20041129

Early morning hours already, feel compulsive and not tired (but getting there). Busy reading Elsje's paper on Neoconservatism and US Foreign Policy - my introduction to political theoretical concepts relating to trends in the US administration over the last few years. Interesting.

Saw Look at me (Comme une image) yesterday at the Trocadero. The lady sitting next to me - about my age I think - came by herself. Like me. At various times we laughed at the same time, exhibiting the same sense of humour. I think we both felt it. I thought of speaking to her afterwards. Something stopped me - not her, that felt possible. Something else. Then watched her walk fast, away, after the elevator stairs, and disappear into the crowds.

no icon

i am neither a symbol
in a circle of intensity
nor an icon that tumbles
to gather in a density

my themesong is a lullaby
soft static on a channel
like a lost love still alive
a remastered original

and the distance i have come
like rays of light
that passed through the sun
has turned pure white

no longer a symbol
in circles of intensity
icons must tumble
i've traded their immensity

20041125

Been reading up on attachment theory.
Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) make the case for four attachment
patterns in a model of adult attachment. According to this model, two
dimensions are divided into positive and negative sides: model of Self,
and model of Other. As a result four typical patterns can result:

.............MODEL OF SELF..................
.................(dependence).................

...........Positive ........... Negative......
.............(Low) ............... (High).......
_______________________________
| .....SECURE ......| .PREOCCUPIED. | ......Positive (Low).....
_______________________________.......MODEL OF OTHER (avoidance)
| ..DISMISSING...| ....FEARFUL ...... | ......Negative (High)..
_______________________________

In the fearful version a person has a negative view of both self and
others, finding it difficult to be intimate and avoiding social
relations. The secure type is comfortable both with intimacy and
independence. In their words, the secure type expects others to be
responsive and trustworthy, and have a sense of their own lovability.
The opposite is the case in the fearful type who anticipates rejection
and does not feel lovable.

Further, all four types showed a notable correlation with childhood
reports - implying the strong impact of childhood relations. Whilst at
the same time the extent of the correlations suggested that later life
experiences may have brought about changes.

Of specific interest are the in-between types - the dismissing type had
the highest self-confidence of all types during research. They are
dismissive of intimacy with others. This was interesting to me, as I've
noticed that I tend to be dismissive sometimes and shun intimacy (even
while suspecting that it is for selfprotection purposes). Nevertheless
I do not entirely identify with this type. In fact I don't wholly
identify with any, and if at all, usually only with one or two aspects
(Bartholomew and Horowitz also found few subjects who fitted neatly
into any category).

The second in-between type, the preoccupied type, has a fairly low view
of the self but high regard for others. Preoccupied with relationships,
and easily make themselves dependent. Problems with autonomy but not
intimacy. Interestingly, this is the only pattern that showed a strong
gender correlation - women more frequently showed this trend than men.

In general, and under more or less ideal circumstances I make a fairly
reasonable conclusion and say that - for lasting, healthy relationships
- the secure type is the best model to strive for.

Of particular interest to me is how - especially if traits of the other
types are evident - one can change the dismissive and preoccuppied
tendencies (surely often deeply rooted) and enable greater relationship
potential.

Of course, this is given the assumption that the secure pattern is a
kind of ideal.

There then, watch this space.

20041122

Listened to Leonard Cohen's new album Dear Heather today. Haven't finished yet, I was a little astonished, vibrance, and daring experiments. Quickly now read some of the lyrics - brimmed a tear. What is there to say?

Got an email from N today.

20041121b

Some thinking has led me to believe that humans may benefit from a form of cross-breeding among genetically different humans. What little support I have comes from these ideas:

(a) Lack of genetic diversity occasionally causes problems when partners have children. It is known that the chances of having a child with Downs' syndrome increases when partners are blood relations. Conclusion: genetic diversity is better.

(b) Attraction tends to work subliminally at first. I've read about research that claims smell is important - when someone naturally "smells nice" we tend to like them better. We are not generally aware of this consciously though. And this has no relation to the perfume or
deodorant you wear. Of largest impact though, is the idea that we are subliminally able to detect someone whose immune system will compliment our own. This idea seems "sensible enough" on first encounter, but on second thoughts. Hmmm, mythical. I've heard it said though, or maybe I
read it.

I would be very interested in any confirming or disconfirming reading material, or any related subject matter. Anyone out there?

Sounds all to scientific and lab-like - too calculated. Not meant to be.

It does remind me however, that I sometimes don a bit of an attitude towards those who take the easiest route to partner adoption. Pure proximity comes to mind. Probably born out of other discontents. Open for review. Heh, heh, not sure if I'd change it ...

20041121

Did the High IQ Society's Ultimate IQ Test today and scored 136. Online
tests I've tried (like those at Tickle), have for the most part scored
me in the range from 135 to 140. Would like to try one of the
"exceptional tests" some time, just to see. ;-)

Views and views. The internet seems to be ridden with people's
opinions. Even apparently smart people say the most inane things. Dull
things.

Now the argument could run that I should postulate a more noble ideal.
To dynamically grow in thought and publish the fruits. However that
seems flawed - feedback is needed to grow, no? "To invite dialogue" -
but is a blog the best format for that? Investigation continues.
Ideally though, some commentary will be a good goal to work towards to
achieve.

My psychology textbook tells me that performing in the same domain is
more likely to drive people apart, unless they have high self esteem
(generally, but also particularly in those areas I suppose). So I'd
better decide carefully on what interests I want to formally pursue
here - in the possible event of more lively commentary later on - or I
can see myself stopping and starting at the drop of a hat. LoL.

November is the coldest month, since
summer took its sleepy warmth, I miss
you dear, and more each year, it's
been so long - where have you gone?

What a horrible rhyme. Summer-no-more invested with the sentiments of a
loved one lost or missed, rammed into a famous verse. Offal. It's cold though.

20041120

Saw parts of the Science museum in London today. What a large place!
We tried to do the Wellcome Wing on all the floors, and only managed G, 1
& part of 2. Didn't get to floor 3. Worse, we thought the wing was the
whole exhibit.

My cough is subsiding. Good riddens (touch wood ...)

Checked out my standing on the Political Compass. I'm a Libertarian
Leftie. Not unexpected really. On a graph showing famous people, mine
seems to be closest to the Dalai Lama. Someone with a humanitarian and
spiritual reputation of goodwill. I should read up on him :)

Ramble

The internal monologue. This morning, some excitement at remembering my blog and a frenzied, enthusiastic thought process. What will I write tonight? There was no stopping the thoughts, the possibilities. I stopped myself. It's been a while since my internal narrator has been so active. I'm used to the visual part of my imagination, and the logical part that analyses and constructs. I use them all the time. But this bubbling narrator was different. I stopped.
Rupture. Who spoke of the dangers of the internal monologue, a voice that must be stopped? Yet it seems so natural. An excitement that loses its context the moment it comes into existence. And that is the problem.

But how would my aural, or vocal, imagination be different from my visual imagination? The thrill of spontaneous rambles and reasons, not unlike the thrill of watching the visuals of a movie.

Ah, that reminds me: at long last, a clue to the things I see: synaesthesia. It would seem that the type that caused the biggest surprise when I realised that most people don't have it, is called emotion colour syneasthesia. I find it hard to entirely agree with, but here is a short description:

"Emotion-Colour Synaesthesia" Responsible for Auras

Supposed psychic powers that enable people to see auras around others may simply be a quirk of the brain, according to a University College London (UCL) study of a rare form of synaesthesia where some people see colourful ‘auras’ around their loved ones.
The case study, reported in the October issue of Cognitive Neuropsychology, shows how some people can experience colours in response to people they know or words that evoke emotions – a condition known as emotion-colour synaesthesia.
Dr Jamie Ward, author of the study, says: “A popular notion is that some people have a magical ability to detect the hidden emotions of others by seeing a colourful ‘aura’ or energy field that they give off. Our study suggests a different interpretation. These colours do not reflect hidden energies being given off by other people, rather they are created entirely in the brain of the beholder.”

Paragraphs found here: http://www.forteanbureau.com/blog/archives/002044.html

So that's it, I have a quirk of the brain?
My own evidence in this regard suggests that it's something that occurs in the interface between myself and other people. My reasoning is simply that what I see often reflects something that I can recognise in that person - a certain kind of emotion that is not particularly mysterious. I just happen to pick it up visually. This is not the whole story, and the other part is definitely in my own brain. It's almost like these people (whom I can see in this way) somehow have access to my wavelength. So you could say that they log in (or simply come in) and by us being connected - or sharing a frequency - I am able to detect them. My detection leaves a visual residue, but the origin is nonetheless "real" at some level.

If my memory serves me, I read that the eye is the sense most directly connected to the brain, via nerve endings at the back of the eyes. This was given as an explanation for why the colour at sunset affects us so (emotionally). An interesting idea in this context.

Hello, world

Well my blog is up, that was surprisingly easy.
Dare I say it? Although weblogs (or blogs for short) is a big buzzword
these days, I did not have a clear idea what the phenomenon is until
last night. The road to here is the wonder of the internet. From a
digest email a link took me to one blog, that took me to another blog -
that of Aaron Swartz. Interesting: he's only 18 or 19, but his work,
reputation, and intellectual activity certainly gives the impression
that he is mighty smart. In a niche IQ bracket. Speaking of which,
interesting to read about William James Sidis, the person many reckon
to have been one of the smartest people (purely in terms of IQ) to have
lived. I digress - more about WJS another time.
So from Aaron's website I hopped to another blog, this one by Katicus.
Very different in tone. Where the former was serious, the latter was
cleverly funny and made me laugh.

My alarm clock is set to start with The Streets again tomorrow morning.
I can't believe I woke up with No Roots for over four months. Good
album though.