My Dream Last Night

For a limited time, I got to live in Dave Stanley's body. Finding myself newly an attractive male, I of course wanted to stand in front of the mirror naked and admire myself and masturbate. But my mother kept coming upstairs as I tried to masturbate so I could never actually get hard.

Go ahead, Siggy. You can take this one. It's all you, babe.

Who are the bad people?

At a dinner table discussion tonight, Jen mentioned that she's sick of people talking about voting for Bush like it was a completely immoral action and there's no good reason anyone could ever vote for him and that everyone who voted must be either evil or stupid. Haninah seemed to agree somewhat, Eric, while not explicitly disagreeing, said he'd seen those people and he's glad he's on this side, now.

But this led me to think of a topic I've been considering quite a bit lately of what makes a bad person. Is it someone who always tries to do what's right? It seems like this is a factor, but I'm convinced that plenty of Nazis and terrorists and witch-hunters and opponents of gay marriage think that they're doing what's right, and these are pretty bad people by my standards. Some might say they're (probably the Nazi's and the terrorists) some of the worst people who've ever existed. I wouldn't disagree. So it seems that the point is not whether you're trying, but rather, what values you have...especially your values relative to my values.

It does seem to me that the way to judge which people are bad is by how radically their values diverge from yours. Hitler did not place life at a high priority, in fact, he readily sought to end life for many people. Life is probably my highest value, as I'm a humanist. His highest value was purity of the gene pool. I like diversity in my population. So I (somewhat weakly) oppose his highest value, and he (somewhat strongly) opposes mine. This is primarily why I would consider him to be a bad person. I think this will work with all people. Let's take Jesus. His values were of self-sacrifice for your fellow man. While I think he may have overdone the emphasis on sacrifice, his proactive stance on charity and love of humanity resonates with my values strongly. He adds a value I only oppose very lightly (much less so than a purity of genetics) to a value I embrace. He might think me less worthy, on the other hand, because of his concept of sacrifice held so dear which I generally reject. He would respect my love of humanity, but opposes strongly my zest for indulgence and will for all of humanity to endulge. So he would probably think me a worse person than I think him.

Of course we have to look at frailty: how strongly we act on these values. But it seems this generally emphasizes how bad or good we feel the person is. I suppose this is unfair, as strength is a value that some people prioritize. It's not one of my highest, but for those who consider it completely essential to goodness, it is a common value between themselves and those they consider good. It rarely trumps initial intention, however.

So I don't really see why voting for Bush couldn't be considered an awful thing. Anyone who votes for him clearly has values pretty vastly divergent from mine. And they are acting on those values. And of course there are reasons for voting for Bush that are less opposed to my values, but in any case, people voting for Bush are not too high on the good people list. And I would bet that most of them are voting for reasons that I would consider opposed enough to my values to make them bad.

The Dirtiest Secret

Since I'm not advertising this address, I feel comfortable putting my most recent deep, dark secret up here. Don't tell anyone, please, but this was a very good week.

I know! I know! I'm a horrible person. The worst thing in the world (besides personal tragedy) happened: George W. Bush was reelected as the President of the USA. I lost my faith in my fellow man almost completely. All of my thoughts about the self-centeredness and blindness of human kind were confirmed. He was elected with a mandate, so he can do pretty much whatever he wants, and he has the senate and house to back him up. We have several supreme court justices who may not make it through another four years, and Bush will be sure to appoint people with his values (i.e., psychos) in their stead. Iraq may or may not degenerate into a complete disaster. The draft may or may not (I actually believe him when he says it won't) be reinstated. Roe v. Wade may or may not be overturned. We may or may not get unyielding contempt from the rest of the world. So that sucks.

But somehow something happening so strong and so outside myself made it a good week. Something bigger than I shook the campus and the country, and all of a sudden it didn't really matter that I have no sex or romance in my life, or that I don' t know what the hell I'm doing next year. And I actually gained back a bit of my sex drive (helps that I'm ovulating), so I'm feeling pretty good.

I've been photographing beautiful people for Rumpus, which is awesome. So many guys with nice faces and BEAUTIFUL bodies. I think they might have helped my sex drive, too. I've been feeling a little bisexual lately...don't know if it will pass, probably will. Oddly enough, it's not at all sexual...more just finding girls attractive as people to be emotionally intimate with. Yet I can't help but define it as a sexuality, even though the thought of physical intimacy isn't appealing. Whatever...I'll ride. Men are still hot...and have far and away the more attractive genitalia. You have to see that. Even if you like women, I mean, please...

Hey, Jealousy

They fault people for jealousy; they say we shouldn’t be jealous. Well, I think being jealous is just fine, and the more we’re in touch with our jealousy the less hateful and passive-aggressive we’ll be.

Of course this is all leading up to: tonight I’m jealous of Chayes. Vaughan went all the way to Wesleyan (farther than Yale, and I’ve invited him to all of my shows!) to see her directorial debut of House of Blue Leaves. So I am completely and sincerely jealous. I’ve wanted Vaughan to go out of his way for me forever, but he hasn’t, and he went out of his way for Chayes. Jealousy ensues.

And I’ll claim this jealousy so it stays exactly what it is. If I don’t, I’ll wind up feeling bitter towards Chayes, or somehow otherwise negative, and I don’t want that at all. She has no fault in this; she’s not competing with me. She just got something I want. Not to mention that she has a passion in life.

On that: I want a passion and all of my passions are gone. Over the past three and a half years, a combination of Yale and my own slowly growing depression has drained me of everything I loved coming into college. I loved theater; I no longer love theater. I loved math and physics; I no longer have hardly a passing interest in either. I loved sex (in the broad sense); I now find sexuality repulsive. I loved people; I no longer think everyone is basically good, rather I think everyone thinks they’re basically good, but they’re really just self-centered and therefore self-righteous.

I’m jealous of anyone who loves anything. I have no love. I dislike many (not all) of my friends. I no longer appreciate any art (visual, theatrical, poetic…I’ll take some music, but that’s because the response is involuntary). I’m irritated when I’m around people and I’m depressed when I’m alone. Even my favorites of friends have started to piss me off in the smallest of ways, and that’s not good at all. I don’t feel like anyone really likes me, but I don’t like me, so what do I expect? I’ve lost my skill for performance, because I don’t think the audience is worthy of me or I’m worthy of an audience. I’ve lost much of my humor because nothing seems funny anymore, everything seems forced and self-conscious. Eye contact just seems silly.

People are dirty, smelly, noisy, greasy, ugly, self-centered, insecure assholes. Nobody’s internally consistent and we all blame other people for being hypocritical. Sure, I’ll take the label hypocrite, if you give it to me. I try to maintain some sort of consistency, but my personality won’t allow for it. My mind won’t allow for it. The politicians who painfully try to pretend they have a brilliant and simple logic are doomed to lie. We’re all hypocrites; there is no way we’re made to be rigorously consistent.

The First Post

There is naught to say in the first post. It is only special because it is first. The post is novel by its nature.

An old, ill-fated proof goes:

Theorem: All natural numbers are interesting

Proof: Assume there exist uninteresting natural numbers.
These numbers can be well-ordered.
Therefore, there exists a first uninteresting number.
This number, being the first uninteresting number, is therefore interesting.
So there can be no first uninteresting number.
Our assumption must be false.
RAA: There exist no uninteresting numbers; all numbers are interesting.

I think this post is interesting.

On Misogyny and Logic

I was a misogynist until very recently. I’ve always identified more with men than with women and so had a bit of self-loathing for my sex. It has always appeared to me that women are substantially less rational than men, have much more of a permanent need for games and unspoken communication, whereas men are upfront about what they want and thus (despite women’s urges for them to articulate their feelings) are actually much more honest, in general.

Lately, however, I’ve begun to despise this feature of men, because it strikes me as far from a simple love for the rational and an ultimate truth in logic and straightforwardness. Rather, what I observe is an overwhelming passion for being correct, or, possibly, a passion for being accepted as correct by others. The logical process is not what they love, nor the philosophy behind the process, but rather its ability to give them accurate results that they can state with confidence.

Of course, I generalize. Not all men are exactly like this, certainly my good friend Brad acts as a strong counter example, but three of the men with whom I converse most often seem to have this obsession with correctness.

Furthermore, I doubt they would deny it. In a very simple logical way, correctness is a perfectly good aim. Logic is an internally consistent system, and ultimately the world operates on answers, not processes. However, I’ve gained much more appreciation for the humanness of the thought process and the impossibility of actually getting answers from any system besides straightforward logic. Considering that a person has to incorporate many factors other than logic into an argument or thought process, there is an ultimate intrigue to the method they will use, and there is no reason to suspect that what seems like the closest approximation to logic necessarily accounts for the randomness of the problem presented, i.e., that it actually is the closest approximation to logic.

I realize that an “appreciation for the humanness” is hardly a logical reason to like something. But transitioning between systems is difficult. I’ll let you know when I find a logical reason, supplemented by reality, why I should move away from logic and into a more abstract system of thought.