As of 14 August 2016, I am quitting Twitter. This document contains all the Tweets from my @clownfysh account. At some point, I would like to go through and remove the junk and bold the exemplary ones. I have no specific plans currently to do this but hopefully will in the future.
People who drink too much are people who essentially aren’t satisfied by drinking. Otherwise, if drinking satisfied them, they would stop drinking.
People who drink one drink and stop have satisfied themselves. While drinking too much is not an affliction I would wish on anyone, this points out something, rather, I hate about the person who is satisfied by drink. To me it shows spiritlessness (if you’ll forgive the pun), because it shows a person who is easily satiated. To be easily satiated by drink may literally be a blessing. But to be easily satiated in general is pathetic, it’s a horrible crime to oneself and one’s human/cultural family. Which is why, still not wishing alcoholism proper on anyone, some of my favorite people tend toward such problems..they are spirited, they are not easily satiated. In the larger sense, that is a very very good trait to have.
I’m at a point where the loneliness is so great that I have to do something about it.
I could numb it, as before, with alcohol, with lying to myself, with pretending the facts of the world are not what they are. Or I can face it, live through it. To go that second route I think will involve some non-traditional tactics, one of which I’ve skirted with before. And that is real separation, not pretending that there is a connection where there isn’t. That’s a hard road.
Dream that friend/police was inspecting my car. Stuff was out of date but they decided to let me keep it.
Our family van was in a warehouse/shed. I was in a desert city like Tucson. All my family had left me. I had enough gas money to drive somewhere in the region and start an independent life, or I could admit that my life there was already independent. There was freedom possible/necessary and I just had to admit it to myself–realize–that that’s how it already was. Key part of the dream was that while in waking life I sometimes think I am leaving my family by being independent, actually in the dream they have already left me, they have already moved on, are doing other things. I say that when you fear something from others it is always a fear of what you might become. Maybe when I’m afraid that Suzanne will disappear without telling me where she is, that is really a fear that I might do that. I have been constrained sometimes by fear that my moving, my independence, will in bad ways leave my family behind. But, for a while, I lived in Dayton and everyone in my family moved away from there, and I was the last one left there for many years, not by my leaving, but by being left behind. I liked the independence of that. In LA, I didn’t like it as much. Film school was okay but I never felt I had a home in LA. I love aspects of it but the driving there was hard during school and after school.
Disorder happens when we classify a segment of behavior as not-ideal, as not-the-goal. The disordered segment is often the minority, but doesn’t have to be. There is a field of behavior, and someone has stated that a certain kind of behavior is ideal, is the goal. Behavior that goes along with this ideal is order. Behavior that goes against it is disorder.
We see disorder in abnormal conditions. Some of these conditions are considered to be highly undesirable, like suicidality. Some of these conditions are considered basically neutral, like freckles. And some of these conditions are considered highly valuable, like exceptional tallness or intelligence.
Why is normal intelligence the ideal, the goal, instead of exceptional intelligence? Because of the relativity of intelligence. If everyone was of what we call exceptional intelligence, then that would be normal intelligence. So we are not saying that a high IQ is undesirable, we are saying that a higher-than-normal IQ is undesirable. It is not ideal. It is not the goal.
People with higher-than-normal IQ may seem spectacular to their normal-IQ friends, or they may seem spectacularly uninteresting, but higher-than-normal IQ comes with as many problems (in terms of socialization) as it does advantages (in terms of problem-solving ability). People with higher-than-normal IQs are of special value, but they are also of special burden, to themselves and others. Just as people with lower-than-normal IQs require special education, people with high IQs require special education. It is inefficient to educate abnormal people — it is inefficient to handle any kind of special case. Additionally, the subjective experience of both high IQ and low IQ people contains more frustration than does the experience of people with normal IQs. It may be glorious or it may be dull, but either way, it is frustrating not to be normal.
Normality comes with a kind of ease, an efficiency. When you are of normal height, you have less looking up or looking down to do when you are talking to another person. When you are exceptionally tall or exceptionally short, you normally have to look down or up at people when you talk. Being abnormal is more work. When your interests are normal, it’s easier to find friends than when your interests are abnormal, are exceptional, are not-ideal, are not-the-goal. When your psychology is normal, you don’t require changing (through medication or therapy) to become adjusted to those with normal psychology. When your psychology isn’t normal (or ordered) — when it is abnormal (or disordered) — you either stick out or you attempt normalcy via medication or therapy or some other means.
This normalcy — this order — we are talking about, is subjective. To a person of normal height designing a philosophical model of order and disorder, normal is the same as the majority. But to an extra tall person designing such a model, normal might be a minority. This is how sometimes order describes the minority, and disorder describes the majority, of the field of behavior being studied. From some points of view, a minority condition or behavior is what is ordered.
In a case like freckles, which are generally seen as a slight advantage by some, and a slight disadvantage by others, there is little cost for being disordered, and little benefit. A few people find freckles highly attractive, and a few find them highly unattractive. But for the majority of people, having freckles is a disorder which makes little difference. Perhaps they are seen as slightly not-ideal, slightly not-the-goal, but having freckles is generally not highly sought-after or intensely avoided.
With a case like suicidality, few people perceive any kind of glory in someone having this disorder. There is a normal way of living and dying — this is the ordered way. To go against it is almost without question to be disordered. It is to be not-ideal, not-the-goal.
A psychological disorder like bipolar disorder is almost universally seen as not-ideal, not-the-goal. Along with its neighbors schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder, it is seen as undesirable. The word disorder even graces the names of some of these conditions. To be bipolar or borderline is to be disordered. You are going against the flow, you do not fit in. If everyone was bipolar, the world would be a crazy place (we perceive). If everyone was borderline, normal relationships wouldn’t happen. We’d be losing something valuable if these abnormalities became the norm.
But Kay Redfield Jamison, in Touched with Fire, argues that bipolar disorder may present special advantages in creative fields. Here is a voice saying that this disorder may in some ways be ideal. It may in some ways be the goal. If many of our famous, historically-valued poets had bipolar disorder (as Jamison shows), then doesn’t it become rational to rejoice in a diagnosis of bipolar disorder? You have the same artistic temperament as the great poets! If you have any intention of writing poetry, then it may well be ideal that you have bipolar disorder.
And there the initial definition of order and disorder is turned on its head. Order is lacking. Disorder wins. Or, more specifically, disorder describes an ideal, and order is lacking in that ideal.
My ex-girlfriend invited me to Chicago to keep her company while she auditioned for a TV show. This was the promise of a nice hotel room, ex sex, and tons of free time for me to explore restaurants on the strip.
“We’re staying at the Omni,” Ashley said. “That’s the hotel Oprah’s guests stay in when they’re on the show.”
Honestly I didn’t give this much weight until we got there, when I discovered in person that the Omni is, in fact, a dope hotel. One of the very nicest hotels I’ve stayed in. Every surface was covered in real wood. The bed was made for fucking. As soon as we got to the room we pulled each other into the thick comforters, undressed each other, and fucked like only exes can. I mean by that point you know how to do each other, but there’s a vast shore between you emotionally. It’s really quite a nice type of sex.
We have trained ourselves to accept whatever deal we are offered and not to negotiate. The only socially acceptable answer is yes, when often the only right answer is no. We click “yes” on legal documents we have not read–saying no is not an option if we want to participate. And we must participate, or we have no life. What would we be if we did not participate (in what was presented to us, without our real agreement, without our part in negotiation or formation of the activity, without our help creating the activity). We must accept the contract offered us by a corporation or we will not have a job. It would be wrong of us to offend our employer by throwing their shitty benefits package back in their face: to progress, we must acquiesce. We must acquiesce silently at that. To say no would be to cast ourselves off, to say no would be to run from the path. The one path, the only path. There is no discussion, no negotiation, no creation; there is only to follow (with a yes) or to die (with a no). But no is the answer.
I have to be on the internet if all my friends are on the internet. No is the answer here too. No is the answer to the internet and the telephone and no is the answer to work and sex and listening and medicine. No is the answer to eating lunch with workmates. No is the answer to working. No is the answer to agreeing to follow laws just because someone wrote them. I can follow laws and I can break them. I can continue relationships and I can abort them.
People who wear ties are ridiculous. Everyone wears ties because everyone wears ties. This is the most horrible reason for doing something that was ever invented, and yet this is the reason most people use to explain to themselves why they are wearing a tie. What does that tell you about most people? Wearing a tie for this reason is required in order to participate with society in the form of having a career, and yet wearing ties for this reason is morally wrong. It’s morally wrong. It’s not simply conformist, it’s unforgivable, it’s illogical, it’s anti-meaning. It is, in total, morally wrong.
It’s socially unacceptable to be outspoken when someone wrongs you. Yet to remain silent is a violation of conscience; it is morally wrong. So you see that to be socially acceptable in such a situation is morally wrong. And yet we’re taught the opposite. Social acceptability is held as an imperative. When in fact it is often morally wrong. It is illogical, amoral, nonsensical. It is, in fact, wrong.
A person is not a form, a response to a form, or a machine built to respond to forms. A person is not a yes to a generic question (how could it be?). A yes to a generic question is the counterpart to a form. A signature is the counterpart to a form. The person’s equivalent of the counterpart to a signature is not a form, or anything like a form. If a signature is a response to a form, if a yes is a response to a form, then what is a person the response to? Not a form. A person has no business responding yes to forms or signing them.
Tests do not tell you what you want to know. If a test tells you what you want to know, then what you want to know is meaningless.
A test is not a conversation. In a conversation, both parties can be surprised. In a test, usually neither party is. The issuing party certainly won’t. When choosing a test as an evaluation method, the issuing party may be aware that they don’t want to be surprised. To choose not to be surprised is failure. It is anti-life. It is a mistake to choose not to be surprised. To choose to issue a test is a mistake. The choice to issue a test is made when the issuing party is unable or unwilling to enter a conversation. This is not of value. It is not a contribution. It is impossible for the issuer of a test to discover something new, something new to them. To proceed that way is false, it is idiotic, it is dead.
To take tests is a lie. To give them is a farce. An invitation to participate in farce is an invitation to lie. The response to such an invitation is not yes.