Four Things

Today has had an interesting and somewhat disconcerting start.  First, while driving my son to school, I see two kids at an intersection.  The boy looked around my son's age and the girl looked like she was probably in kindergarten.  They had helmets, pads, and other safety gear, holding their bikes waiting to cross from the corner they were standing on to the opposite one.  Can you guess their missing safety equipment?  If you said "adult supervision" you'd be correct.  No parent or even an adult looked like they were watching them.  Essentially, their parents let their son to take charge of his younger sister's safety.  Am I being paranoid when I say that was the stupidest fucking thing I saw in a while?  I was a little appalled.  Did I stop to help them?  Well, no.  I'm sure they have done it many times.  I just couldn't put my mind into whatever kind that could allow that to happen.  Next, when we were at school, waiting for the buzzer, there were a few kids waiting inside without an adult.  Of course, that's fine.  Why wouldn't it be?  School is supposed to be a place a kid SHOULD be without a parent around.  However, one teacher was passing by and said the kids had to wait outside if they weren't with a parent.  What the fuck!?  Really?  This also paralyzed my brain trying to understand that logic.  I could think of no reason this should be proper, especially in terms of keeping them safe.  Are they worried about crowding the doorway as some inconvenience or crowding, or is it a fire hazard?  It didn't compute when I tried to model the sense of it against the safety of those children.  Third, I giggled at something which some might find funny or maybe slightly racist.  There's this Asian dad and daughter that I see come in the morning.  What's funny is the fact his daughter is as tall as her dad, while probably they are proportionately triple in age ratio.  He had to be in his forties or so, while she was obviously in single digits.  It was funny in a semi-cute way, I suppose.  The last thing was when one of the children that act as crossing guards flipped me the peace sign when I passed.  I returned in kind, so it was a nice way to wrap up the madness into perspective on the way out.

Sincere Insincerity

Currently, I have had some interest and concern in getting to know myself psychologically.  In a sense, it has become a bit of a hobby, with therapy and my own research habits.  It has always been a partition of thought during any given day, largely out of curiosity and the fun of working out a mystery or puzzle or game.  I've looked up and explored various sources toward this aim, which has taken me some interesting places, whether positive or negative.  Growth is growth.  I hope that I can keep thinking of it this way, because turning stagnant is repugnant to me.  Knowledge is my religion, I think.

Bringing things to the present, I've come to a fairly irrevocable belief that I may have Asperger's Syndrome.  It is a developmental disability and you can use your own initiative to do some reading on it or not.  From my inner journey, so far, at the psychological level, it contains a large majority of traits that it would be a lie to say I don't have it.  I've done all those internet tests, which are, of course, unofficial, but I use it to provide my own mind to reach a preliminary evaluation as to whether or not to consider learning more about it or find some way to officially give confidence in the notion.

Even more recently, I've aimed a more penetrative eye on sociopathy.  Do I REALLY think I am or could be?  Let's dispel that inexplicable fear which may occur when that word is used.  I have just been curious and interested, but down inside I don't think I am likely even slightly sociopathic.  I will probably explain that more later.

What I want to do next is give some earmarks that have given me my strongest indications of this or that, as well as some of the benchmarks I use in evaluation, in no particular order.

I particularly enjoy the horror genre in a number of entertainment venues, particularly movies.  I find little to find interesting in nearly any comedy, other than stand up, or romance and a number of types in the drama spectrum.  Stepping back from any person's first impulse about this would not think anything particularly abnormal here.  There are lots of horror fans.  It also isn't that I have never liked a comedy or romance.  Plenty of reasonable exceptions certainly exist.  I think I am drawn to the horror genre in particular is explainable.  Seeing people act in extreme situations feels a little less pretentious.  I don't really know why, but other types feel fake.  It seems weird and unrealistic for people that don't know one another in real life to act like they love each other in some movie.  Of course, the flip to that is people in a horror movie aren't in real danger, so their fear and reactions are also made-up.  Perhaps I take it more seriously when considering fake love versus fake fear.  I will probably focus on horror and treat it as a whole topic at some later time.  What is relevant here is that I also consider it a good simulation for me to gauge my reactions.  How would I feel if I were the killer?  Do the motivations seem plausible?  How would I feel if I were one of the victims?  And so on.  A lot of the time I think people are stupid and unrealistic, but I suffer a lot less needless confusion or frustration.  If fakery is the stigmata I am implicated to have, then I hate to see it, since I can't pretend not to see it.  I have been able to see what causes me to react and it has been consistent enough to place faith in the certainty of what I may or may not feel, accordingly.

I am not a fan of "torture porn" and its ilk.  There have been some that has been interesting and perhaps even innovative.  It makes me squeamish and uncomfortable, but I admit my curiosity can outweigh my trepidation.  Just that someone could imagine these things can get me intrigued.  I know I would never be able to do this kind of thing to anyone.  I did some random cruel things to insects and field mice back in my childhood, but I can honestly say I abhor the thought of harming an undeserving life.  I am interested in having as little impact, particularly as a drawback, to anything's pursuit of just trying to get by.  What if I were angry?  I have honestly been a little scared of myself when my temper has gotten the better of me.  I don't get angry like that very often, but I've seen the face of that beast and it is willing to take whatever action it wants to feel satisfied it has removed the object of its wrath.  I have never been violent, particularly to a living thing, and only then when I was provoked or was threatened.  I believe violence is stupid.  It indicates a mind that is unable to reason, the way I look at it.  Those that can't think fight.  Most conflict of a "serious" nature usually has me shaking my head, not understanding how someone would get so upset enough over something like gas or a lover that they feel the need to resort to violence.  Would I kill if I had to?  Yes.  What constitutes "having to?"  When loved ones or my own life if threatened.  It feels like a waste of energy to thrust into a conflict and kill for most other reasons.  Even practicality would agree with the sentiment, wouldn't it?

Admittedly, day-to-day my mind floats in the sort of ambivalence I imagine most do.  I don't pursue acts of malice or anti-social agendas.  I understand the basic laws we all should abide by in society.  Whether I believe in some of them or not is rather moot.  Any of those I encounter or have ever dealt with hasn't put me at odds with it.  My general thought is that if I obey the laws then I am protected by them.  I don't transgress, because it will result in lots of inconvenience, at the very least.  I also understand some of these "laws" are invisible ones governing one's general interaction with society as a whole.  I usually understand any of the norms to be observed to keep life uninterrupted, primarily because in that environment, those laws are rules and they can be broken without the sort of objective system that our legal systems are there to regulate and adjucate.  Those are usually the type of things that, if you break them, it opens up the justification for someone to "break them back."  Of course, this is situational and graded by degrees with all the ambiguity that human interaction places upon itself.  If you aren't ready for some sort of conflict, then there's no reason to complicate a matter for the sake of it.  The vast majority of other people will rarely be of any importance.  This is reciprocal, of course.  It's a little egotistical to think someone else would think more of you in the same circumstance.  But this is the only place where it can get a little awkward.  I don't know if I am gauging the right importance of something in some exchanges.

One difference I can discern is probably self-evident in this very rant.  I obviously think about and concern myself with this kind of thing more than I feel a "normal" person might.  What is instinctual or a "given" to others doesn't compute the same way to me.  Love, to me, goes beyond emotion.  I distrust emotion, really.  Emotions can change.  A "feeling" isn't admissible evidence in the court of my judgment.  I can both love and be upset with someone I love or care about.  I am willing to lay down the authority of my emotions upon me for the sake of those of another.  Things don't always make sense to me.  I may not always agree, but there has been very little I've ever felt that should be strong enough to consider it able to nullify love.  I would die for people I care about.  I will kill for them, too.  I have to surrender to the fact that my emotions often don't make enough sense all the time, let alone theirs, and I trust that our mutual devotion to our ideal of love will yield things that change to something that shouldn't.  I guess I have a sense of loyalty bordering on obsession.  Some call it tenacity.  However, this translates into severance should that relationship end.  Those people are removed from my concern if they feel they want to be removed from my love.  It isn't an animosity, but I would simply not have to deal with the emotions and confusion with what turned out to be a temporary endeavor, and shouldn't take up more of my time thereon.  It isn't an absolute and total rule, since I have had contact after this kind of thing, but I think it's an emotional defense more than a thing I want to DO to someone, out of some pitiful idea for revenge.

I feel stunted in my capacity to express my love, or at least in a way others seem to want me to express it.  This has caused friction, of course.  The pain, though, has been able to show me that I do care, giving me a confidence that the feelings are mine and they are genuine.  I wrap myself in a field of quiet isolation, which I am often not aware of.  My anxieties often make less sense to me than my absent reactions.  Rationally, these fearful feelings are baseless and have me scoff at my own ignorance.  For some reason I think I'm worried about being accused of not being normal or not feeling or not understanding and being pushed away, when I always feel it's the other way around.  Simply, it's not something I think anyone cares about all too much on any scale, just going out into the world.  Venturing into the wide world gives me small panic attacks sometimes, like I am about to go diving in the shark tank.  As I get older, I am discovering I'm not really that weird, and even if I am, it really doesn't matter to me much.  I want but don't want some attention, but I think I experience mostly the negative kind, either self-deceptively or genuinely.  I think it is blown out of proportion in my mind, and it's one of my major difficulties.  Sometimes I just want to pick something up and do away with the meaningless polite and shallow interactions, pay for it, and then just leave.  Do I really need to worry about being nice all the time?  Are the manner police out today?  It is probably the strongest reason I am certain I am not a sociopath.

Not sure if this is enough or not, but I'm tired of rambling about it for now.

Ignorance Is Bliss... For Only The Ignorant

Today has already brought me into contact with at least two occasions of blatant and blunt ignorance. One was from someone from The United Life Church, with whom I unfriended and felt good doing it right away.  The post equated gay marriage and homosexuality to being a product of evil.  Ever-increasingly do I encounter those last bastions of prejudice left needing to crawl deeper into the dark of the cracked, stony heart hanging heavy and lifeless in their ugly insides.  This prejudice has further developed into those crazy cannibal families out in the shrinking fringes of civilization, feeding on the unwary merely out on hikes or otherwise just minding their own business.  Those hills really DO have eyes.

Real evil is the enemy of love.  I see lots of inspiring and uplifting growth of this truth more every day, too.  The contrasts have just been increasingly glaring and pronounced.

The other thing was from a book I was reading called Spiritism: The New Satanism.  You can find it in Google Books, should you wish to lay eyes upon this offender for yourself.  I did make a review for it, because I felt strongly enough about it to say so.  I feel no remorse in doing so.  I have always been tolerant and I have only felt more justified in this personal code by the reciprocal intensity from its opposite.  I am wary of becoming self-righteous, but sometimes something is just so stupid and wrong, it is almost an act of nature that it should be opposed.  The universe itself feels like such idiocy does not belong in it.  A computer would spit out errors, because it is warped and fragmented code that simply has no means to run in the universal operating system.  Sometimes you can get a bug fix, sometimes a reformat is in order.  Format soul:\ /y or something.

This particular thing brings the image of a nursery school playground.  In the sandbox, kids pick on other kids, with taunts like,"my dad can beat up your dad."  Their dads, meanwhile, are nowhere at all concerned about this or wish to be.  They are out doing their jobs and taking care of matters that have actual importance.

God is a big boy.  All grown up.  He has been handling the finances of the entire universe long before species showed up and he had to reconfigure the budget.  Everyone is begging for an allowance, saying that they were defending his name, and that counts as real work.  The question that God might follow with is, "How is that getting anything done?  Now we have to work twice as hard since you spent the whole time squabbling, while paying no mind to the real mess to clean up."

Mystical Physics From Physicist Mystics

Physics appears to be following an interesting trend, at least as of late, and within my awareness, that has looped its progress almost back to where it had gotten its origin.  For a long time, after peaking during such eras as the Renaissance and the Age of Reason, objectivity has done battle with subjectivity.  The rallying cry called for verifiable evidence of falsifiable phenomena, theory, and results.  This is "the scientific method."  Gather data, correlate, and generate consistent evidence of something.  "Pure" scientific method should only be dealing with observable phenomena, and it should be able to be recreated through experimentation elsewhere.  It is not a prediction tool, per se.  It isn't entirely illogical to take results of experiments, have them verified as a consistent phenomena, then use that to give likelihoods.  We derive probabilities, which is necessary for progress.  However, it is supposed to be viciously contested and thoroughly tested for maximum certainty.

Some say that science is the new religion.  It is likely true.  Physics has been the flagship for science for quite a while.  "Mathifying" the world and what we encounter lends many a sort of security within a seemingly immense, uncaring, inscrutable existence that we find ourselves in.  It helps us all find a method to pass data in a form that can be decrypted and recoded.  It's a grab at the abstract to eliminate language diversity perverting a concept.  It can give a multi-translatable medium that is the same for everyone, regardless of the vast and sweeping currents of capricious interpretation.  2 is always 2, 4 is always 4, and 2 + 2 is always 4, too.  Subjectivity has been wrung out of math and physics in the hopes to find and understand a stable, consistent universe.  (You can probably relate the concept to that of the one between Java and the number of different web browsers.  Java is multiplatform, functioning no matter the medium.  It is a means to give a distributive uniformity and utility, all "under one roof.")

By putting physics in the frontlines, it has reached the border of objectivity perhaps the soonest.  Pushing ever deeper into the realm of fundamental reality has had physics come upon an interesting dilemma. I think one can trace this path starting somewhere around the time Einstein and others began dealing with relativity, going onto quantum mechanics, string theory, etc.  Let's fast-forward through that…

With the discovery of the Uncertainty Principle, consciousness has become a cause instead of an effect.  A Supreme Objective Reality has suddenly flipped.  Subjectivity has begun having a viable role in the operations of reality and the universe.  You cannot have a reality without SOMETHING knowing there even IS a reality.  Weird quantum effects has left those in earlier paradigms of physics scratching their heads.  There is suddenly an intrinsic and irremovable relationship between the observer and the observed.  Phenomena previously ostracized by the rational world as superstitious, religious, or psychological, has importance, albeit in a different light.  Science has gone and demystified reality to the extent now it begins to take on a new mysticism.  Once consciousness began taking the spotlight, explanations transformed into sense.  It only served to prove what it had so exuberantly had tried to disprove.

I should leave it at that, for the moment.  I hope to find and present key points that might give greater confidence in this idea.  It is a broad and strangely vectored web or netting of various sources.  Each deserves greater attention.  Some of them include Tom Campbell, Chris Langan, Terence McKenna, Rob Bryanton, and Stuart Hameroff.