January 29, 2005

I can't believe he unleashed this on the world…

Writing about The dullest blog in the world from Northerner-in-Exile

I just read the 'Dullest Blog in the World,' and frankly I'm stunned. Twenty seconds was enough to make me want to claw my eyes out. The concentration of banality was enough to distort reality itself; I literally feel dead inside.

So why the hell does that… aberration get nineteen pages of comments? Does anyone understand? The blog is a travesty. Its continued existence is an indictment against the servers which store it, the people who popularise it, the writer who produces it and the blogging community as a whole. It's disgusting. I want to die. Give me the right to die.

I shall now leave to vomit in my bin. Next, I shall use my mouse to move the cursor on my screen to… OH MY GOSH I'M DOING IT NOW! I'm infected! Unclean! Unclean!

[dives out of a window]

[pulls his broken body upstairs to press the 'Publish' button]


January 28, 2005

An Eidolon called Night

I am so tired that I feel like my fingers are typing through bubblewrap. What the HELL is this about?

Continuing on this distressed note, I have promised to hand in a working prototype of my third year project within two weeks. Expletives are forming in my brain and dissolving some time before they reach my padded digits. The thing doesn't even play a single game yet!

Hopefully I will get leave to sleep soon, and tomorrow I can begin the serious task of working on this Java behemoth. I wish myself luck. The bed is inviting and the body is willing, but the mind simply will not follow. It's possibly the slowest organ in my body at times, and I've got some slow ones I'll tell you.

Perhaps I could try some of those meditation techniques which never quite work but which are so highly recommended by my mother? I wonder if I should seriously consider going to a retreat my personal tutor mentioned to learn some serious stuff about mediation. It could be a useful tool, if sufficiently refined, and if not at least I'll know something more about my limits.

Eugh. Feel sick. I made triple-chocolate brownies on Tuesday evening, and I think I had too many. They're a bit too gorgeous. It's a shame that, of my three housemates, only one can eat them – the other two have given up chocolate for Lent or health. Really, things are nicer when you share them.

'Gragh' looks like almost the right sound to expres my pain and longing in this semi-zombified state. I shall have to start using it, to test the word on for size.

I'm glad that my blog is about something important, unlike all those other blogs out there. None of them are about me, me, me. This is the only one. Isn't that great? Eh?

Quarter to three – let's try again, shall we?


January 24, 2005

The Reality Pact

I was going to publish this ages ago, but I couldn't quite finish it. Now I'm totally awake in the middle of the night, and I can't think of anything better to do, so...

Recent discussions have led me to focus on the nature of reality and truth.

A friend of mine adamantly proclaims that there must be an objective reality, or there can be no truth. From this, he argues that only objective truth is important, since subjective truth is a contradiction in terms.

First question: what constitutes objective reality? What distinguishes it from subjective reality?

Subjective reality is a product of the mind; it can be influenced by objective reality, perhaps even sustained by it, but the reality itself is a fabrication. Therefore, we can say that the distinguishing quality of an objective reality is that it does not exist by virtue of phrenic activity.

Second question: why is truth important?

The credit of truth is primarily that it is useful. Why? Because it is an enabler. Through our knowledge of truth we are better equipped to understand, predict and manipulate the world in which we live according to our needs and desires.

This actually means something for my argument, the assertion that the search for truth is not, in and of itself, important. I am less concerned with the philosophical implications than the human importance of any conclusions.

Third question: is there an objective reality, and how do we experience it?

This is a difficult question. For one thing, how do we know that what we call 'reality' isn't simply the construction of a vast mind? If that is so, there is surely an objective reality sustaining this mind, and so our experience of objective reality is indirect (if it exists at all). However, unless we can actually derive some value from this fact – for example, determine some way of manipulating the mind – there's no point in knowing this. Rather, it would be more valuable to concentrate on the reality the mind creates – and which we experience – as though it is an objective reality. I would, therefore, like to alter the definition of 'objective' reality to mean 'the reality which contains our collective beings,' and indulge acosmism no more.

Now, we are able to interact with other beings. This would imply that there is some shared reality which contains us, and with which we interact. However, there's an important question, which is: how does our subjective reality compare with the objective world? I would reply – not very well.

Ask yourself: is it right to kill someone who has done nothing to wrong you, and who's death would not bring any good to anyone? Most people would say 'no.' However, asked if it is right to break a piece of chalk in half (in the same circumstances), most people would be skeptical – it surely doesn't matter what happens to a piece of chalk? So, you see, we have a fundamental difference between us and the objective world – in our subjectivity, it is not morally correct to kill. Out there – what you can't see, or taste, or hear, or smell, or touch – is not your world. This isn't where we live.

Fourth question: is it impossible to directly experience ?

Indeed, I would say that we could not possibly inhabit the objective world without barrier. People claim that they are being objective, but while they inhabit bodies with glands, nerves, emotions, states of arousal, tiredness and hyperactivity, pleasure, pain and arbitrary connections, they will never free themselves of subjectivity. Their experience of outer reality is bounded and twisted.

Fifth question: would it be useful if we could cast off these barriers?

It would not even be minutely valuable to live in the objective world, because there IS no value in that land. We should not look to free ourselves of our filters and blinkers, but rather to use our knowledge of these constraints to our advantage (once again, a meaningless concept in the semantic vacuum).

Perhaps it is (subjectively) useful to develop models which allow our (subjective) minds to accommodate our external reality – for example, so that we can build better houses, or feed more people, or better predict the consequences of our actions. On a smaller, personal scale, it is useful to possess basic, 'everyday' knowledge with which to plan or evaluate our behaviour. However, all value stems from our own unique division from the external world, so we should remember constantly that perfect understanding of the objective reality is a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

Sixth question: what does that mean for us?

We seek out pleasure. We avoid pain. Overall, we would each like to say that we are contented with our lives. Our search, therefore, should not be for truth for truth's sake, but for truth for the sake of our own satisfaction.

We know that certain things are pleasing, interesting or desirable, so we try to maximise the quality of our experience by applying this knowledge.

I see it as the goal of a civilised society to maximise the pleasure of its constituents. There may be other goals, but ultimately any which reduce the overall comfort of the group will perish, because all systems tend to an equilibrium and we are striving individually for gratification. A society is a group organism which sacrifices individual potentials for the potential of the whole. So, when we try to construct a moral or political ideal, our constant aim (if we want it to be successful) should be that it effects a sustainable improvement upon collective happiness.

Seventh question: but what the hell would make (and keep) us happy?!

I left the article unfinished at this point, because I couldn't see how to continue. I still can't. One day, I hope to know a good answer to this final conundrum.

The best answers would surely count among the most sublime and influencial inventions in our history.


January 21, 2005

Bush acknowledges other religions; fundamentalists take a hissy fit.

Writing about web page http://www.worthynews.com/news-features-3/bush-shinto-temple.html

I have a certain republican friend who tries to excuse Bush's more 'funda-mental-ist' policymaking as an attempt to appeal to religious voters, rather than as an expression of his own beliefs. Personally, I think that's rubbish (besides, who wants a man with such a lack of moral calibre that he'll advocate major changes to the constitution just to get votes?), but having read the linked story I can see some of where he's coming from.

The title, by the way, is dressed up to read like a newspaper headline, inspired Chris' recent rant. As per his moan, I try to give the headline some perspective on reality.

Now, yes, it came from a while ago, but I thought it was so hilarious that it was worth pointing out, in case anyone else missed out on the comedy.

A prime quote here (the best bits are from later in the article – the beginning bit actually raises a few good points before descending into idiocy):

In the aftermath of September 11, amid Bush’s efforts to show respect for other faiths—particularly Islam, some see a drift toward universalism, which denies the exclusiveness of Christianity. Another example was Bush’s mosque visit immediately after the attacks on the World Trade Center.

Oh my gosh! Bush implies that America could be anything other than an exclusively Christian nation? You'd almost think we lived in a multicultural society… How horrible!

Such thinking seems to dominate popular culture. “The politically correct people are in charge of the public school systems, the universities, and the media,” Dr. Morey says. “They have brainwashed President Bush to believe all religions worship the same universal God.”

Please, it's too much. No, really, my throat is starting to go hoarse from laughter. President Bush? BRAINWASHED? Are we talking about the same Bush here? President 'I'm not homophobic, so long as they don't have sex' Bush? The 'life starts at conception, because gametes are human too' Bush? Mr 'I'm only funding abstinence-only sex education because disseminating inaccurate information is the goal of teaching' Bush? (I know, it doesn't really flow, but hey.) What planet have you been living on? If anything he could do with a bit of brainwashing; perhaps it would clean up his clouded logic.

And finally:

Many believers will hope Dr. Morey’s concerns and the fears of Japanese Christians are unfounded, as President Bush continues to live out his Christian faith in a pluralistic society.

He doesn't just live out his faith – he imposes it.


January 12, 2005

Bizarre coincidence, or a sign?

Writing about web page http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blog

I opened a new tab to go to look at Urban Dictionary. While this loaded, I read this entry on the 'blog social.' Upon returning, I found this on the front page:

————————————————————————————————

Blog

n.
Short for weblog.
A meandering, blatantly uninteresting online diary that gives the author the delusion that people are interested in their stupid, pathetic life. Consists of such riveting entries as "homework sucks" and "I slept until noon today."

v. intr.
The act of posting to a weblog.

————————————————————————————————

Is this a sign from the Almighty?


November 16, 2004

Stuff, General Stuff and a Plurality of Stuff

There are a lot of things I haven't gotten round to writing about.

Like the debate concerning religion and homosexuality. I was suprised that marriage was considered on only two counts, the legal and the religious. Surely more important is the third, unmentioned, social component, where legality and religious belief interact? I was also impressed with the honesty and open-minded consideration given by the speakers. I was also pleasantly suprised by Rosemary's attendance – she was actually quite an excellent counterpoint (perhaps 'harmony' would be a better word?) to the speaker for Christianity.

All things considered, it was a pretty successful affair, especially considering Jenna's pessimistic expectations. She hadn't been able to contact some of the speakers, felt that she hadn't managed to arrange for enough people to talk about the issue, and decided that there probably wouldn't be enough people in attendence to get anything started anyway. So – GO JENNA! You're ace and you know it!

I've written a script which installs the snes9x emulator onto a temporary directory, allowing me to play 'Super Mario Allstars + Mario World' to my heart's content. Anyone else managed to get past the 'Lost Worlds'? No? Just me? Oh well. I suppose I'm just incredibly special and brilliant, or something like that.

Boy, do I need more drugs. I've run out of Olanzepine – it seemed to be making a modest difference, but now that I've stopped taking it things have been getting decidedly trippy – in a bad way. I think the idea is that it works like antibiotics work on acne – after so long the problem improves by so much, and you gradually withdraw from the course until you're fine without any drugs. Well – actually, I hope that's how it works. From some of the stuff I've read, it could be a lifetime thing, which is something I never want to get into.

I haven't noticed myself gaining any weight, which is a big side-effect. However, I shall be attending our fine gym just in case – at least, I'll be fighting that Damned Christopher Knowles, who has been inhabiting the place regularly since the beginning of term. He has actually got value for money out of his gym membership, a thorougly unhealthy state of affairs. Slap him, like I've promised to do.

My housemate, Elizabeth, went up even more in my estimation when she got the script (and thus the sheet music) for the Buffy musical episode! All this time I've been trying to play 'I'm Under Your Spell' by ear, and now I can just read the fricking stuff! This has contributed to my gradual realisation that the piano is taking over my life – I'd be quite happy to quit my degree right now if I could join one of those old Russian conservatories and enroll on their six-year or more course. Unfortunately, I started learning how to play in my first year (I think that a few weeks ago marked the second anniversary of my piano playing), so I'm not terribly good. I can (slowly) play most grade three pieces, with huge mistakes, by sight, perhaps a few grade four pieces, and I've managed to learn some higher-grade pieces by ear, sight and memory. I have had a few compliments, though, from the Chaplaincy peeps – two people today said that I usually sound excellent, and a brilliant (mystery) pianist told me that my technique was 'amazing' (his word, not mine!) given how long I'd been playing. I feel very flattered, and I'm inclined to blush away most of them. Anyway, compliments or no, the piano has become a big (possibly even a defining) part of my life.

I wonder if it counts as an unhealthy obsession?

Anyway, I shall be off, sparing anyone foolish enough to read this from any more prosaic ramblings about my life. Thanks if you're one of those fools. It means, well, something. I can't quite say what, but it means it.


November 10, 2004

Gay Marriage and the Civil Partnerships Bill

Today in the Chaplaincy, I saw a very interesting advertisment. It filled a page of the Times, and showed a frankly dour woman in front of an estate agent’s sign. The headline: “Why should I have less house-sharing rights than a gay couple?” Tellingly, it had been placed by the Christian Institute, who offer ‘Christian influence in a secular world.’

In 2002, Lady Cathain took over from the late Lady Young as the main proponent in the fight against homosexuality, in particular gay adoption and marriage, a task which she undertakes with zeal. Since equalisation of the age of consent (which she also worked against), she has accommodated several more bees under her bonnet, including gay adoption and the Civil Partnerships Bill. Her latest tactic is deceptive, manipulative and very, very clever.

First, they spin the bill so that it appears to be unfair to families since, say, cohabiting sisters will not get the same rights as a gay couple (note the not-so-subtle appeal to homophobia). Their publicly stated aims are to support such individuals by extending the bill—all very laudable, but the perceptive reader will wonder: why have they never bothered about this before the Civil Partnership Bill?

The strategy can be reviewed here. Put simply, the bill was proposed as a typically British compromise on the issue of gay marriage; by addressing the more immediate problem that gay couples don’t have the same options with respect to pensions, taxation, inheritance, medical authority, insurance and government benefits as married couples, it is possible to defer a bona fide change to the definition of marriage. Thus, as explicitly stated in the bill, it addresses fundamental inequalities in the law, specifically with respect to gay couples.

Unfortunately, not everyone is happy with this concession, and worried that they won’t be able to stop it from passing, they now aim to fundamentally change the stated purpose of the bill by extending it to include siblings, carers and various other unmarriable/unmarried couples. The amendment—which peers voted for 148 to 130—transforms the bill into something it was never intended to be. To quote from the second reading of the bill:

...we strongly believe that the package of rights and responsibilities contained within the Bill, when taken as a whole, are unsuitable for people such as siblings or carers.

It’s a cunning ploy of misdirection: if you can’t stop something from happening, dress it up to look like something else entirely. As a Christian, I would normally consider it odd that a puportedly Christian organisation would be complicit in deception—and yet the Christian Institute advertises it in a full-page spread.

Slowly, my opinions regarding gay marriage have solidified, and I’ve come to realise that this bill isn’t enough. Perhaps it’s as much as we can comfortably take at this time, but sooner or later they’re going to have to go the full hog: redefine marriage, or commute current marriages into civil unions. Otherwise, the Government is left in the unenviable position of compromising between its secular duties and religious sensibilities. While marriage is exclusively reserved for male-female couples, gay couples will face a social barrier to acceptance, for the sake of an irrational (usually religious) prejudice.

The Arguments Against Gay Marriage

(I’m only going to consider a few, for the sake of brevity.)

  1. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman—this argument is weaker than camomile tea, and more circular than a bad Excel reference. Of course it’s defined like that now, that’s the reason we’re having this bloody debate. Next.
  1. Marriage is defined by God as a union between a man and a woman—just as irrelevent as the first, because we live in a country which is (to most intents and purposes) secular. We’re talking about legal marriage here. You don’t want them getting married, don’t let them in your churches, but remember that we live in a democracy, so your arguments have little influence on legal matters.
  1. I consider gay relationships to be immoral—good for you.
  1. Changing the definition of marriage will weaken it—in the mathematical sense, yes, it will; so what? In terms of marriage as an institution, it’s absolute balderdash – how does more people getting married make marriage a weaker institution? Are you worried that they won’t take it seriously? After all the campaigns, parades, petitions and lobbies? If anyone isn’t taking marriage seriously, its the people who focus on depriving people of it instead of addressing more important issues, like the high divorce rate.
  1. Gay marriage will lead to social instability—this leads on from the concept of marriage as an important social institution which is “weakened” by gay marriage. Since that’s among the stupidest arguments I’ve ever heard (see above), we can dismiss it out of hand. We’re also going to ignore a variant of this, that it’s an ‘untried social experiment’ (as Orson Scott Card puts it), since it has already been tried in various countries including Denmark, Spain and Norway.
  1. We could be on a slippery slope to incest, bestiality, paedophilia and who-knows-wot—poppycock. For one thing society has already accepted sodomy as a legal form of sexual expression, and is anyone arguing for paedophilia? Have siblings suddenly stopped being annoying towards each other? How many people do you see running around with a chicken attatched to their… well, you get the picture. Gay marriage is an extension in the legitimisation of homosexuality and nothing else.
  1. Marriage is only for procreating couples—yeah, like all those barren couples in the Bible. Or infertile couples in modern times. Honestly.
  1. Gay couples do not provide an adequate nurturing environment for children—OK. First of all, there are two ways in which gay couples can have kids, by someone other than their partner or through adoption. In the second situation, they will have been vetted by the adoption agency concerning their legitimacy and feasibility as a parent, and are thus more likely to be equipped to bring up a child than are natural parents. What this argument comes down to, therefore, is that gay couples with children are better suited to look after them without a partner! Patently absurd. Claims that they provide limited role models could just as easily apply to single parents, and the idea that somehow a gay couple will be ‘worse’ for a child than a straight couple is saying a lot, considering that couples where one partner is a paedophile are allowed to marry and have children.

None of the classic arguments against gay marriage really hold any water; the potential social damage is virtually non-existent and the benefits to gay couples (as well as their children) are enormous. So why doesn’t the Christian Institute recognise what’s good for children, good for gay people and good for (secular) society, and start paying attention to issues that actually matter? For example:

  • drafting a bill exclusively dealing with the people they pretend to care about, who co-habit a home with a sibling or carer and are subject to unfair treatment, instead of handicapping them with legislation that wasn’t designed with them in mind;
  • helping children to find suitable adoptive parents by actually doing something to loosen the regulations, rather than trying to make them more restrictive
  • trying to combat homophobic assault with the same zeal they have for attacking anything remotely beneficial to the gay community.

It’s unfortunate that an organisation which claims to be for the benefit of society is more concerned with destroying the rights of homosexuals, rather than improving the lives of millions of individuals – gay, bi, straight or purple-polkadot.


November 08, 2004

Now with Added Dimensions

Well, this blog can go in one of two directions:

  1. I could let the last three entries be the sole outpouring of my efforts, leaving me with a lengthy analysis of my own disorder.
  2. Alternatively, I could actually add some character by talking about something else for a change. And, instead of worrying about people seeing any of the last entries, I can just come clean. Fine, yes, I've got a problem, who doesn't?

So here we are. I'm moving those entries to another category. If I want to say more on that topic, I'll put it in that topic, but right now I'm caught up in the flowery-loveliness that is the qualitative evolution of my thusfar pitiful, one-dimensional blogging attempt.

It looks like I do have a personality. Good luck me.


October 25, 2004

Anything for Kicks

I've spent all night in Computer Science again.

I would go home, but some nights, it's just a bit more than you want to put up with. I've stayed overnight with Jonathan, recently I've been spending some quality time absorbing the company of the surrounding first years… This is the second night I've been here all through.

This morning, I'd like to investigate Julian Jaynes, and his theories concerning the origins of consciousness as a product of the breakdown of the bicameral mind. His reasoning is superbly elegant and sublimely controversial. From various historical sources, he concludes that there is little evidence to suggest that humanity was conscious any time before the last six thousand years or so, and that human beings were very much like advanced, functioning schizophrenics who responded to the voices of their 'gods' and (sometimes dead, sometimes imaginary) leaders.

'Human nature,' he reasons, 'was split in two, an executive part called a god, and a follower part called a man.' Neither of these were conscious. The evolution of the human mind and brain is described incrementally in terms of spoken language; consciousness emerged when writing eroded this auditory authority. In this context, schizophrenia is seen as a regression to the primitive preconscious mind.

In his seminal work, Jaynes leads us (by the hand) through philosophy, psychology, neurology, history and linguistics in his quest to convince the reader of his paradigm. By the end of the book, I was left on a mental parapet, looking beyond me and behind me and trying to work out which side I should be on: my old and well-travelled wilderness, or Julian's (some would say Fortean) fortress, grand and sweeping. All through – especially in the final chapters, in which he discusses schizophrenia directly – I was wondering where I might fit in, how to piece together my own jigsaw to ajoin with his, and in the end I'm left squinting at jagged edges.

I wonder, for example, if the early humans experienced the same bewildering weave of concordance that I do, the sense of navigating in a viscous world of accreted allusions, the same promiscuity of semiosis… It's not too hard to imagine that in this mud of meaning the clarifying voices are veritable gods of certainty, all-knowing, all-seeing and omnipotent. (That's at least two-thirds of a triple-O deity!) And it seems that I'm not a particularly advanced case either. The voices I hear are happy to discuss me, they don't actually complete my thoughts or dictate my actions. They do, however, have a degree of control over my thoughts, and (yes, I know it's ridiculous) I'm sure that they 'transmit' my thoughts on occasion.

This needs explaining. I'm not referring to telepathy or anything of the sort; rather, subconsciously projected nuances of behaviour, intonation and movement, that slight watering of the eyes, pheremones – in short, a combination of uncontrolled transmissions replete with information. In the same way that a wink over the table can communicate a volume of information between a husband and wife, the shared experience of humanity evinces certain knowledge about an individual's position in psychological phase-space, which is equivalent to the transmission of thoughts. And whatever separate agency is responsible for the voices is, I feel, influencing this process – rendering layers of protection transparent to reveal secret thoughts.

Yes, it sounds crazy, but until someone has experienced the assured cognizance of a separate consciousness sharing their reality, I dare say they're not equipped to comment.

Back on topic: bicameralism. I wondered previously if my awareness of further tenor is an experience that can be traced to a preconscious civilisation. However, there's a fundamental problem. Jaynes is quite clear that it was the reliance on auditory stimuli that characterises the bicameral mind, and that the acceptance of other methods of communication was the catalyst for its breakdown. Also, he describes consciousness as '[a process which] operates by way of analogy, by way of constructing an analog space with an analog "I" that can observe that space and move metaphorically in it.' Rather than experiencing the breakdown of a bicameral world through the emergence of analogs, I experience the breakdown of consciousness itself from an overload of pseudo-analogs; during a bad period, my world becomes a nightmare of overlayed simulacra, as opposed to an individual experiemental reality.

Perhaps as a low-grade schizotypal, I'm simply experiencing a transitory state – just as the conscious observer collapses the wave function into a single reality, perhaps in the move from preconsciousness to consciousness the multiplicity of realities are pruned away to just one?

It's getting quite hard to keep up a coherent train of thought, so it's probably about time that I go home and get changed in preparation for lectures. Good morning, Vietnam.


October 14, 2004

Onset

I hoped that tonight I might be able to record an incident, properly. I type faster than I write, so it would be far better than trying to write down the experience while it happened.

However, when I got to the Computer Science building I found that plenty of people were there. For some reason the voices are shy of company, and prefer to beset me while I'm alone. I have no doubt that if I had went through the woods I would have experienced an incident proper.

I don't know if anyone else has any idea what it's like, the knowledge that if you go walking by yourself you'll soon hear them, demons, talking about you. For now it will suffice to record the onset.

There's a sort of build up to it, like a dam somewhere is filling and filling. You can feel them clawing their way through to reality, trying to escape whatever spiritual prison they usually occupy… The night around me feels like paper being slowly rended, and – sometimes – I'll see a few tiny sparks or a vague aura, like some sort of discharge. (It's relatively rare for me to actually see anything; usually I'll 'sense' something, like the creeping feeling you get when you're aware someone is watching you.)

It's rather a generalisation to say this is always how it happens. Sometimes – especially when I'm in bed, or ready to go to bed – they'll just be there, whispering and eventually talking.

Some questions the psychiatrist asked me. Do I actually hear them? Yes, most of the time. Sometimes they're quite insidious, these demons, and they can make themselves sound like they're my thoughts; but there's always the knowledge that they're not part of me, that they're something artificial inserted into my consciousness. And other times – their dialogue is perfectly normal, real voices that sometimes confuse me. Sometimes they take the voices of people I know, sometimes of bizarre and miscellaneous characters. Regardless, they have distinct tone and nuance, just like any real voices.

Are the voices a mental phenomenon or an external influence? Well, it's obvious: they're not part of me. Very soon after they started I was painfully aware that this wasn't something I have any control over. If they're the result of some mental processes, they're not my mental processes. They're nothing I own or produce. I conclude, therefore, that either they are an external process or that, if something within me is causing them, that they are a totally alien presence. Sometimes, I'd even regard them as conscious – and a consciousness distinct from my own, therefore a separate consciousness.

There's another reason I write here: I have no one to tell. My friends would be freaked – I observe that the few I've actually informed are skeptical or taken aback, entirely to be expected but not something I want to encourage. Since almost no one reading this blog has any idea that I exist (in fact, I have less evidence for the existence of readers than I have for the existence of these demons) I can be completely anonymous.

I don't mean to be harsh on my friends when, in the last post, I declare any knowledge they gain here to be 'the price of curiosity.' It's simply that I don't think anyone here is particularly interested in me, certainly not enough to go looking for me here, and even if they find me by accident it's unlikely they'll be bothered to look. Perhaps that's my depressed state of mind talking (I hate Warwick, I'm quite miserable here and can't wait to leave), perhaps innocent friends will find their way here and be shocked. Well, I'm sorry if that happens. This is catharsis, and they probably shouldn't be a part of it if they're very distressed. I've dealt with this alone for nearly five years, so no one should worry about trying to help me now. (That about covers any potential readership!)

And I have no worry about someone using this information for anything less than scrupulous. I trust that people are intelligent enough to know when someone's trying to cause trouble, and they'll probably only succeed in making themselves look foolish and underhand. And if anyone does pay them heed, it only confirms my suspicion that people do a lot of gossiping that I'm not privy to.

I'm a very loving person. I don't want to get people involved in my psychosis. Perhaps through here I can find other people who are experiencing similar problems, and that's great, perhaps we can get together, form a support network. Perhaps ordinary people will read it and feel good, in a 'thank goodness I'm not like that psycho' sort of way. We'll see. Most likely no one will read but the excitement of possibility is there, and there's a sort of pleasure in secretly baring yourself to the world. Which is, of course, why so many people of a romantic bent find themselves leaning out of windows expounding poetic laments/praises/wonders.

Tonight I'll see what happens. I'll record it if it does, and I'll type it up as soon as I get back from Blackpool; otherwise, I'll continue in my drawling, introspective kind of way to account trivia concerning my illness.

Heaven knows, I feel a lot better. Perhaps there really is something to be said for cathartic blogging?


October 2014

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Sep |  Today  |
      1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31      

Search this blog

Most recent comments

  • Presumably 'Dulce et decorum est pro cacao mori' is also a play on 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria … by on this entry
  • I thought it was insightful. No, not insightful. What's the word I'm looking for? by on this entry
  • Couldn't agree more about the blood thing. Anyway, bring yourself down to the blog social, Mr Gray –… by on this entry
  • Arsing cockballs, that is one boring read. Really feeling sleepy and suicidal by on this entry
  • Hi, Accurate info except… In the case of O blood, there is no surface antigen (protein) produced. A … by MICHAEL on this entry

Blog archive

Loading…
RSS2.0 Atom
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXIV