The Smiths best describes current circumstances. My "function now, feel later" approach occasionally works, but my subsconscious eventually succeeds as the victorious antagonist resulting to silent weeping sessions in the shower. What an interesting situation to be in, especially since there are more smile-worthy things to focus on compared to the cry-worthy things that external forces prefer to magnify. I remember previous posts ago when I thought that I've developed a calloused shell of nonchalance only to be deliberately poked with a "trident" of provocation. And the ultimate question is "why?"
I'm glad I was able to connect with a former school mate who wanted to unburden herself of classic books. After a few emails, we've agreed to meet sometime in the next two weeks so I could get some of her titles by Hemingway, Kipling, and Faulkner. I've been envious of fellow commuters who've been reading on the train and I miss having the opportunity to actually read something that's not related to grad school or work. I considered borrowing titles from libraries, but I end up borrowing books that I need...as in course-related. Although I may come off as some uptight connoisseur of fine literature--I'm not. I've read contemporary fiction from James Rollins to the guilty pleasure-motivated romance novels. If given the time and resources, I'd look for a copy of Kierkegaard's Works of Love just to feed my inner life.
This interim between careers has left me feeling uneasy, because I live for striking items on a to-do list. It was appropriate that for the past two days I've received daily messages (I subscribe to this e-newsletter) about how rest doesn't mean being idle, but rather, doing something else. I should consider myself lucky, because I've been in innumerable situations when I hoped my task list would accomplish itself...moments when family duties, work, etc. were overwhelming. I resolve not to do anything forcibly profound...pretend house with kids or maybe a lot of cartoons.
From The New York Times: What Emotions Are (and Aren’t) "Most people believe that emotions are distinct, locatable entities inside us — but they’re not. No brain region is dedicated to any single emotion."
I read through this article about what constitutes human emotions...whether emotions were assigned specific neurons in the brain or whatnot. All I've ever known is that the seat of emotions was somewhere in the forebrain, but as to how the concerted physiological responses attributable to a specific human emotion operates remains unclear to me. I was sort of disappointed with the article...there was no nodding or "aahh I see" moment after I read it. Good luck neuroscience, you've your work cut out for you.
I once told colleagues that I rarely establish very close friendships, because I know that nothing is permanent and it's difficult to uproot oneself when circumstances require dropping everything. I've gone through phases of attachment, but through the years I've developed a faster detachment mechanism. The trick is simple: constantly think about that object or person or whatever it is that has your attention until you reach the point where you tell yourself "okay, this was great...time to move on."
Non-relationships may be highly fictional, moderately fictional, or platonic. Fangirling on characters from TV shows or movies makes up the highly fictional non-relationship. Moderately fictional non-relationships involve actual people who are either strangers or acquaintances and personal speculations. The platonic relationship is all too common and may or may not develop into an actual relationship.
The nature of highly fictional and moderately fictional non-relationships may include the romantic kind and friendships. The platonic kind always potentially dips its toes on romantic interaction.
I made these up. Consider this post highly fictional.
*brace position to receive imaginary tomatoes aimed at this post*
(image below from cartoonstock.com; no intention to infringe...just entertain)
Google Images result for "free landscape photo" :)
Note: While I mention Catholic-related topics here, the gist of this post cuts across beliefs. Please allow me this indulgence.
Coming to terms with morality and science has been an ongoing topic in my head. When Pope Francis released his latest encyclical "Laudato Sii" which translates "Praise to You," I felt validated. The prevailing stereotypes of scientists and religious people never seem to intersect. Climate change is no longer just an environmental or scientific concern but also a moral issue. To act on any form of injustice is a moral obligation (I feel) so that indifference and the deliberate "turning of one's back" on something so basic as care for our planet is morally wrong. It doesn't have to be a big act; it all starts with caring and the decision to change something with yourself. Pope Francis's exhortations in his encyclical are very doable: live simply and avoid excess.
Protected time for physical activity that's been happening as of late: long overdue. Exercise requires a lot of mental work (thinking about the movement and actually performing the movement involves major processing). My neurons are constantly fired up, which explains this 12:30AM post/ode to working out. Hormones.
Magnetite deposited in the brain has been linked to telepathy. I still have an echo of that high I felt after reading James Rollins' Altar of Eden, because my assumptions about synchronized thinking and nonverbal communication have been justified. At the end of Altar of Eden, James Rollins enumerated ideas in the book which are based on real science; especially about magnetite deposits as fractal antennae.
So that whole gut feel about another individual (whether fascination or aversion during one-on-one encounters) can be partly explained by some form of magnetic occurrence. BUT, I prefer to rationalize---stuff. I'm not amused by expert fractal antenna users or manipulators (or what this new generation sometimes call 'players').