This is day one of my attempt to resurrect these big diarrhea posts, where I put down a note between each set at the gym. It’s a gym at the apartment complex, so there’s no one else here at 11 PM. Because I try to come here after work, the intended victory condition is to do these RAM dumps five out of seven nights per week. That’s how you’ll know whether it’s working.
I should mix my philosophy of clothing-as-communication with EdensThaw’s suggestion to spend 80% of one’s wardrobe budget on shoes, and create a practical philosophy for buying shoes. Victory condition = best status hooring for your $$$!
Finished Moby Dick. In summary, I highly recommend the Sparks Notes version, because there’s not much going on. I’ve heard it described as “The Great American Novel”, which I’d edit to read “The Great Yankee Novel”. All style, and no substance, though Melville is admittedly on par with Shakespeare with respect to the former. If I do end up writing any fiction, I’ll be plagiarizing his craft with all my heart and mind. But the meat of the thing reeks of preening Yankee narcissism and domineering deathkult. There’s a plot, if you’re willing to read more than one hundred chapters of whaling trivia to get to it. And it’s a surprisingly brief and vapid plot. Ahab is driven mad by thoughts of vengeance on the white whale, and it gets him and his crew killed. I bet you already knew that.
If the plot were cut and the rest were taken as a fantastical paean to whales and whaling, it would be pretty good. But it’s not, and therefore isn’t.
According to edenic theory so far, aspies ought to have a very low rate of dementia and other degenerative cognitive diseases in old age, because neanderthals apparently revered their elders’ wisdom and instinctively understood the sanctity of life thing (hence burial for the dead). It would be nice to hear about it if anyone knows whether this is actually true.
Obvious subject is obvious: I should redirect the (potential) bibliography project into a renewed effort on the elusive Edenism primer. Now that I’m getting to be less unreliable, I might be able to knock out a little something :-). Patience is the byword, though. Gotta let the organic growth process do its thing.
Somewhere along the line I forgot how to explain my reasoning to ordinary people, or at least how to explain long enough for their impatience to make them give up on understanding. Three seconds in most cases, women are particularly bad. In an extremely feminine environment, you might guess how well this works out. Someone might ask “why did you do X that way” and I’ll stutter and digress and come off as more eccentric than usual, and like an idiot besides. Am I losing my ability to verbalize even simple abstract ideas, having been restricted to writing for so long? Yuck.
On the other hand, after accepting that “eccentric” is the social archetype from which I begin, I’m actually making pretty good ground in the social arena, so long as I don’t try to actually explain anything in detail. I’ve gotten pretty good at arrogant dismissal, which comes pretty naturally anyway when nobody seems to know anything about anything. Maybe I should set a rule for response length on technical questions, like a “three-second rule”. Any line of reasoning that would take longer than three seconds is replaced by “it’s complicated” or equivalent, and if the person is actually interested I can force the conversation into interview format with three-second responses. I can see that working.