february/march 2011

[I first uploaded this entry in March 2011. In April 2011, I added a bit more to the text down below.]

I was disappointed that I did not receive more feedback regarding my 2010 'psychoanalysis', although my brother deserves recognition for his response. He demonstrated a lot of intelligence, open-mindeness, sensitivity and caring. I remain thankful and somewhat in awe of what we were able to accomplish communication-wise. As positively as that went... I guess I would still have liked more people to comment. I was not all that surprised, but maybe somewhat sad at the lack of response.

I am not sure of how what I expressed has been perceived, if I am seen as boring, irrelevant, muddled, scary or whatever, if I am dismissed as too troubled and needy, or to what extent it is simply difficult to know what to say to me.

Anyway. The collection of photos above will probably not end up better organized. A cynical part of myself says that if people do not find my mind interesting, or interesting enough that it inspires them to comment, maybe they'd prefer to look at (judge) pictures. I have to admit that I kind of had fun going through the process of taking photos, but the idea of organizing them into a more elaborate addition to my website does not at this time seem fun.

Cynicism aside, I think I still approach things as I always have. I don't expect, I try to accept and understand what people are and aren't willing to offer, even if that means I don't get to know anything for sure. I can put in my best effort to communicate and to try to remain open, but I do have to understand that sometimes what I communicate is misinterpreted, and/or that communication styles or underlying values and beliefs are fundamentally incompatible. Sometimes people lack energy, confidence in their ability to speak, or the belief that speaking makes a difference. Speculation is seemingly infinite, while actual knowing is rare.

I hoped that in taking further steps (I think I have been taking steps all through the years) to further 'out' myself, that there was at least a chance I would feel less pressure to hide from society. I can't move freely in the world in large part because of the stigma related to the 'truth' of who I am. My thinking was that the only way to try to change this (without lying or adopting a false persona for convenience and comfort's sake) was to in my own way begin to challenge the stigma. I did this through providing examples of different areas of knowledge, and in trying to explain how these related to this stigma and my own experience.

A lot of what I have written probably makes people uncomfortable. They don't want to know about it or think about it - it's my personal business and 'should' be kept to myself. In a lot of cases, it probably bores people. But, I don't see how people can see things differently unless some difficult topics are tackled. I want the right to be seen as a thinking, perceptive human being - not dismissed outright as too irrational to talk to. I'm sure there are others in the world who are dismissed in similar ways as a result of a lack of knowledge or reluctance to challenge the status quo. If people disagree with my assessments, or question some of my findings, I'd wish they'd state this to me directly, such that I'd have a chance to respond.

I have been drawn over the years to many highly intelligent people who in my opinion have demonstrated ability to think outside the box, who question the structure and rules of society. I was trying to explain my own alternative perspectives and give examples of how I was trying to see my life in terms less limiting than mainstream thought would allow for. It makes sense to me that I would begin on a personal level to 'change my world', and from there to find out to what extent it would be possible to participate in a larger sense. I think I have learned how to stay better centred in myself, and how to articulate who my 'self' is, even amongst those who differ greatly when it comes to perception, values, and ideals.

Most of my online correspondences have sparked a lot of conflict. I thought this was a good thing. Different perspectives allowed me to differentiate myself; they helped me to see my own identity and thoughts more clearly through contrast. And probably attraction has something to do with the energy of that kind of conflict. When there is that much conflict, you'd assume that it might translate sexually - that if both parties are slightly or more than slightly annoyed often, or feel a driving need to express a different or opposite perspective, they might actually have good sex. I had to learn to define 'sex' differently. It didn't always mean real life sex. The intellectual 'sex', in different forms with different people, might represent the 'most real' sex of the relationship.

In each relationship I tried my best to explain my differing perspectives, and that was valuable to me, but after a certain point, the conversation seemed to go around in circles, and I knew that wasn't going to change. I wanted each person to be interested in things they weren't interested in. I wanted information they either didn't want to offer, or which they couldn't consciously access, and which my communication didn't elicit. This is not about wanting people to feel something they don't feel, it's not about an inability to let go and move on, it's about a kind of intellectual imperative, or a need to know if my ideas and thoughts matter.