate their security, in the form of caring for them even in the presence of other easy options. Hello, healthy monogamy and, with even more security, open relationships. Validation of self worth as the common theme.

More thoughts, less time...

I had an IM conversation with ariata today where she asked me to explain ... well, here's the relevant part of that conversation:

( fascinating drivel )

These "definitions" aren't all that nifty, or even overly special. It came up in a discussion of polyamorous relationships. They're not even definitions, really, but names that emphasize some aspect of a relationship. They're certainly not exclusive: think overlapping circles, or Venn Diagrams, or even signal networks, if your'e into that kind of thing. The big R is something you can't really pin down with a single definition.

A relationship, in essence, to me, is a continued interaction between two people. (I understand that, for some people, it's "two or more people". For me, it's "two people". I'll explain that in a bit.) That's the basic framework, and from there it goes in all sorts of directions. The bit about "continued interaction" is generic enough that it's hard to distort much, but "people" can be molded to include pets, computers, cars, whatever -- anything that interacts. So really, I suppose a relationship is a continued interaction between two entities, but that doesn't sound nearly as good, and it doesn't emphasize the people aspect as much as I'd like.

There are so many variations of relationships, on so many axes, that it's really hard even to group them. I mean, society at large has done a pretty good job of coming up with names of the most common varieties such as friends, lovers, and spouses. Thing is, as I wrote to ariata above, these words don't "label" so much as "emphasize" certain aspects of a relationship. It's a difference very similar to the difference between sorting your pictures into various folders versus tagging them with a number of keywords. This journal entry, for instance, doesn't exactly fit into "psychology", "rants", "philosophy", or "introspection", but any of those words would emphasize certain aspects of this entry, so I tag it with all of them -- but not "poetry", or "tech", or "politics" (okay, maybe that one, but I don't want to go there). I would be hard pressed to decide which one tag I wanted to group it by.

To make matters even more difficult, a lot of the words we do have tag things as not there: "fuckbuddy" means there are elements of friendship and lustful activities, but emphasize an exclusion of lifetime partnership; "bedwarmer" and "sex toy" mean there are elements of lustful activities, but emphasize an exclusion of commitment or even friendship. What makes matters extremely difficult is that these terms don't actually, literally mean that those elements aren't present: The negative emphasis comes from the fact that there are other words you would use that do emphasize the commitment, or the friendship, if it were there ... and using the term that doesn't emphasize them gives an implicit emphasis on its opposite. Someone calls their girlfriend (emphasis on the commitment, lustful/romantic acitvities, and friendship) a bedwarmer (emphasis on the lustful activities), the fact that there are words that do emphasize commitment and friendship implicitly gives emphasis to a lack of commitment and friendship -- unless you override it with other terms nearby that do, in fact, emphasize those qualities, in which case the implicit emphasis isn't there anymore. If you say your girlfriend is also an excellent bedwarmer, you're emphasizing everything girlfriend-like with an added, extra emphasis on how she is in bed.

Given all this, it is any wonder that people are eternally confused about what to call their relationships? What do you do when you don't have any convenient words that will emphasize what you'd like to emphasize? Perhaps you have a relationship that's extremely committed, with no lustful activities, but you're sharing your lives with each other economically? What do you call that? You'd have to say something weird like "platonic life mate", because there are no terms I can think of that emphasize shared life with a friend without sex.

The part I don't really understand is the drive to actually categorize relationships, to group them, like putting photos into folders. Is that photo of your beach trip with your ex where you ran into an old friend under "photos of my ex" or under "trips" or under "photos of my old friend"? It seems the same with categorizing relationships. Seems to me it would be simplest to just look at the relationship and emphasize the aspects that are relevent to the conversation at hand, hopefully avoiding any implicit emphases that happen to be false.

This is why, when people ask me what my relationship with someone is, I usually just describe what we do with our time together, instead of trying to find a label. I can use the labels to emphasize certain qualities of a relationship, so if someone asks me "is so-and-so your girlfriend" I can usually answer "yes", "no", or "kind of", depending on if those qualities happen to be present in my relationship with so-and-so, but even then I usually just enumerate which girlfriend-ish things we do and which ones we don't. It's also why I explicitly mention the open nature of my relationships, as there's no common word I know of that means "friends, lovers, partners, and open" (although "primary" comes close, it's not exactly in common usage). Closest I can get, using common words with their common emphases, is phrases like "girlfriend number one". I would often introduce ariata to others as my "partner", because although I have other relationships where I'm friends, lustful, and committed, she was the only one I had partnered with in life (and it was usually immediately apparent that she was also my girlfriend).

So, describing relationships, due to the large number of simple attributes and the much larger number of combinations of those attributes, seems like it often has to be done in a soft, fuzzy fashion. This is all fine and good, because we have ways of doing that, and we even have ways that are easily understood. Still, many people act like they think the label defines what you're supposed to do in the relationship: the label defining the relationship, instead of the relationship specifying the label. What the hell? Someone explain this to me. It's like they took the words -- which were, of course, invented for the purpose of describing actual relationships -- and turned them into cookie-cutters, completely obviating their original purpose. Perhaps the relationships were so standard for so long that people started thinking that the causality went the other way? That the words defined the relationships, instead of describing what the relationships themselves defined? I hear all the time that if someone is your "girlfriend" you should act a certain way toward them. Similar with "friend".

Someone please tell me how this makes sense. Enough people act this way that I'm sure it makes sense somehow; I just don't see it.

Sometimes I feel like a chameleon. Not because I can change who am at will -- oh, how glorious that would be -- but because I soak up my surroundings, and turn into them. Stick me anywhere, and I'll fit in before very much time has passed. My thought patterns themselves shift into something that works with the environment I'm in, copying whoever is around me.

This is somewhat in contrast with my belief about how well I'd fare in the face of extreme, intentional brainwashing. I'm thinking of various bootcamp-type situations, where I'd be subjected to some serious confrontation. I simply can't imagine myself breaking under that. I've been broken before; I know exactly what it takes, and the combination of yelling, menial labor, and getting my ass kicked aren't enough. I'm a chameleon, but I don't lose the ability to wear the color I had before.

I don't like thinking about the past. Knowing how shifty my own color is, just thinking about a time in the past will change the shade I'm wearing to match, and that usually doesn't work so well. I don't like looking at pictures, even of others, because my mind swirls through so many different people. I've been many of those people, to some degree; I still am those people, to some degree.

I don't forget my past. Or mine. Or mine. Or even mine. Every past of mine is a culmination of each of the pasts that came before, and each time I re-clothe myself in the color of my past, it feels backwards, like relapse, like shucking off all that I've learned since and starting over at that point.

Often, when no one else is around, I go and try on a bunch of my old shades, bringing them into focus for a while and seeing how well they fit with the other shades dancing around in my being. I set the different colors in conflict with one another, just to see where it resolves. This is an emotionally difficult process, to the point of physical pain, but it's the only way I can find to survive, without fracturing into many different shards.

I consider myself marginally insane, or perhaps marginally sane, as I have so many different people inside my head, inside my muscles, inside the core of what I consider "self". Some of me are patient. Some of me are not. Some of me are well defined. Some of me are not. Some of me are trustworthy. Some of me are not. Some of me are machiavellian. Some of me are not.

Which me am I now? All of them. I'm always all of them, even when they don't particularly show their color boldly. What does all this mean? You tell me. I don't know.

I went to a wedding last night, of a lady friend I've known off and on for a few years. It was one of those things where there's some pretty obvious mutual attraction, but due to religious differences neither of us went there, and just enjoyed each other's converstation instead.

I met her father for the first time. I knew he was in Iraq for much of the war, and I know he's somewhat important in an "If I told you what I do for a living, I'd have to kill you" kind of way (literally ... I think). For instance, when he found out that Mary (no, not that Mary) and I were hanging out, he dug up my records and told her about it. Turned out to be for my benefit, because I had already told Mary about it, so she just said "I know", which earned me a measure of trust in both their eyes, I think. Anyway. I had expected him to be, well, strong. Like Mary is strong. Strong-willed children usually have strong-willed parents, and I was completely expecting her father to dominate the room he was in.

But ... he didn't. As a matter of fact, I didn't notice him and I was standing right next to him. I didn't notice him until he held out his hand to shake mine. And when he talked, he was timid. That was so completely not what I had expected, it left me kinda shocked.

As an aside: Mary is a natural brunette, not that you'd know it (she always has it dyed golden blond), with a birthmark on her widow's peak that causes the hair there to grow white, albino-style. You know, like Rogue from X-Men, but with dyed hair. She had told me it was a family trait, and that most of the women in her family had it (though she was the only brunette), but it wsa still really interesting to see about half the women in the wedding party with a streak of lighter color in their hair, and knowing it was natural.

So, at the wedding, I had a decently long time to think about stuff as they were talking about god. I usually tune out after about 30 seconds of someone talking about how we are under god, having gleaned all the information I figure I'll need, and not really feeling the need for a pep talk (and especially not a christian one). I started thinking about skill, and about strength, and how much I yearned for that both in my self and my life, the people around me. I actually teared up when I realized that Cory, my brother, would be playing at my wedding (or die trying, if I know him), and that he has more skill with that damn piano than anyone I know, anywhere, has with anything.

Then I thought about all the choirs I've been in, and all the bands and orchestras I've been in, and of my deceased flute instructor (may he rest in peace), and of my old practice of teaching flute, and my voice instructor who is now in New York singing operas (he was one of the few who both "could" and "could teach"), and about my fellow students in CSE, and hanging out with the grad students. Then I started thinking about the people I'm around these days: a bunch of middle-aged coworkers, a lot of cafe lurkers, a bunch of people who would like me to think they're good with computers, and a bunch of young people who are either awed by my presence or hate it ... but can't understand or even withstand it.

There are a number of things I want to do before I die. I have a list, that I keep generally just in my head, of things on my long-term To-Do list. Since I was very little, I wanted to play piano like my Mom. I still want to play piano like my Mom. I'll never be as good as my brother, but I want to be able to sit down and play what's in front of me, with multiple voices and harmony, instead of struggling to keep my hands separated in my mind. Flute wasn't good enough. I need Mussorgsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition" in all its splendor. I've wanted to learn Math. Lots of math. For six years, ever since I knew of their existence, I've wanted to learn how to do Fourrier transforms and understand them. I want to be a dancer. I want to be an acrobat. I want to understand my body, what it can do, and do it to the extreme. I want to be a car mechanic, or at least good enough to troubleshoot any random problem even if I can't then fix it. I want to understand why heuristics work (not "a given heuristic" but "heuristics in general"). I want to understand qantum mechanics. I want to earn my damn Bachelors degree.

I'm slowly going through the list, because I can only be working on one or two of them at a time. Though I picked up a book on Fourrier transforms a year ago, I never looked at it until I had to learn it for a class this quarter -- but now I can mark that off my list. I've started training taijutsu (and I say "started" but I've been doing it for nine months now) to understand my body, in addition to all the dance training I already have. I'm perusing books on quantum mechanics, but still not quite getting it. I'm back in school, to finish my Bachelors degree. Still, I'm adding things to the list faster than I'm taking them off, and I still haven't bought a piano.

I want to be surrounded with people who know things I'd like to learn.

I've felt stifled lately. I can't precisely figure out why. My money situation is under control (this is a big deal for me), releasing me of a long-standing pressure. I'm back in school. My job allows me plenty of time, and the flexibility to choose where I take that time. Heck, my job is just playtime for me, because I am the sole architect of the IT resources at the company.

I do have a lack of friends I wish to hang out with, to share with, to experience with.

I have no lack of friends. Zillions of friends. Friends I'd enjoy hanging out with. But, there's no drive. No passion. Nothing compelling me to reach for the phone and call, desiring the conversation that will follow. Rather, I just sit back, hang out with whomever is nearby, and exist.

Mary and I used to talk for hours. Not that "I love you" crap, either -- just one of the few people I honestly enjoyed discussing with, getting her views on things because they were new and still made sense. We didn't need to talk about sex, or politics, or any other emotionally charged "grab your focus" type topics, because we actually had stuff to talk about. You know, everything.

I hear that people who believe they are better/more skilled than they are actually do better than a person with an accurate assessment of their skills. That whole "reach for the stars" bit, I suppose. I wonder why that is. It hurts my philosphy to think of it as true.

I caught the garter. The groom then asked for it back, though. I've caught the garter at the last three weddings I've attended. Kinda scary. Actually, I've caught the garter at evrey wedding I've attended where they've thrown a garter. Mary made him give it back to me, though, so I better actually have it hanging in my car next time I see her or she's gonna yell at me.

The groom also seemed timid. Mary's gonna trounce all over the poor guy. Oh well, he seems happy with it.

Lyrics to "I May", author unfortunately unknown (courtesy of galith):

I may hate gay folks
I may not, it's true
I may be surprised, that you are so surprised
I may like boys too

I may be heartless
I may be a real dick
When I give you a smile, and look into your eyes
It may not be a trick

I may think you're beautiful
I may cherish you and you may never know
I may live and die each time you blink those gorgeous eye
I may think, that you're a hoe

I may think you're ugly
So repulsive it makes me wish that I were dead
I may not, have ever had such thoughts
running through my head

I'm telling you so you'll know.
I'm telling you so you'll know.
I'm telling you so you'll know.
I'm telling you so you'll know.

I may want what you want
I may be a lot like you
You may look to me in awe as I say I may know the way to God
My soul may be empty too

I may be the most unassuming kid you've ever met
I may just want to help you how I may
I may be a fiend pulling tricks and spilling schemes
I may you make you feel welcome either way

I may want to puke each time I wake up just to realize that i am still connected to this retched human leg of mine.
And it lies there, and I stare.
And I may want to puke it's true and half the time I do

One thing I can tell you
This may be the more important thing of all
Sometimes I am sure that I would die for you
Just as long as you ______________________.

I'm telling you so you'll know.
I'm telling you so you'll know.
I'm telling you so you'll know.
I'm telling you so you'll know.

---

This song got me thinking this morning, as I was listening to it while driving to work, about what it actually means when a person (A) says something (X) to another person (B). What motivation is there to say it?

The first answer that came to my mind, of course, was "truth". I've been brainwashed by the scientific revolution just as much as the rest of you, so I still have an aesthetic tendency to think of truth as the Great Motivator. But really, let's think about this for a moment: Yeah, okay, so it's truth (hypothetically) -- but why state it? Take a look at this song -- it's all true, but conveys nothing except wonder about why he would say so much of nothingness, and this nothingness in particular. Basically, the fact that there is communication is the communicated fact, along with all the implications. Once I had rejected "truth" as a motive in my mind, things got interesting.

Let's break this down. If A says X to B, then of course, A for some reason wants to state X, and in particular he wants to state it to B. It's not like he's just making gibberishy noises, there's a reason he's chosen this particular arrangement, X, to communicate. What's that reason? Is there a universal reason, or is there no common overlap between all possible reasons?

I would think that one common overlap would be that he thought it was true. But, there are so many things that are true that aren't stated, and things that are false that actually do get stated, that I have a hard time convincing myself that this is the answer I'm looking for. As much as I would like Truth to be the Great Motivator, it just doesn't jive with what I see around me.

Well, what if A wants B to believe X? (I envision X, by the way, is what's actually communicated in context, including all body language and inflections of voice indicating sarcasm, etc -- not just the literal string of words with their literal meanings). This covers lying and other forms of deceit, and seems to be generally true for all communication. But take a look at the song above: all of it is stuff that no one would argue with, because all he's saying is that this or that "may" be true. How can B's belief be a motive, when X is already clearly believed by B? A may want B to believe X in all cases, but suspect this would be an accident of structure rather than a motive. I sense no motive here.

Another thought entered my mind, one step more abstract. Perhaps A wants B to think that A, himself, believes X. This may or may not be true, so it covers lying and deceit, and I can think of a myriad of good reasons A would want such a thing, because B's actions toward A will be different depending upon how B views A and A's beliefs. But then, once again looking at the song, it's quite obvious without being stated that the singer already believes everything he's saying. In other words, B could have told A, "A believes X". So how can this be the motive, if B already thinks that A, himself, believes X?

The idea that finally perchanced upon me, that I can't find a refutation for, is that A merely wishes to illuminate or draw attention to the ideas surrounding X (or away from the ideas surrounding Y). Look at this song; what is it saying to you? To me, it says, "There are lots of possibilities." Further, there's a pattern among those possibilities, and that pattern is that the most likely possibilities are also at odds with each other, along with a feeling of "you'll never know for certain". I can think of no better way of communicating it, either, although the principal communication (or what I principally received as the communication) was never explicitly stated, but rather left for the listener to absorb through context.

So, is this true for all communication? Is it all merely to illuminate or draw attention to (or away from) particular concepts or ideas? I think so. Sarcasm, debate, arguments, lying, misdirection, talking abut the weather (which really just communicates, "Hi! I like talking with you" unless you're a meteorologist), humor, debate: all of these seem just examples of pointing at particular concepts or ideas, in a variety of ways, with a variety of strengths.

Now, the thing that confuses me, and causes me think that maybe I'm wrong, is this: Many people, in particular much of the people I interact with who consider themselves intelligent, consider the communication to be the words themselves, and not the ideas behind them; they worry about the definitions of the words, and not about the ideas they illuminate. Where does sarcasm fit? Where does body language fit? Where does the fuzziness of "literal" translation fit? Where does stating the obvious fit? I don't understand.

When someone, call him A, tells me something, anything -- I'll still call it X -- a number of things run through my mind:

1. A wants to tell me X
   
2. X is likely to be true (in my experience, people say true things more often than not)
   
3. A probably also wants to communicate X', X'', and X''', which follow from context plus X
   
4. A probably wants me to believe X
   
5. A probably wants me to believe that he believes X
   
6. A probably finds X, X', X'', and X''' interesting topics to explore
   
7. A isn't talking about Y
   
8. A probably thinks it's better to talk about X than Y right now, if he's thinking about Y at all
   
9. A chose method M of communicating X (M may be sarcasm, humor, severity, flippancy, body language, written word, whatever)
   
10. A probably attributes importance to X proportional to M
    
11. A probably wants me to attribute the same importance to X that he displayed
    
12. A probably considers this idea, X, as a part of himself
    
13. A will probably consider rejecting X as a partial rejection of himself
    
14. ... and the list goes on, each "probably" being slightly less probable than the ones it depends upon, until it isn't worth considering anymore.

Now, most of this goes on in the back of my brain, unnoticed until I actually have to think about it, but when I want to access it it's there ... already determined, and not deliberated over when I happened to feel like thinking about it. The part I find fascinating is, although all of it has to do with X, only a small portion of it actually is X, and the rest of it stems from the fact that something was communicated. I never specified what X was in that list, so none if it can be from X: all of it stems from the existence of message X, regardless of the contents of the message.

Many of the people I see around me seem to stop at item 2, or perhaps item 3, and then figure it is best to stop there, along the "Mean what you say, and say what you mean" lines of thought. There is so much more information to be had! It's not as if these people don't have the capacity to extrapolate further, it seems they think it is wrong to do so -- I see the brakes lights flash in my face whenever I bring up the idea of looking more into a communication than the words, those sacred words. Why? I don't understand. Sure, it's not a certain thing ... but neither are the words, and the actual communication often isn't in the words at all.

Where do we draw the line of usefulness?

What do you do when someone you have explicit trust in, because they've never given you reason to ever doubt a word they said, breaks your trust? And by "breaks your trust", I mean in the "You know that really important thing I've been telling you for the last 9 months? It isn't true" kind of breaking trust. Outright deception, for a long period of time, requiring additional spinoff stories that also aren't true. I'm still going through the web, finding everything that this little white lie affected.

You know how long it takes to build trust? A long, long time. You know what's horrible about violently broken trust? When you feel betrayed, you no longer give them the benefit of the doubt ... the default goes from "it's just a misunderstanding" to "they lied to me". That's a horrible place to be.

Okay, it's only one thing, right? For some reason, they thought they really needed to tell this little falsehood. They had no idea it was important, or that it would become as large and involved of a story as it did. And it bugged them. It bugged them enough that they came out and told you, even though you were still oblivious, and likely would have remained that way indefinitely. And Love was involved. People do stupid things for Love. And it was only one thing, and one thing is pretty hard to justify getting worked up over when you look at the entirety of the relationship. And in confessing, they gave you the keys to the kingdom, so to speak: all the tools necessary for going out and verifying everything they'vesaid. That's good, right? It seems like the right thing to do, when you've made a mistake.

Then you see something else. Evidence that they once again lied, in a different situation. And that lie was so simple, there's no way you would have even noticed that something was missing from the picture, except that you were suspicious. For pete's sake, it's fine if they don't want to wear the little trinket of your affection. But it's not fine to tell you they will, and then not wear it when they said they would, and then to divert the question when asked about it after the fact. It's not a falsehood to say he didn't notice it ... of course he didn't notice it, if it wasn't there.

And yet, you have to wonder if this is actually just a misunderstanding. See, now that the trust is broken, blown out of the water, you default to thinking that they're still lying. Especially when it's as obvious and hard to argue with as a picture, where something that should be there is not.

Even if I can handle this, I'm not sure I want to. Sometimes I wish I still believed that starting over was an option.

So, in looking at my (often assinine) behavior, I've noticed that I start acting scared/insecure/unstable in a relationship when I reach the point where I care enough about the other person that I'd be fairly crushed if they left. I also have to think it's a decent possibility, but it takes both.

Of course, with the way I run my life, that situation rarely happens. But, there's an issue with getting close to someone, in a romantic sense, because it's so incredibly easy to attribute more to the relationship than what's actually there. If I see someone drifting away, the natural thing for me to do is to reach out, grab, and try to pull back in. I'm convinced this is a bad thing, having seen the fallout of it -- in my life and others -- a few more times than I'd like. The alternative I've come up with is to first accept the way things are: that they are drifting, and that I'm powerless to stop it for anything except a short term rejuvenation. But gods, that's a hard thing to do, when you care a lot, even when you know it's just because you're attributing more to the relationship than what's actually there, and that things would be fine if you just let shit go.

A few people call me chauvanistic, that I treat women as less than men. In a "value of the person" sense, I don't discriminate by sex, it's much more individual than that. In another sense, though, they're right -- I do not give women the benefit of the doubt nearly as much as I do for guys, at least not statistically. It's definitely an individual thing, a per-woman (and per-man) basis, and there are of course a few counter-examples, but my romantic interests -- especially my superficial ones -- I don't consider nearly as permanent as my non-romantic interests. Still, there are of course counterexamples -- but those counterexamples are (or were) non-romantic interests first and foremost.

Mind games, mind games, mind games. Sillly expectations. I wonder where things would fall if I just ignored them, and told people what I thought of them? Eventually somewhere good, I'm guessing, but the immediate would suck. Oh well. I guess I'll find out if I'm wrong.

Wow. I've been just been accused of being insecure. It's true, of course -- everyone is insecure at times, about certain things -- but rarely has that been spoken of as one of my characteristics. Last time I can recall was over three years ago.

It's disgusting how easy it is to cast light upon something causing it to look bad, and how hard it is to cast light upon something causing it to something look good. Actually, it's not that hard to make something look good ... it's just rarely done, in comparison. I wonder why that is.

... your roommate comes home at 1:00 in the morning, sees all lights turned off but the fire blazing in the fireplace, Loreena McKennitt playing softly in the background, and a topless woman he's never seen before lounging on the floor in front of the fire with a silly grin on her face -- and just shrugs and goes to bed as if it's nothing out of the ordinary.

Muahaha. ha.

Oh gods, the irony.

I've been doing a lot of unthinking lately. Perhaps it would be better to say "non-thinking", or perhaps even "meta-thinking". Basically it's a lot of "fuck it, this isn't worth thinking about". Kinda Nike-esque, I suppose.

So, here's the deal. I'm a chicken. Like, your regular scaredy-cat. Large groups freak me the shit out. Intimacy scares me to no end.

But gods, I'm lonely. I'm even more scared of loneliness than I am of groups, or of intimacy. There is an amazing freedom of mind when you make a choice, even with the certain knowledge of pain. I'm positive that I will be hurt. My desires trampled upon, my heart ripped to shreds, my very essence rejected by those that I love. Yet, for a time, there is no better drug than to hear someone lovingly call my name, to believe myself part of something, to not be lonely for a time. And my mind cries out for safety, for knowledge, for information, so I can believe that this drug will not leave me.

I have no freaking clue what to do, how to act, to save myself. Yet here I am, walking through it anyway, refusing to give in to that desire for self delusion. Scared as shit.

Okay, here's an opening for everyone who has wanted to make a fool of me publicly. Ask me any question, and I will answer. If you really want, go ahead and ask two. But, be forewarned, I will answer truthfully, and brutally so at that.

The following is shamelessly cut&pasted from cow's post on individuality:

After all, in this human condition, amongst socities, and being one of about 6.5 billion people, I think it's the most human one can be to be an individual, know who you are, and retain that amongst the crowd.

You know, I can't help but think of this saying of galith's, when I read that paragraph: "You are a beautiful and unique individual, just like everyone else."

I'm not sure what it means to be "human", but I figure I'm it, and so are you, and so are most if not all of the people I meet.

I've struggled in finding a useful definition for "individual" (and "independent"), because everyone I know depends upon other people, so how are they really individual? The definition I've settled upon, and what I strive for, is this: A person is an "individual" -- and "independent" -- if they don't depend upon specific persons. For instance, a controlling mate/partner (okay, so I'm thinking "girlfriend", because that's how I've experienced it, but it happens the other way too) is often controlling because they've put all of their eggs into that one basket, with no exit options. They've structured their entire life around being in this one particular social group, or with this one particular person, and burnt bridges to their friends of times past. These people are not independent in my book, and not really individuals, either.

Now, I certainly see the point of putting a lot of your eggs into that proverbial basket, especially after you've experienced life with them enough to be certain that this is where you want to be, and you are where they want to be -- but until that happens (and it takes experiencing life with them, not an epiphany of realization -- greatblondelf made an excellent and hilarious post on this subject; I heartily recommend reading it as not a waste of time), the "throw everything you've got into this one person and then have nothing if it breaks" just doesn't seem like a sound strategy to me, because a lot more relationships break than don't. Well, all of them do, eventually, through death or otherwise.

A person who continues with his or her current mate because they have no other options is not something I want in my life. I don't want to be on either side of that coin. It just seems ... unhealthy, to me. This does not mean that I want to be polyamorous my entire life. I don't, contrary to popular belief. What I want is someone who knows me, and accepts me, and loves me (I'm not sure what that means, but I know I want it, and I recognize it when it's there), and stays because they choose to, even though they have other options. If someone is going to be exclusive to me, I don't want it to be because they're "not supposed to"; I want it to be because they've chosen me over the other options, and are continuing to choose me over the other options. In every romantic relationship I've ever had, I have never asked for exclusivity. I've told (some of) my partners that I will be exclusive to them (and then actually have been), but I don't ask it in return -- only that they be honest and open with me about the others. Nowadays, I don't even tell them I'll be exclusive (I go so far as to make it clear that there is no promise of exclusivity). Unfortunately, the open part has yet to happen -- which has been the arbiter of doom for a good proportion of my relationships -- but I'm confident that it will, eventually.

I know a lot of people want to be an "individual", and unique. A good many people take solace in the belief that they are somehow different, one of a kind, and not just a byproduct of soaking up their surroundings, along with all the other chaff. I was one of those people. But, we're all human. We all die. We all have roughly the same hardware, the same base desires, the same culture (eastern and western cultures really are quite similar, it just happens to be the differences that we notice), the same aging process, the same emotions, and roughly the same cognitive abilities. Yes, I am as unique as a snowflake. But, you know, all snowflakes have the same function, they do the same thing. They're all frozen water. And, honestly now, can you tell one snowflake apart from another, when you're looking at a collection of them? Not really.

I am no more unique than a snowflake. Except in the strictest sense of the word, I am not unique. There are others like me. Every trait that I possess, there are multitudes of others with that same trait. There might not be an exact duplicate of me, with this same collection and combination of traits, but there are so many "almosts" that it really doesn't matter. And, you know what? I really like that, when I sit back and think about it.

I accept that I am not unique, that I will die, and that someday -- maybe it'll take millions of years and maybe it will take three -- I will be forgotten and completely inconsequential. Once I've figured out the "Why bother to continue living?" question in the face of that scary concept (which I have, at least to my own satisfaction), I have neither an urge to fit in for the sake of fitting in, nor standing out for the sake of standing out. And that really, really makes my life easier.

Makes me wonder, though -- if we're all so hung up on being "unique" and "individuals", why are we also so hung up on "fitting in"? Ponderings ...

This started out as a response to this post in galith's journal, where lilsquishy is quoted as saying:

What I will argue against, and what I continue to perceive in certain people, is the espousing of beliefs that are harmful to other people, ignorant of the rest of the world, narcissistic, callous, and/or solipsistic. [...] But the actions that that person commits, and justifies with the same beliefs, can be understood as harmful.

I'm not trying to pick on word usage or anything here (if lilsquishy uses a particular word choice, my money is on it being the right choice -- she has an amazing vocabulary and utilizes it extraordinarily well), but I had to look up what the particular distinctions were between these two words, and so I'm listing the definitions as I see them before using them myself (I looked them up at Merriam-Webster Online, for those who may be curious):

narcissistic: of the belief that individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action, or that individual self-interest is the valid end of all actions

solipsist: believing that you are all that exists in the world

I think with my recent post on self-centeredness, it's pretty clear that I am definitely narcissistic by nature. If you want to know why, well, read the post! :-) In any case, although narcissism may not be to some people's liking, or even understanding, it is a viable and functional way of dealing with the world around you, and in my opinion harms people a lot less than most philosophies based upon "selflessness". Solipsism -- the belief that you are truly the only thing that exists -- may or may not be true. But, the way the philosophy is applied, it doesn't matter: even if everyone else is just a construct of your imagination, or id, or ego, or whatever, they still act consistently, and can harm you, and can be harmed. You still have reason to be nice to them, and treat them with respect. It doesn't really matter if they're there, or not. In a sense, I am also solipsist, because I believe that everything I perceive is, well, just a perception -- but that perception is the best I'll ever get, so it may as well be the only thing that exists. In fact, if you define "existence" in terms of what you can perceive, then it is the only thing that exists. All the same, I personally believe that all you lovable bozos actually exist (smile!), and that I am not alone in the universe.

Neither narcissism and solipsism are harmful in and of themselves. The dangerous aspect of them is that there is no overriding "moral" structure that they recognize, no list of rules to follow simply because they are "the rules". They become harmful when people fail to realize that hurting other people also hurts themselves -- and I am truly scared of anyone who does not make that distinction, with or without a moral structure. I personally find such "lists of rules" not as useful as the simple realization that there are personal consequences for every action. When there is just a list of rules (the law is a common example of such a list, as are the ten commandments), everything not on the list is fair game, and even those things on the list are tweakable and open to multiple interpretations, even (especially?) when the list is in "legalese". Someone brought up with the belief that as long as they are not breaking any of the rules on that list (whatever list, I don't care which) then they are not doing anything wrong is someone that sets off loud, clanging warning bells in my head as someone quite likely to do something harmful to me -- simply because they're ignorant of the consequences of their actions. "Activities that harm" is not something you can capture in list form. You can't even put "Activities that don't harm" on a list and have it be exhaustive, or even useful.

Of course, the people who have the lists and don't have this realization that harming others harms the self (and that harming the self sucks) get really, really scared when they come across someone like me, who claims to have no such list. If all they have is that list, and I don't have that list, or any such list, what -- in their mind -- is to stop me from being a damnable bastard and screwing them over just for the fun of it? In their mind, nothing. And those people are the ones I want far, far away from me. I want them far away from me, because the only thing between them and trying to harm me is a highly interpretable, highly controversial, and highly ambiguous list. I don't trust the person whose intent is to follow the list, because they believe it is "right". I trust the person whose intention is to not harm me, because they believe it will harm that person's self, and they don't want that self to come to harm. People who don't care if their own self is harmed scare me the most, regardless of personal philosophy.

That said, I agree that it is the actions, not the beliefs, that can be understood as harmful. Beliefs are not harmful to other people, although actions based upon them may be. Beliefs themselves are rather inert; it's the applications that matter. Spreading beliefs that impel harmful actions might even itself be considered one of those harmful actions -- just the spreading of the idea can have harmful consequences, and communicating is certainly an action. Beliefs that are ignorant of the rest of the world I can definitely see as leading to harmful actions. But, I disagree with the implication that narcissism and solipsism lead to harmful actions any more than, say, Christianity or utilitarianism do.

Narcissism and solipsism, in my opinion, do not increase the chances of harming out of ignorance. I personally believe it reduces it, because people typically don't like to see themselves harmed, and take steps to learn enough about their environment to avoid it. If someone is malicious, then I think it would be a lot easier for someone to bend a list to make their actions "right" than it is to bend the "it's personally harmful" thing. And, when it comes to apathy -- simply not caring if it's harmful to the other person or not -- narcissism and solipsism make that really unlikely, because humans are usually looking out to avoid harm. Apathy is much more of a problem where lists are concerned, because being (or not being) on a list can make it "right", regardless of the consequential harm of the action.

The issue of callous beliefs I find intriguing, because there are two applicable definitions of the word. I recently made a post on Lies: prevarication, equivocation, paltering, fibbing, and general deceit where I discuss my views on the harm of using words with multiple -- and conflicting -- applicable definitions (otherwise known as Equivocation -- thank you galith for the link to the Logical Fallacies site). The word "callous" is commonly applied to any behavior which is not, on the surface, "nice". It literally means "hard and unyielding". Now, there are certainly times when that is necessary, and not wrong, and in the end the least harmful option. It is generally considered far more harmful to be an enabler to an alcoholic (by being "nice" and making leeway for it, for example), than it is to be "callous" and making it hard for them to do anything except seek help for the problem.

The other definition puts "callous" as meaning "without sympathy" or "without emotion". This I can see as a problem. If you have no sympathy, that pretty much means that you don't care if they get harmed -- at least, that's the way I've thought of sympathy since I figured out it meant something different than "empathy". I might even be swayed to consider it a problem of ignorance -- it's really hard not to be sympathetic with someone when you actually know what their situation is. And, if you don't care about the other getting harmed, I can certainly see that leading to harm. But, the callous friend who gets the alcoholic to the help he needs is most certainly sympathetic, and almost has to have strong emotion and strong sympathy to go through the pain of accepting his friend as an alcoholic, and spending the hours upon hours callously convincing his friend -- by whatever means he has at his disposal -- to get help. All of this, because he sees the harm of being an alcoholic, and cares about it. Yet, according to the first definition, this is still callous.

So, I agree that beliefs devoid of sympathy or emotion (which includes neither solipsism nor narcissism; they just look at it with a different motivation) can definitely lead to harmful actions. I disagree with the implication that any hard and unyielding action, or aspect of a belief, is harmful or will lead to harmful actions. Of course, some might. A lot might. Some don't. Many don't. And, humans tend to get more callous as life goes on. We've all heard of, or met, one of those grizzled old men, callous as hell. And, we've all heard of how, goddamnit, that grizzled old man's callous beliefs are usually right, and following his advice would have saved us from a lot of harm (why do we never follow his advice?).

I assume that, when you experience life, you figure out what matters in the long run, and what doesn't. I've certainly noticed that trend in everyone I associate with -- some more slowly than others. To those who don't have the experience, some beliefs born of that experience that are hard and unyielding (having been thoroughly tested, unlike those of the young whipper-snappers') seem incredibly unsympathetic and devoid of emotion. It seems as though they don't care, they don't understand, when often they do care, do understand, and are incredibly sympathetic to your cause, having been there themselves.

In summary, I think that narcissism and solipsism are not more likely to lead to harmful behavior than the standard list-based moral structure most religions and political bodies espouse, and are actually more likely to lead away from it. I think that ignorance of the world around you leads to harm. I think that callous (hard and unyielding) beliefs and actions have their place, and often lead away from harm. I think that callous (unsympathetic and without emotion) actions and beliefs often lead to harm, because I believe that not caring about harm certainly leads to harm.

Of course, I never defined "harm", but in general I'm referring to any sort of physical, mental, or emotional nastiness. And, I didn't get into "this type of harm" versus "that type of harm" distinctions or importances. Take it as you will. As mom always use to say, "Listen to what everyone has to say, take what you think is right, and junk the rest." Mom is wise.

New Years again. Introspection abounds.


This world we have is not a perfectly predictable place. It is, however, a probabilistically predictable place. I used to try to figure out what would happen as a consequence of my actions, and plan ahead for it. Like, I would figure that a girl would stay with me if I treated her well, or I figured I'd do well in a class if I did all the work well and attended. I was wrong. I was wrong a lot. Trying to predict an exact outcome, or even an exact partial outcome, just doesn't work all that well.

The problem with exact predictions is that they're exact, and our views of the world are not. When I open my mouth to speak, and I've had enough sleep that I'm thinking clearly, I first envision the many possible outcomes of my intended statement. Then I mentally sort them into related classes, such as acceptance, rejection, ambivalence, humor, etc. I then decide which one is most likely, and prepare for that. Then I figure which ones are also likely, and prepare for those too. And, always always always prepare for the extremes -- not because they're likely to happen, but because they're usually, well, "extreme" when they do.

To me, it seems less a matter of knowing what's going to happen, and more a matter of a bunch of parallel cost-benefit analyses of preparing for possible outcomes -- or, if you don't feel like preparing for it, scrapping the idea entirely and coming up with a better one. Obviously, something that is both unlikely to happen and unlikely to affect you, you needn't worry much about preparing for. Something that is both likely and affects you, it would probably be good to prepare for. Something that's not likely to happen, but would affect you greatly, is probably worth expending a little effort preparing for. Something that is likely to happen, but doesn't affect you much, is still probably worth putting a in little effort to prepare for.

Of course, this is a huge amount of work, and a lot harder than just making a single prediction, like assuming a return of investment. It's way too hard to look at every single conceivably possible response for every single action. It would be way too tactically demanding. It's like playing chess by just calculating all the possible moves. No good chess player does that, however -- it's way too much to handle, and a lot of useless calculation. They only look at a subset of possible "good" moves, and then if they can't find any obvious ones, they make their decision based upon a different beast entirely: Strategy.

My strategy in Chess, other games, and Life itself, is to make my tactics easy and my opponent's tactics hard. I'm lazy. I don't like expending effort on mundane aspects of my life, when I could be directing that effort in a more entertaining direction. I'm trying to obfuscate the tactics of those who oppose me, make their obvious moves actually help me instead of hurt me, set up situations where I have many options, and where my choices are simple, straightforward, and plentiful. I'm trying to set up situations where taking advantage of my tactical mistakes, when I make them -- and I will make them -- will allow me to increase my strategic position so much that my overall position is at worse only slightly weakened, and at best actually strengthened.

When someone is spreading bad rumors about me, I don't worry. Those that know me and love me consider me as precious as I consider them. When someone is spreading lies about me, I worry even less, and I'm usually actually pretty happy about it. Lies have this wonderful tendency of being brought to light for what they are, and I don't have to do much about it if anything. I especially like it if those stories are wondrous tales of death and destruction, because that turns away the hasty, close-minded people I'd rather not have around me, and piques the interest of those open-minded, non-hasty folk I like to surround myself with. And, in any case, it certainly makes me seem interesting, if nothing else. Hell, even the stories are true, I'm not too worried, because I have many stories, and only hearing one is certainly not enough to completely judge a person by.

When playing chess with someone who has excellent tactics (can envision many many different moves and the outcome of all of them), such as galith, I avoid setting up complex tactical situations (where there are many possible moves to make that could all potentially have immediate, catastrophic results), and concentrate on making the end of the game something I can win with just my King and pawns. Then, when I have a sufficiently winnable endgame, I just start simplifying the board by trading pieces. My opponent never has a chance to utilize his excellent tactical ability; I've maneuvered around it. If they have excellent strategy, such as sarterus, it's easier to attempt to set up incredibly complex tactical situations, and keep pressing and waiting for them to make a mistake -- exactly what I was attempting to prevent my opponent from doing in the previous case. Of course, if they have both better tactics and better strategy (such as sarterus), I lose. That happens. Happens in Life, too.

Some people call me "honest to a fault". That may be true. I'm lazy. I don't like maintaining false stories. It takes way too much processing power, and for entirely too long. People will judge me. If I can't have good judgments for who I am, I'd rather be judged badly for something I actually am than be judged well for something I'm not. That way, I attract people toward me that actually like me, instead of people that only want to see my mask. If I don't have to put effort into maintaining my mask when I'm with my friends, I can merely be me. Do you know how wonderful that feels? I hope you do. It also has the added benefit of repelling those who don't like me, instead of just repelling those who don't like my mask. I'm convinced that people wear masks largely because they're trying to be accepted by all the people, all the time -- why else would we switch masks so often, and have specific masks for dealing with specific groups of people, or simply specific people? Well, damnit, it can't be done. And, now that I've accepted that it can't be done, and accepted that there are people I simply don't like and don't care about pleasing, I'd much rather act in a way that brings people who accept me closer and pushes people who don't accept me farther away. And, in a lovely bout of coincidence, it's also very easy to do -- let people see who I am.

I take that back. Sometimes it is very, very hard to let people see who I am. When people see one of my masks, and then reject it, I can take solace that they don't actually know me. They only know a mask. But, when I actually let someone see who I really am, and they reject it, it hurts. A whole fucking lot. Rejection hurts, plain and simple. It takes a lot of guts to show yourself for who you really are. I fail on a daily basis. But, God damnit, I try. And I succeed more often than I fail, and it gets easier and easier as I become surrounded by accepting people, and the others go away. It certainly hurts a lot at first, though. But, the net effect over time is that my tactics (what to say when) become very easy (say what I feel like), instead of incredibly complex (constant effort in maintaining an image).

I've also noticed that a person's opinion of something, including opinions of other people, has an inertia -- if it starts a bit too high and drops, it tends to continue dropping, even past the point it would be if you had judged accurately in the first place. Likewise, if it starts out too low and rises, it has a tendency to continue rising, even past the point it would be if you had judged the person accurately in the first place. So, it's kinda stupid to err on the side of appearing spiffier than you are, and a lot smarter to err on the side of appearing not quite as spiffy as you are. It's obviously best if you can appear simply as spiffy as you are, because then things don't oscillate wildly. (What do you think happens when the opinion starts low and rises too high? Yup, it goes down again, and once again past that point of accuracy. Repeat ad infinitum.) But, as I can't seem to manage that one, I'll choose to err on the side of seeming slightly less spiffy, and attempt corrections as I go along. It just makes things easier. Not to mention it takes a lot less effort -- trying to seem spiffier than you are can consume a lot energy.

Back to people trying to hurt me. Although it's certainly true that nasty rumors about me will turn some interesting people away before I ever have the chance to meet them, there are a lot of interesting people in this world. I don't really need any one interesting stranger in particular. Besides, it would be impossible to meet them all anyway, or even to avoid scaring some away. Seeing as how I'm not all that fond of beating my head against a brick wall, I don't bother trying for perfection; I try for best instead. I have actually had very good experiences due to people spreading bad rumors about me. If someone comes and meets me with an already negative image in their mind, and sees enough that they like to turn that image around, that bond is so much stronger than one born of apathy. Most my best friends over the course of my life have hated me first, or at least disliked me. I certainly don't try to get people to dislike about me -- rather the opposite, if anything -- but I meet enough people that I meet a few vociferously nasty apples. And, they tell nasty stories about me. And, when those people meet me for whatever reason, they're interested enough to figure out what the hell is going on. The attempts to hurt me, help me -- so long as I accept things for what they are, and not make large attempts to change them. So long as I can deal with the concept of someone hating me, which is a lot easier when you view it as an unavoidable occurrence, and easier still if you can see and utilize the benefits of it, it's pretty easy to just go along with life.

Sometimes, though, things get nasty enough that it starts affecting things that matter. I'm still not sure what to do about that. Sure, it's not my fault if someone goes crazy with hatred, envy, fear, or whatnot, but when it breaks up a gathering of people that can only see each other once every few months, that's a pretty hefty price to pay, and I don't like paying it. I'd almost rather let my friends see each other, and step out. But, something about that just seems ... wrong, somehow. Losing my friends is not a price I'm willing to pay. I don't think the problem would go away for them, anyway -- only lessen in magnitude, or get delayed. I want a better way. Or, maybe, this is just one of those situations where the tactics are not easy, and I have to expend effort observing, and thinking, and meditating on my course of action, looking down every conceivable possibility. Or, maybe, it just doesn't matter anyway, and I'm just full of shit, as some people claim.