[studio menu] [menu]



This pastiche is not an advertisement for companionship (although it could be construed as a plea for attention). It's intended to be(come) a somewhat satirical work of (semi-)fiction based on certain attitudes and traits I've discovered in myself and others and seen in the "personals" in newspapers and posted on "personals" websites. (I can, however, understand how some people could mistake the intent of this collection, given it's unfinished nature.) Nevertheless, if inquiry is provoked, I welcome it. I'm not really actively in the market for a relationship (that is, not any more so than ever, as an ongoing practice), but who knows where your approaches might lead? In any case, I love the e-mails that this entry has prompted. I almost want not to add this preface, for fear of discouraging them. But I must be honest up front. Why, I don't know. That's the way I am. I don't (intentionally) want to mislead anyone. [What am I saying? Yes I do. I'm such a liar.]

Personals

by j jackson

WANTED - PARTNER
Someone to pay attention to me. Women only need apply. Age irrelevant, but stupid young girls are at a disadvantage, as are women with young children, women who smoke (tobacco), women who experience an alteration of personality when they drink, such as turning into flirtatious sluts who threaten otherwise stable relationships, and women who play games in general. Sex okay, if disease-free. Apply only after much thought and consideration.
I am not, who I am. To get to know me
you have to understand, who I am not.

On the lawn, beneath huge trees with no lower branches, between
the university buildings in the far distance and the wilds of the park,
we lie, excited but pretending to be sane.

I know you from before; you were a friend of a good friend of mine.
In a sense, you are she, everything I remember, about how she was:
you have the same breasts, though yours are smaller and less firm,
the same inviting way, confronting me, the directness, attraction.
You are soft, as she, your shoulders want to be caressed, to feel
me sink my face into the fleshy space between the neck and bone
of the shoulder, but I do not, which causes you dismay.

You do not understand me, why I stay away.
You see, I know what you are. And yet you do not see.
You do not (want me) to believe it, you do not want to believe it,
you want to be, something else, for me, you want to change and
you believe, for a short while, that, with me, it is possible.
In this primordial place, where ordinary life has been excluded,
for a while, you think, you see, something different, in me.
But I see the same old thing in you. You don't understand
why I am here, if I want to act toward you the way you want
to act toward the me you think I am, because I am, only
partially: The trees above us quake and shutter. High wind
disturbs the tops, transmitting movement through stabile trunks
into the ground, below us. We talk about ordinary things, as if
this is not occurring. A strange guy obviously not a student,
approaches the wall of the old ball field before they tore it down,
all except that low left field wall. He stands there looking, at us,
that is, in our direction, except that we can't know it, he is too far
away, and yet we do, but we don't say it, but we think it, separately,
each pretending we don't know, like we don't know ourselves, each
thinking we are too cool to ever allow the other to feel the threat
we feel. Finally, you say, "Let's go," before the guy, a black guy,
decides he can approach us, as if we are too vulnerable alone
beneath the trees in the tame woods which has become more wild
in these latter times.

Late that night, after you have gone home, after we have, sort of,
explained ourselves to each other and you can't accept that I want
only to be a friend who can feel love without a physical attachment,
I go to bed next to Ellen, who will not have anything to do with me
because I will not have anything to do with her either, any more,
except that we will occasionally share the same small single bed,
lying, back to back, because it's the only place that I can sleep
except the floor, after I so generously gave her my bed, and now,
she thinks, I might have come to regret it, when everyone else has
a place to sleep but me, in this old communal bedroom, but not
true: I am as gracious as I've ever been, despite the strain we feel
between us, attracted and repelled.

Occasionally, throughout the night, I cannot help but touch her.
I'll awaken to feel a shoulder twisted back against her back, or
a leg against hers, or we will be in buttocks contact. Impossible
untouching in this small bed. I dream, of her. All the time. I am,
a fool, to torture myself, and her, with my foolish distance, just
because she is so flippant in her nature and insists she doesn't
do the things she does when she becomes a drunk, rebellious spirit.
I dream of this activity all night, and in the morning I know why
I cannot touch her any more, until the next night I have to sleep
alone on the floor.

I awaken to the movement of Ellen as she throws a crumbled
page of paper, I remember hearing crinkling in my dream
before I had awoken, at Jimmy in a bed across the room,
to awaken him, because we have no alarm, she is our alarm,
she awakens when she sets her mind, to it, she says she never
dreams, and Jimmy always awakens at the slightest touch of
the paper when it bounces off of him, and he says he doesn't
know how it happens, because he is such a sound sleeper.

Ellen struggles to get out from beneath the blanket I am
lying on, pinning her down. She pulls at it, more and more
vehemently as I will not fully awaken. I try to turn to allow
her to get free, but we become more entangled. She laughs,
not a lot, just a tiny giggle, but it's enough, in most cases
such as this she would get mad, and so I can't resist, I don't
even think about it, it's automatic, I lean down and kiss her,
opened mouthed and fully, because she wanted me to, also
without thinking, and then we regain our composure, say
"Good morning," sweetly, each, and go our separate ways
again.
 Ellen has left the room. I sit on a wooden chair,
putting on my shoes. Paul crosses the room toward me saying,
"So, what's going on here, huh?" Although I've known him
since childhood, he's new to this place and he doesn't know.
I can be so cool when I want to be, when I'm not involved
with women. "What?" I say. "You and..." he jerks his head
toward the door, meaning to indicate Ellen. I already know
what he means. I hate him for mentioning the obvious.

"Nothing." He looks at me as if he doesn't believe me, as if
he thinks I think he's a fool. I do. He should understand far
more than he does by this time in his life.
DRESSES OPTIONAL
I like women in light, cotton, knee-length, billowing summer dresses,
the kind that promise a glimpse of something intimate when sitting.

Far Away

Sometimes things I'm looking at seem very far away.
Things I'm looking at up close I mean, things too near
to be, so far, from close examination. This is mental
phenomena, not physical perception. I am distanced.
If she's a slave to her instincts, no matter how attractive she is, how appealing, still, she's a slave, subject to all of the games and whims that women throughout the ages have subjected men to, because men are slaves to their instincts too, becoming entrapped by the wiles of women.
But I am not so much a slave to mine. Not any more. Actually, I've seldom been, at least by comparison with the majority of the male population. I've tended to consider this (non)behavior a fault--but it's not. It has been a gift, my reticence to engage in social/sexual banter.
Yet I've mostly looked upon my withdrawing nature as a detriment, despite the fact that it has kept me out of typical trouble on many occasions, and it has attracted women to me who would never otherwise have been attracted, because the mystery of who I am and how I am
appealing is never resolved in conventional (i.e., instinctual) ways, so that they learn to love me in order to keep exploring, which should lead them to a supra-instinctual awareness that, if it will, expands their vision, allowing me to more closely approach them, but if it will not, then
they remain a slave and I remain more distant.

The Girl Next Door

She looks like a girl I had known,
appearing forever in dreams
now as the same person over

and over again, coming up
from behind, me preoccupied, 2
not at all seeing her approach,

so that I, pleasantly surprised,
think she is someone else, acting
accordingly.
Or
she is me,
sneaking up on myself, alone,
wishing, I had known her, better.

She is several people now.
Brown hair sometimes dyed black.
Long dark hair wet from a shower.3

She always says hello, waiting
for me, to do more than respond.
I disappoint women that way.
WAITING - FOR YOU
I can be so patient any more. I have learned, that to pursue my desires and dreams is to ask for trouble, when my karma is disturbed, when I will not be spiritually ready for what I want. I believe that what you really need will come to you, and to go too far out of your way to find it is to set yourself up for later disappointment and failure. You should get to know me first, before you decide if I am the right guy. Visit my Websites, read my work. I am in there, hidden sometimes, but I am there. Find me, and then contact me.

Max et les Ferrailleurs
(French)

(Max and the Scrap Dealers)
or 
(Max and the Junkyard Dogs)
[I love double entendre.
And it's so easy in French.]

A cop acts as the client of a prostitute in order to set up a gang of petty thieves, subtly convincing them through the prostitute to pull a bank job so that he can get the credit for their capture.

The cop in the film, Max (Michel Piccoli), doesn't have sex with the girl for obvious reasons: he's a cop, he's on a case, he can't afford to become involved, he feels he's above her, he's a bit of a prig, etc. He's not a bad guy, really; he's just acting badly, i.e., bending the rules in order to entrap these petty crooks, out of a need to perform, not only to satisfy those above him who demand performance, but also to satisfy himself, because he's a personally committed officer. (Okay, so he's a little bit twisted, but aren't we all, in one way or another?)
But Max quickly learns to like the girl, and then he begins to fall in love with her. But he's a man of principles, and so he continues his hands-off approach (or is that non-approach?) But an amazing thing happens, which is actually very understandable, given the circumstances. The prostitute, against her better judgment, falls in love with him.
This is an example of a psychological principle that we (men and women) don't seem to want to realize: if a man will love a woman, yet not pursue her, she will be attracted to him all the more, to the point of falling in love with him, and she will not really understand why, because she should hate him, or at least, she should feel insulted, or rejected, that he will not physically attend to her. The prostitute does hate Max for his lack of physical attention, but she loves him too, and she doesn't really understand why, although she may think she does.
Max, in the end, having fallen in love, sacrifices himself to save the girl from going to jail. How quaint in these modern times, how old-world mentality, how noble. But that's the kind of guy he is. And that's the kind of film this is: it sets up its premise and constructs its elaborate plot all to explicate this point of male-female attraction, because we must be reminded of it, because it's becoming out-of-date in a postmodern world where everyone fucks everyone, only hesitating, if they will, for fear of deadly diseases. [I know this is an exaggeration, I know many people do not fuck, as much out of a fear of the word itself as out of a fear of the act. (I use the word "fear" here in a much broader sense than it is conventionally used. I mean by it a deep psychological motive encompassing many other concepts, such as, but not limited to doubt, worry, anxiety, and paranoia.)]

Waiting for the Veil to Lift

Having to wait so long,
we become waiting rooms.
--Jean Cocteau,
Le Testement D'Orphée

Waiting, theory, is, for:

motivationinspirationcontemplation
signalssignssymbolsomensportents karmathings and people to come to you
opportunitiesany thing,

or dream, or wisp of life,
a meditation,
indicative of a reality beyond
superficial mundane everyday
concerns, I am a part of, while
away the hours, pass in reverie
of fantasy, actively searching
images and mental structures
for, meaning not specific to
world politic polluting pieces
with sensible words too tight
for a generalization to reality
hidden beneath a mystery veil.

This is imperfection, words. Perfection goes beyond
thinking, we know, in a large bureaucratic room
where I have been summoned, I don't remember when
to account for something, some behavior I don't
remember, what, probably lots of behaviors,
there have been lots of them, wayward ones,
unaccounted for, unprocessed, never categorized.
I sit in a row of metal folding chairs, in line, with
many others, our backs to the windows, waiting.
We fill out forms and wait our turns, to be seen.
Eventually I must go up and see the bureaucrat.
He's a nice man, but distant, telling me what to do.
I must complete and sign my form, on the back of
the envelope I put it into.
But I blow it, my name.
I know I know my name, but I can't write it, words.
[Filling out forms is one thing, when you must make
check marks in little squares, but signing your name
is quite another thing altogether.] I can't get it right.
I cross out my first attempt, afraid that it will negate
the validity of my information. He doesn't mind me,
it seems, he's attending to other matters, but when
he sees it, will he object? I begin to sign again, but
it's even worse this time. He looks my way, at me.
I apologize, with a facial expression I feel, which
he disregards. I sign my name again, this time
managing to miss the missing capitals and letters.
It's more or less correct, not perfect, just okay.
I think, handing it to him, he will reject it, but
he pays no attention, dropping it in with the rest.
I return to my seat. I think it may be getting near
time to leave. But we begin, as a group, first,
to act together in a kind of game we play, passing
pictures of stained glass images up and down
our rows of chairs ringing the room along windows
on its three sides. (The fourth side is his cubicle,
where the man's office work is done, a narrow side,
whereas two of our three rows of chairs are long.)
We're supposed to be learning something important
from this exercise, but I can't fathom what it is.
He changes the rules, and instead we begin to pass
insubstantial consequences, meaning, from person

to person. This is less difficult, to understand, being
mental constructs we pass every day between us, not
the exact group of us, but similar people in everyday
life, but I am at a loss, nonetheless, but less so than
when the images were real. The girl to my left places
her forearm on my thigh, her palm up, holding out
an imaginary offering. My hand rests forward near
my knee, our forearms touching. I like this game,
contact. I do not want to take what it is she offers;
this will cause her to remove her arm. So we remain
as we are, silent, except for our touch failing to even
acknowledge each other. And then a new game begins.

We are told to rise and walk toward the room's center,
but only if we feel compelled or inspired to do so.
[It suddenly occurs to me that this is not bureaucracy.]
Most of us rise. Only a few remain in their chairs.
[I would have thought, I would have been, one of those.]
The girl and I remain in touch, our forearms entwined,
awkwardly. I want to take her hand, but I do not.
Questions begin to arise in me I have no answers for:
Why am I here? What is this purpose, my purpose?
How am I supposed to relate to this group of strangers?
I realize I have not been so alone. Everyone must feel
this way, I think. I relax. I remember, sitting in my chair
thinking the same thing, refusing to attend the thought.
I remember realizing without fully focusing, an idea,
which I feel come into a fuller fruition now as we near
the center of the room: we know each other, without
words. Words are unnecessary. This is why I did not
want to speak to the girl next to me, or to one on my right.
Others speak, which others, myself included, know is
wrong---or not wrong, but insincere. They spout words
to alleviate their doubt, their insecurity, their fear.
I feel this too, but I have never been a speaker. I hide
these fears away, so that no one will know, or know
less readily, seeing them unwittingly revealed through
loquacious behavior, yet they are revealed through
taciturnity. We cannot be revealed, but we are seen.
[The world is a dangerous place, always, but especially
when ingesting controlled substances before entering
government buildings.] We are colors, we have always
been. I am blue, and the girl is blue too, and everyone,
blue, or magenta, or bright yellow. We coagulate in
the center of the room, into colors like stained glass,
each of us a different segment of the whole, some of
us, standing out, others blending in. The girl whose
hand I do not hold is tinted with a purple glow, as if
she were less blue than pink, but she is a certain blue.
A girl we meet from across the room is blue-white,
the same blue with white streaks running through her.
As soon as it forms, the group begins to break apart
into splinter groups. We want to, I want to, return to
our chairs. Many people do, or to different chairs
with new-found friends, as a chattering has arisen.
We, the three of us, have not spoken, white streaks
accentuating the silence. We leave her there as she
turns away. Back at our chairs I finally take the hand.
We communicate, complicated thoughts, without words.
We see, elsewhere, throughout the room, despite noise,
people communicate silently, in small groups. We know
we can join them, any time we want. We reveal each
other, ourselves, knowing, each thought we will hold,
in communion. There is nothing we cannot know, of
each other. The detail is profound, all faults, all fears
revealed, intentionally, so that we will not surprise
each other later on. We return, again and again,
to the idea that we should leave, abscond together.
But we reject that imperfection-motive, knowing
it can only be far less than what we are here now.
Even having taken each other by the hand is wrong,
maybe. Eventually, we let go, remaining at first in
touch, but even then, separating, aware we are not
two beings, despite our different colors. I point out
her secondary color, of which she is aware, and she
remarks (there are no words for this process other
than words which denote or connote words) I am
a solid and "pure" blue. I wonder what this means
and she thinks she does not know. Each time she,
or I, think we will act to break the perfection we are,
we counter it, remaining, perfectly aware, yet
incomplete, others being separate. We decide
it is right that we include others, and we go back
across the room to rejoin the blue-white girl, who
knows we are coming, as we know her, so does not
try to hide away even though, we know, this is what
she wants to do. Her white streaks are her jealousy,
which I admit to also, but I have no streaks because
I will not entertain it. We both want exclusivity with
the girl whose hand I no longer hold, which makes
the other girl somewhat more content. She believes
she can handle the situation, despite herself. We feel,
although we wish we could remain alone together,
we should include others in our group, and so we do.
We stand quietly alone, now four of us, and then, now
five. I see a few other silent groups amid a talking mass.
There is less perfection in larger silent groups because
we must switch back and forth between us, one on one
to counter each different propensities which will, if left
alone, diverge, into a physical world where ordinary
mentality will prevail. After what seems to be forever,
we return, I and the two girls, to the chairs, where we
try to plan our future, which we know is a violation of
our mutual trust. I feel, as they do, that to leave now
will be to lose touch, but to leave together, to return
to our ordinary lives, will be to become...ordinary.
We want to go on, silently, together, but we fear
losing our present proximity will break us apart
permanently. I know, if I ever see them again, I
will immediately recognize the connection, like I
often do, with everyone, when they will not know,
but that's the problem, they know, they will not
know, and I will have to tell them, in words, that
they will never really understand. And so, all I
will be able to do is exist, as I have done, alone
together, never fully understanding others, know,
when they think they do not, or I do not, apart
because we lack the confidence to know ourselves
together.
SEX
I think about it all the time, imagining I'm lying between the legs of some sweet honey. I awaken out of sleep to images of a woman I had only seen a day or so earlier, and immediately in my imagination I adopt a sexual agenda. Not that I would ever act on it. The practical limitations are all but insurmountable, when action will bring consequences I would never want. But I think about it, all the time.

Via Explanation


The photo on the back of my new book isn't the way I really look. I don't really like that picture, I do, but I don't. I don't wear my hair that way. I tie it back and keep it close to my head, which makes me look more or less normal. But I feel like this picture looks, almost always. I used this photo for the back cover of my book because it portrays an inner image of me that I don't too often let people see, a psychological reality I hide away, using my everyday appearance as a cover-up. I guess I'm afraid to reveal my more liberal nature to an uptight conservative world, because I know first hand the damage it can do to a personality. I adopt an uptight attitude in response to the same. Or maybe this is just an excuse, a rationalization for me being the way I am, or used to be, before I became so... So what? So much like the society I grew up hating. I put on an act in order to survive. Another excuse. I am two people. Only two? That would be so nice and easy.

I often think about cutting my hair short. But I always choose not to, feeling like it's a kind of cop out. I'd like the convenience of short hair, being able to take a quick shower without having to futz around washing it, being cooler in the hot summer, etc. But it's a badge of sorts, a way to distinguish myself from the creeps who run the country and the world.

I'll cut my hair when I see some "hope" for the world (which may mean that I'll always wear it long) or when, in a moment of weakness, I give in to social/superego opinion. (I hope it is the former; the latter is so wimpish.) It's a kind of artificial purpose, to hold out against a capitalist system that oppresses people while pretending to act to their benefit.

I have no (real) purpose. I have a lot of temporary purposes that kick in, when I am in the right mood, when my physiology favors a better self, usually in the summer, but this is a transitory existence, life, and I am not so much focused upon as foundering in it. My primary purpose is my art of words, but I become disenchanted of it occasionally, and lost.

There is no reason why you should want to get to know me. I am pathetic. But that's only my own opinion, and I have very low self-esteem. It seems that people who know me don't agree. I maintain a good facade.

I want to say that I'm set in my ways, but it's not true. I'm set in my physical ways maybe. But my mental ways are all over the place. I maintain an open mind and continue to learn, on a daily basis.

If I were physically handicapped in some way, you would pity me, perhaps. You may not still want to know me (unless you were a very good Christian), but you would understand, at the least. But because I am psychologically handicapped (we're all psychologically handicapped in one way or another), you would perhaps avoid me. My pathology (everyone has a pathology) prevents my ready association with people who would otherwise want to know me. I have confirmed that this is true, many times over, when I wander out into a society that will often be attracted to me for a wide variety of reasons, some of them honorable, only to reject me later, when they discover, what it is I am. What am I? I am a lot of things, too many to list in this one place. I just am.

§

I am in a museum-type room in Oakland, which is somewhat suggestive of a funeral home, or a formal greeting area for some official, high-class function. I am standing toward the center of the room, behind a plush sofa, speed-reading a nicely-bound, but poorly-made book (it's pages are not printed, but copied, on that slick thermal paper, with partially handwritten notations in the "margins" where there is also print.) There is a hurricane lamp and a small green-blue sculpture on a small table against the wall behind me. The book I am reading describes these items in artistic terms and illustrates them in detail. The word parsimony is used as a primary focal point of the descriptions and is a theme (echoing in my mind.) The sculpture is narrow, about a foot or so high and four inches wide, and rounded, curvilinear. The hurricane lamp is ordinary, yet significant, and is without a globe, which is significant in some unknown way that has to do with the parsimony theme.

This is a feeling I am, sometimes, when the world insists upon
never leaving me alone, a shorter version of which is expressed
by the phrase: lost mutes in the form of a think tank.

I don't know what this means. It's source is hypnagogic.

DON'T YOU MONKEY WITH THE MONKEY
Psychologists have conducted what has become a classic monkey experiment: They put a number of monkeys into a large cage, in the center of which they place a banana hung above an insulated staircase. Eventually, one of the monkeys will climb the stairs to try to get the banana. When he does, all of the other monkeys receive an electric shock through the metal floor of the cage. This is repeated for several days every time a monkey tries to climb the stairs.

Subsequently, after the shocks are no longer administered, when a monkey tries to approach the stairs, the other monkeys will attack it to keep it from climbing them. They have learned to protect themselves by keeping their fellow monkeys away from the staircase.

Next, one of the monkeys is replaced with a new one that has never been shocked. The new monkey will try to ascend the stairs to get the banana, but the trained monkeys will attack it to stop it. The new monkey quickly realizes that if it approaches the stairs, it will be attacked, so it learns to stay away.

One by one, each of the original monkeys is replaced with new ones. As each new monkey approaches the stairs, he is attacked by all of the monkeys, even the ones who were never shocked. They have learned the behavior from the other monkeys. Each new monkey in his turn learns to attack any monkey who approaches the stairs, even though it has no idea why it does it.

When all the monkeys have been replaced, and even though none of the monkeys in the cage has ever been shocked, no monkey will approach the stairs. Why? If you could ask one of the monkeys, it'd probably tell you "That's the way we've always done it here."

I am not anti-social, as some people have accused me of being.
People want to believe that antisocial behavior means keeping to yourself and eschewing society, but that is not the true meaning of the term. Antisocial behavior has a precise psychological / sociological definition. To oversimplify, it means that one acts without conscience. And, if anything, I have a very active conscience, to a fault. It's responsible for much of my low self-esteem.
Psychologists have puzzled over why antisocial behavior exists in humans. Only fairly recently are they coming to the conclusion that it may be genetic. Of course it's genetic! There are anti-social genes because, at some point in our past and as a possibility for the future, antisocial behavior was adaptive. A mutant gene found a niche in the organism-environment and settled in and subsequently became distributed throughout the population at large. What could this environment have been? How about something like an ebola virus outbreak where people who engage in gregarious activity become more victimized than those who hide away? That would account for asocial behavior, but not necessarily for antisocial behavior, unless those who were asocial set about to kill their more sociable counterparts, out of fear perhaps, or out of a recognized difference. We certainly should be able to understand that type of behavior, and not only among antisocial populations. It's a very ordinary human trait.
People with antisocial personalities seem to be very gregarious. They do not so much hide away physically as they hide away their true inner nature beneath a mask of social acceptability. They manipulate their social situations and victimize their fellow citizens. Come to think of it, there're plenty of situations in the postmodern world where the tendency toward antisocial personality may thrive and pass along the genetic material to future generations. How about among corporation executives who maintain in all sweetness nice families at home while they go to work and create conditions which may in a very real way call into question the presence of conscience in their personalities? Corporate types "rope-off" a section of their lives where they can act with less conscience than they otherwise would be able to in the larger society. (And more and more, the larger society is becoming "corporitized.")
The consensual acceptance of the term "antisocial" conflicts with the scientific definition. [Consensual people are the monkeys and nature is the experimenter. We're unaware of the time when our predecessors were shocked for trying to climb the stairs.] People who believe I am antisocial, who do not understand the distinction, also do not see how they project their own fears and repressed asocial tendencies (those fears inside each one of us that makes us critical of others) onto me, because I hide away a lot, giving them a target, a hook onto which to hang their denials. Attack the monkey who dares to be different. If they had more of a conscience, they'd realize how much they hurt me, just because I do not pretend so readily as they to sociability. It makes me want to hide even more away.
SOMEONE ELSE
I have the right to be, the way I am, no matter how naive, innocent, overbearing, disturbed, anxiety-ridden, doubtful, worried, fearful, paranoid, fucked-up a person I turn out to be, seen as (because I exaggerate those tendencies in the way I communicate, in person and via the written word, directly or via my demeanor.) I am not a perfectly-placed person. I am, nothing, more, than me. I've had a hard time being myself. I've always been myself (who hasn't?), but I always feel that people would rather I were someone else. And so, I've felt I had to be alone, separated out, since others expect me to be someone I am not. I don't feel like I belong in this world; No, that's not true. I don't feel like I belong in this society. Yes. That's it. But strangely enough, I do feel that I belong in this culture. (Postmod culture spans the society, globally.)

Co-Dependence

Looking for acceptance from others via the attention of mutual attraction instead of finding that acceptance within your own self is a form of co-dependence. We hover between states of love and independence. Most people slip in and out of these states easily several times a day. And we call these people normal, as they praise and criticize their mates. We do not call this behavior co-dependent---but it is, when coupled people depend on each other (or when one of them depends on the other while the other acts as a user.) Dependency is need personified. We should learn through the process of life how not to need, but we've set ourselves up with such false ideals that we strive after an otherness, projecting what is best about ourselves onto others, all in the name of satisfaction, that we may prove to ourselves that we are loved, when the proof is always within us, independent of external opinion: we are loved when we love ourselves, and when we do not, then we are co-dependent. If we require the perception that someone desires us, not only physically, but psychologically as well, as when we want to be thought attractive, then we give up the most potent form of satisfaction, our self-appreciation. We make our self-image dependent upon the approval of others. I myself hover between these states less erratically, preferring to exist in one or the other state for longer periods of time, perhaps weeks, or months, or years, instead of remaining flexible, able to turn on or off the search for approval/love. We call this situation obsession, especially when the state is one of attraction instead of self-involvement. (It's obsession also when it's self-involvement, but we don't call it that, we call it selfishness, or isolation, or narcissism, or whatever.) I have always been this way, dedicating my being to a beloved, even in her absence---because I have always felt that if you're going to love someone, you should do it totally, or not at all. But no one has ever felt that way toward me, or not for very long. I will drive women away with the intensity of my love, when they want the more "normal" hit-and-miss variety, the love/hate relationship---which they prefer, in their myopia, to see as a love/distance one, because they can't admit to the motive which wants to drive their lovers away, to resurrect the longing for self-acceptance that they bury in order to allow the love to exist.1 Women will pretend to want a dedicated love, thinking themselves more capable of it than men. And maybe this is true; it is certainly physiologically true, as when women will dedicate themselves in love to a man who profoundly sexually satisfies her---but there are limits here also, as when she will wear out after she has been made profound love to for too long a time,

Tuesday morning. Please be gone, I'm tired of you

but that is too specific an instance. I am speaking here of a more general trend. When a woman encounters an obsessive man, even if the obsession takes a tame (i.e., non-physical) course (as mine tends to), she is soon found out to be every bit as fickle as is her male counterpart. This is the trait I have long endured in lovers, that they will not be as capable of dedicated love as I, even as they profess the opposite. They do not want me in their heads so much as in their bodies. Yet it is inevitable that, if you are a dedicated lover, if you remain in touch instead of playing the off-and-on game, the approach/avoid contest, you will meld into a mutual mind wherein more is capable of being known than your lover might wish. Women are just as human as men when it comes to not going "too far" (there is no place that is too far; there is only here and there), not wanting a sincere commitment. They will renege and draw away at certain limits when the ego seems threatened. It takes a courageous individual to allow herself to pass the barrier of ego, to let it fall away, to experience (true as opposed sentimental) identity melding. I allow it easily, and it scares people. But then, I am not normal. I can exist in a state of love for years, uninterrupted, and then go for years again in isolation, never feeling a thing for another human. But it occurs to me: this is not my flaw. It only happens because no one allows themselves to open up to me so fully as I desire, not only physically, but mentally as well. I accept, while others hide away, either out of fear or preferring instead to play flirting and manipulative games. Co-dependence is the state we exist in when we play these games, when we will not give up the ego barriers in favor of transcendent mutual experience. I don't hide away; that is an illusion. I remove myself physically only, because I cannot hide my psychological self from particularly peceptive people. (I always assume that there are a lot more of this type of person around than there really are.) I accept myself, and the world, as it is, not a dichotomy, but a transition. Finding acceptance within yourself is love when the self you are within is a mutual self. It's a pleasant experience to exist in this state, even when the person you share it with will not allow herself to fully recognize its depth. But when she will, it is pure ecstasy. Unfortunately, it lasts for such a short period of time, only until she will decide that she needs "more space," that she is being "smothered," that she has, in fact, become too scared, that she is losing her identity, when that is the whole point, to abandon it in favor of the mutual one, because it is not a true identity when it is isolated. This is what I want: the permanent condition. This, absolute transcendence, is what most "normal" people will feel is not possible, if they can even imagine it, if it has any currency at all within their syatems of belief. The other is an illusion that we become addicted to. The search for otherness is always futile. It assumes a separateness that does not exist. We look for acceptance of whom and what we are, thus defining our isolation, when we should be looking within, to the self that is forever one.

1. This theme is very well expressed by Fiona Apple in her CD "Tidal."

[back]

IMPERFECTION
I am constantly focused upon that which I am not. I am not an ordinary person. Given this propensity toward recognizing the discrepancy between that which I am and that which you, as an imperfect woman, are looking for, I am always going to feel that you are looking for someone else and will only be settling for me if you would choose to spend your time with me. But then, I know that this is always the case between two people, except when they will decide that it is otherwise.

Formal Relationships

I write the way I do because it's the way I think. It's my purpose.
Some (most?) people have a different purpose when they write,
so that their style takes on a more formal, structured tone. Not me.
Informality is my benchmark.

I live the way I do because it's the way I think, thought being mainfest in the relationship between life and art.
If you want to establish a formal relationship with me,
like being my boss, or my father, or a government official,
or my publisher, or my editor, or my accountant,
or, like, my wife, or "lover," or "sweetheart," or any other
label you may think of, when you are in an authoritarian/sentimental
frame of mind, trying to concretize fluid life experience into
a "stable" state of affairs, where you are you and I am me,
forget it. I consider formal relationships less than honest and truthful.
You are not you, I am not, me, we are, not we, but free
and she is he and we are all together, not one thing, but many,
unestablished, until we set put our minds to it and create a thing
unable to connect as we first did because we've defined it all away.

All formal writing feels stilted to me. When I experience it,
I imagine a gaggle of grammarians sitting around a board table
dryly discussing rules of proper punctuation and aesthetics.

All formal living feels stilted to me. When I experience it,
I imagine a collection of mannikins sitting around a dining room table
doing each other's hair, talking about things they don't know.

Split infinitives, for example, seem natural to me.
To always separate them out suggests pretension.
It has been said (in The Crush, if no where else)
that split infinitives call undue attention to the adverb.
Au contraire. Writing in ways which do not reflect
ordinary speech is what calls attention to itself.
We do not say, always to separate out, or
to separate out, always. This correction calls
attention to itself, because it's not ordinary.
I'm not against non-ordinary writing. Do it
if you want to. We should all do what we want.
I'm just explaining why I write the way I do.

If we are, to be, separate, a split infinitive, I am
thinking, we are, a less than perfect couple.
Text, which we all are, in one way or another,
defies delineation along consensually established lines.
Hypertext is a more accurate metaphor, linking
one text to another (to another, to another, to...)
If we are not one text, we are separately linked.
We are more hypertext than print.
It might take another century to bury it, but print is dead.
A ZEN KIND OF LOVE
Enlightenment felt in my heart, seen through my eyes, experienced in my presence, is, just. I fulfill my purpose, bringing to those who encounter me and look into my soul, enlightenment as they bring enlightenment to me. Enlightenment does not exist alone. We are, enlightened together, or not. Enlighten me with your presence. Fulfill my longing to be, in a world other than this one of imperfection.


"Why have we all left the world?"
"It's because in the world there is no peace or freedom of the heart."
"Why?"
"Because people haven't enough heart to hold all the things in the world. In fact, they have enough heart, but it's full of ideas of self. Worldly feelings lead to ties and passions. In the end, you lose what you love. That's why you experience pain. You don't have any pain because you have no ties. You must empty your heart to overcome passions."

I became a hermit to free myself from the dust and the dirt of the world, looking for perfection. But I realized that it was impossible without loving the garbage and the dust of the world, even life's passions. One has to embrace all manner of things. If it's easy to fight against reality and fate, it is difficult to love them. What a beautiful world when you learn to love it. The world is not imperfect. I think imperfection is in our language, our knowledge, our consciousness. Isn't enlightenment a dream? Since I believed in enlightenment, I left the world. But when I look at the things I sacrificed, I would fall into a hell of remorse.

--from the film Why Did Bodhi Dharma Leave For The East?

I do not expect a woman, more likely to be given over to comfort,
a more comfortable existence, to want to live the way I do, just
to be with me. I live minimally, meditatively. I am proud of my life.
I don't live this way because I have to, although, now, I do, unless
I would change in order to accommodate life with another person.
I live this way because it is the life I choose, stress-free, security
assured through the apportionment of funds out across my future,
and then some. I live in a world of thought, which requires little
sustenance to keep it going. I would have a woman with me, but
there is none, apparently, who is willing to share the bareness of
the life I lead, filled with only love and not much else. Oh, I know.
They say they will, until it comes right down to it and they have to
sit around a house all night because we can't afford to go anywhere
substantial. When they get antsy, I get worried. It means they're not
far from being gone, or half-gone, out among the others. Boring.

When I first saw the film The Zero Effect, it was a revelation,
an affirmation of my lifestyle. It didn't matter at all to me that
its impetus was satiric, that it looked sarcastically at that style
of life. The mere fact of its depiction was enough to spur me.
I like films that I can ride like horses, speeding my life along
toward its ultimate conclusion, filling it with lots of nothing,
which is what everyone does, pretending to a significance
life does not possess. Life is its own purpose; the whole
point of life is to procreate and die. Lest you think,
however, that this means it doesn't have a goal, its goal is
beyond us, which we interpret as and assume is God. And
maybe it is, but if so, we don't know it, unless it knows us
through what we are, and not vice versa. This is a long way
around saying: to live with someone may endanger your soul,
when you forget about what's important, to you, to appease
another in order to have become attached, which is the way
most people believe they are supposed to live out their lives.
I too want, to be, attached, and I am, but to a lesser degree.
But I can't expect anyone else to want to live this way, like
me, especially because sometimes I am a hypocrite and give in
to the baser instincts of a multiplistic, capitalistic culture/society
and in those instances it appears that I am merely selfish, which
I am, which is another reason, perhaps, I don't expect a woman
to put up with me, ignoring the fact that she, in her own way, is
the same. I have my own comfort level, not as elaborate as many
others, but it is comfort nonetheless.
FRENCH A PLUS
French girls look like women, even when they're very young. American women try to look like girls, even when they're older. I'm not looking for a girl, I'm looking for a woman, who, if she happens to look like a girl, well, that's okay, but probably not if she's an American. If English is not you're first language, that's a plus too. An inability to speak a word of English is a big plus. Speech is very overated, leading to as much confusion as understanding.

A Conversation

She said, "I guess you think I'm pretty much of a slob for letting my yard grow up like this and not taking care of it."
"No. Not at all. I'm glad you don't cut it so often. It makes my yard look good by comparison."
"Your yard does look good."
"Yeah, when I cut and trim it. But I hate to do it. If you cut yours every week, then I'd feel obligated to do the same, and then I might not feel so good about you."
"Really?"
"No. Not really. I'm just joking. It doesn't matter how you take care of your yard."
"I thought you might think I was a helpless woman."
"No. I know you're not. I might have thought that though, if I hadn't seen you out cutting the grass. If I thought you were a prima donna, then I might be critical of you."
"But you said that all criticism is self-criticism."
"Yeah. I'm a prima donna. Or at least I used to be. Now I'm just an old man."
"You're not old."
"Oh, thank you."
That was it. That was the conversation that got us together.
Later that night, as she lay beside me quietly in the dark, she whispered "I think this might have been a mistake."
I immediately awoke to her words, having almost been asleep.
"Oh? I'm sorry. I thought you enjoyed it."
I thought she meant I didn't do it right, that she hadn't been satisfied. There was no reason for me to think that, except maybe an extreme case of low self-esteem, which I hadn't felt in over a year, not since the last time I had been with a woman, as a matter of fact. Hmm.
"Oh, no." She said. "Not that. I did, enjoy it. Very much." She kissed me on the cheek. "I mean..."
I waited for her to continue, but she didn't.
"What?" I finally asked.
"I don't know. I guess I didn't think I'd enjoy it so much."
"Oh." I couldn't complain about that. But I knew what she meant. I'd been through this before.
"I mean.." she said, when I refused to say anything more.
Again, I waited, until she made me say "What?" again.
"I thought we'd do it and get it over with and that'd be that."
"Oh."
"But now..." Another pause.
"Now what?
"I don't know."
"Neither do I." I lied.
"I don't know what to tell my boyfriend."
"Oh."
"What should I tell him?"
Oh-oh. "Why do you have to tell him anything?"
I knew that was the wrong thing to say, even before I said it.
"O-kay." she said, and I felt her turn her head away in the dark.
"I'm sorry," I said.
"It's okay. I understand."
"No you don't."
"Then tell me." She turned her face in my direction.
"I'm not what you think I am."
"What do you think I think you are?"
"An ordinary guy."
"No I don't. I don't think that at all."
She wrapped her arm across my chest and snuggled me up close.
"I don't mean that. I mean..."
I almost laughed as I waited for her to respond."
"What? What are you?"
"I don't know. I can't explain it. It's too complicated. Maybe I'll explain it later."
"Okay. It's all right. Whatever you are."
I wanted to tell her I'd be her boyfriend. Or rather, I wanted her to tell me that. And I knew she wouldn't, because a girl I knew a long time ago didn't. I was too locked up in the past, too gun shy, just to live my life. That's what I meant when I said earlier that afternoon that I was an old man. I no longer held out any hope for a successful relationship. One, two, three years, maybe. But I knew better than to tell her that. And so I just shut up and let her hold me.
LUCK
I would say that I haven't had too much luck with women,
but I suspect that luck hasn't had too much to do with it.

Complaint

I don't want to complain--well, I do want to complain, but I don't; I don't feel that complaining is justifiable, in any case (but this is what I'm doing now; I'm a paradox of contradictions)--but...well, never mind. Let me start again, okay?
I don't "work" for a living (at a job, that is.) I live on a minimum amount of money so that I can be assured that my investments will continue to earn more than I spend, thus slowly increasing my net worth. This is a turn-off to women.
Women want men to work for a living, whether they have money or not. It's evidence that they are capable of supporting a family. This is an instinctual response that will become activated despite the circumstances of a relationship.
And women want men to chase them, but they want to be caught only under their most exacting conditions, which, although there are general psychological traits, differ from woman to woman. These two instincts interact in women.
I can't work, or not very well, because of my physical condition. I'm healthy, but I have a back/heart problem (same condition; the back problem affects my heart.) It's a chronic, but not a serious problem (as if any heart problem isn't serious.)
[I'm perfectly healthy as long as I continue to live a peaceful, stress-free life. If I go out to work at job, I become more and more stressed and begin to deteriorate until my heart begins to palpitate and finally to lose its rhythm and fibrillate.
I could, probably, correct this problem with drugs, but I don't want to. I prefer the natural route: living sanely. (The postmodern business world is an insane place with a superb corporate-governmental PR program that enables it to appear sane.)
I like my life, immensely. I've never been happier, or more (personally) productive. If I would go back to work now, I would consider my life to have been a failure. Everything I do, every decision I make, serves to enable my present lifestyle.]
Throughout my life I've acted as if I never had a problem at all, of any kind. Nothing was ever a problem for me, because that's the way I defined myself, mostly unconsciously at first, but increasingly more consciously as time passed.
So, in the jobs I had, I never allowed anyone, often even myself, to know how much pain I was in. Pain became second-nature for me. I learned to live with it. I learned to ignore it. I adapted, with the help of a lot of aspirin and drugs.
But the pain took its toll as my levels of stress increased and I became less able to deal with people in the workplace. At best, I tuned them out and existed within my own detached world, because when I am in my mind, I do not suffer.
When I am within myself, I am okay. It's a form of meditation. But as I increase my participation within society, my level of stress increases, until I forget about my health and well-being as I am forced to deal with the immediate situation.
Over long periods of time when I am held within a social situation for a large part of the day, as I escape at night into my own world, it is all I can do to rest and recover to face the next day's tasks. Chronic pain escalates, and I am lost to myself.
My whole life has been a means whereby I have learned to deal with pain, physical and mental. But I never complain about it. This isn't a complaint. It's merely an explanation, of why I am the way I am. Am I making myself clear?
I WANT WHAT, NO ONE WANTS
I want to be in love, in a desperate way. But I don't necessarily want to want to have sex. I mean, I do want it, very much, all of the time. But I don't want the consequences, and I just don't mean physically, like diseases, kids, a nagging lover, etc. I've gotten to the point in life where I can look ahead, understanding that love with sex evokes agendas dissimilar from my typical-male/atypical-asocial ones. But love now, that's a universal motive: I want to be in love, to be loved, but not if it means I must surrender, a part of myself I hold inviolate. It's better to be celibate in love--but no woman wants that, do they?

The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner

I live and breathe the discus, Pre. I mean, I hate Christmas. And Thanksgiving. And Easter. And anything that disrupts my routine.
from the film Prefontaine

I've said it before: I can love almost any woman, but...
They rule themselves out with their habits and agendas,
so that if I love them to obsession, which I am wont to do,
I act to my own detriment, deferring to their pathologies,
the most obvious among them being:

1) They smoke.
Not so much of a problem in and of itself (it is a problem, because of how second-hand smoke increases the likelihood of speeding up my heart, threatening to cause it to lose its rhythmic beat, a condition I am prone to, but there are greater threats to this condition), smoking evidences dependence and lack of will power (for lack of a better term). They prove by their addicted behavior that they are less capable of the fortitude they will need to keep up with my ever-developing psychological de-conditioning. They need the crutch and, hobbling, they will get left behind.

2) They have young children.
Women with young children have a special agenda. They just can't fall in love, if they are smart. I don't really want to hook up with any more dumb women, being not so dumb myself any more, so it's a point in their favor that having children goes a long way toward smarting you up. But these women are looking for men to support them, if not financially, then psychologically, or with services such as watching the kids from time to time, or whatever. (So are we all looking in the same way. All of us, even men, have an agenda. But women with kids are vested more intensity in theirs.) I have to be careful. Ordinary social life can be a major distraction for me, away from my routine life of art. Most of what I get done, not the spurts of "genius," but the dog-work, the revision and the finishing, gets done via my unconventional (re work-hours) routine. I can't afford to have this disturbed. It's too disconcerting, too unproductive trying to reestablish it. I get disturbed enough as it is.

*) This list contains five major items, and any number of minor ones, but since I've written of them before in several other places, I leave off with it here, because I've gotten to the pay-off already, and I've lost my motive to go on. This is the problem with plots and resolutions: they're artificial. They keep going on after the initial motivation has ended. This is why most movies are boring after the first third: the set-up is the motive. Life is not a movie, and I do not create my art, I live it. And routine is hard enough for me to establish as it is, it being almost antithetical to my way of life and system of belief. But I must establish some semblance of control (which is a fictive concept; we are, none of us, in control), if I am to accomplish anything. (Another fictive concept, accomplishment. But what the hell. I'm human, too. Most often, I am caught up in the game myself, and seldom any more do I ever see the light for very long.)


"The mile was everything back then, the glamour of track and field. Every kid coming along fool enough to take up this crazy sport wanted to be the next Jim Ryun."

"Forget Jim Ryun. He's done. I'm gonna be the first Steve Prefontaine."

"It must be nice to wanna be yourself."


I was a runner, for the same reason as Pre, because I didn't excel at any other sport, and I just had to participate in some kind of sports activity. In high school, I was a hurdler. But in college, I began to run distance. Cross country. But I turned in another direction when I got into college. Even before college, I knew I had a talent as a writer, but when I got my freedom from the domesticity of hearth and home, I began to flourish. Then I knew that one thing I was good at was not writing (because I was not so good back then), but fantasy, and dreams, and . . . the operations of my mind. So I became a psychologist. How obvious it all was back then. But it was all for the wrong reason. People become psychologists in order to help others. I became one in order to better understand myself. It was entirely a narcissistic decision, but I didn't know that then. I didn't love myself so much, that is, not so overtly that I knew it. I loved my mind. I loved being in my mind. I wanted to know what that was all about. And I still do. I know a lot, but I don't know it all. I know enough to know I never will. But still, I want to know more. Now, I'm beginning to want to know about other people too, not so much with an aim to help them, I don't think I'm ready yet to go that far, but at least I'm interested. That's a step in the right direction. If I live long enough, who knows, maybe I'll end up helping someone, if only through coincidence. But it is nice, to wanna be yourself. Life is a long distance to have to run. It goes better if you like distance, but it goes best if you like yourself.
SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME
I need an editor, someone who will scan my journals for publishable material, suggest what she thinks is commercial enough to submit to publishers, even being hip enough to the business as to suggest which publishers (though this comes with simple experience), prompt (without nagging) me to finish the piece into a completed work, mail it out for me, follow its progress, etc. Of course, I can't afford to actually pay anyone to do this. (But there are fringe benefits.) This is a part of what I mean by "partner," but it is not an essential part. It's only an idle fantasy. I am self-sufficient, even though I am under-published because I am loathe to do these kinds of day-to-day routines.

Independence

People need help. There is no doubt about it. But there is also no doubt that when you help people, it is the generally case that you decrease their motivation and ability to develop toward an independence where they can help themselves. It's a fine line we walk, as a society and as individuals.
This is one of the most fundamental social problems, and we see the lines drawn parallel along the political parties. Conservatives don't want to help, understanding the mechanics; liberals feel that to help is the truly moral (as opposed to fundamentally Christian) thing to do.
A case, a compromise, can be made for providing the minimum amount of help, that which will not overly tax the society at large, but which will help desperate people who demonstrate that they cannot cope and are headed toward disaster, toward a psychic or even a real death.
And then there is the other case to be made, the "scientific" one, for lack of a better word: We are all animals, struggling for existence. Some of us are better suited to survive, with more intelligence, more social adapt- ability. To help those who are not so advanced is to pollute the gene pool.
In any species, the people of the lower echelons are more expendable. Lions prey upon the weakest of the herd, thus strengthening it by weeding out the less able members. As humans, we don't want to think this applies to us, but it does. Life is a contest that we cheat at when help the weak.
Okay. Maybe we should cheat a bit. I mean, nobody said we can't be better than we are, as a species, and as individuals who advance out of it. There's room for the Mother Theresa's of the world. I don't know. I think both ways are right. So if I must err, I'd rather it be by helping people.
Except, I don't often feel like it. I think it could be right to do so, but I don't often want to be bothered. And besides, I have so much to do that's my own business, how can I afford the time for others? If others want to help others, fine. I'm liberal enough to understand. But don't ask me.
I don't pay taxes now, so I have no interest in whether the government helps the needy. When I did, I said, don't waste my taxes. Let them starve. I'm too caught up in my own game to see how helping others affects me too. We would live in a better world, helping everyone who needs it, me too.
But that's the exact problem: who needs it? I suspect I never would. I'd choose to die before I asked for help. But I am different. There are a few cases where just the right amount of help can make the difference between a person dying and going on to survive and prosper. I know this is true.
But most of the cases are of the more incorrigible type. People who need help will need help again, and again. Where does it stop? Some say nowhere; we should help until we ourselves are dead. Others say let it be. I say, help the children, until they are grown, and then let them compete.
Kids are different than adults. In most species, certainly among all mammals, parents nurture offspring, for awhile. And then they kick them out to survive or not. This is the essence of the problem: adults who need help weren't properly weaned. Co-dependence is a rearing issue.
Did I need help when I was growing up, beyond the normal amount given to any modern kid? Yes and no. I didn't need anything, really. I went my own separate way early on. Nevertheless, I got a lot of help. People were always willing to help me, and not only my mother. People mother me.
They'd do it to this day if I'd allow it. And I miss it. But I can't afford it. So, would I be as far along if no one had ever helped me? Or would I have self-destructed? I can't decide. I can imagine either case. I might have become stronger sooner without help. But, whatever, I am independent.
But we are never independent, no matter what we do. Always, we are less detached that we think we are. Independence is a myth. Still, relative degrees of it are achievable. The really independent people are those who, through an inability to get help, die an early death. That's independence.

Isolation

Alone, I can maintain the perception, that I am, an individual
entity, content, to withstand, the aggression of life, surviving
like Jeremiah Johnson in the depths of winter snow, sufficient
of self, supplied by nature with the wherewithal, maintaining
a society of one wherein all elements function to well secure
the stability of purpose I have become, alive in this creation.

Until I am, envisioning the different situation I have known
from time to time, enamored of a unity I have been together,
fixed in a duality of perfection where two people represent
a globe of relationship extended from bonds dictating bonds
until the whole world is involved, miraculous in simplicity,
that two become one, dynamic unity which spans the earth,

except, always, limitations prevail, compromises, ensuring
human fallibility, when what I am, reconciled when alone as
the phenomenon of security, is changed, requiring dedication
to a higher purpose which is more than I, a super-organism
that is never ever satisfied, am, alone, a firmer separation,
not required to make excuses for a life I have accommodated.

Translations of Words Used in Personal Ads:

Huggable...............Fat.
Svelte...................Anorexic.
Dynamic...............Pushy.
Independent..........Crazy.
Free-Spirited.........Crazy and irresponsible.
Uninhibited........... Lacking basic social skills.
Young at Heart......Over 40 and hating it.
Youthful...............Over 50 and in major denial.
Soulful.................Manic-depressive and medicated.
Unpredictable.......Manic-depressive and off medication.

Paradise

On a nondescript boat heading away from Oahu toward other islands: the forested islands line up in a sight-line, some of them partially obscuring Oahu and the Honolulu skyline. It's a beautiful vision and I want to tell the boat's captain, a butch woman (only known later) to stop for a minute so that I can take pictures of the skyline as it is partially framed by the closer islands, because I think it's so beautiful, but I don't tell her this, [ostensibly] because I have forgotten my camera. [I realize now that the real reason I didn't ask her is because I feared that if we stopped, we (I) would become stranded. (If I stop in my self-therapy, or in my independence experiment, I will be lost---like I was when I was a "viable" member of society.) The only safe and sane thing to do is to continue on.]
We stop on an island, and the captain and her mate (a lipstick lesbian) threaten to leave us there. They walk away down the beach. There are a lot of people around [possibly from previous strandings.] The water is wild, rising in swells near the shore, seeming very dangerous. I become frightened that I will never get off the island. I work my way along the ragged, irregular coastline, following the departing captain.
fai: I catch up with her, grab her, throw her to the beach, and dominate her, demanding that she take us to the next island closer to Oahu. She complies. [In a more waking frame of mind, but still almost asleep, I compare/equate (this is an imagery/thought mechanism) my throwing her to the beach with containing her and her mate inside a CD case, she being a larger woman, like a larger piece of paper and her mate being smaller, thus a smaller piece of paper. I put them into the CD case as labels, thus containing them. This proceeds from my preoccupation all day yesterday and night with backing up my computer onto CDs. See later.]
rai: Back on Oahu, her attitude changes. I try to leave her, but she follows me, and her mate follows her. She tries to convince me to allow them to stay with me. She implies sexual favors. I don't want to allow them to remain with me, because I don't trust her. [This following note is a journal entry from the previous day, indicating very succinctly (at least to me) that I include previous day's thoughts in my dreams: "I want people to like me, especially women. But when they do, immediately, my guard goes up. I suspect manipulation. I mistrust the situation. I fear the instinctual 'game,' sex and intimacy leads inevitably to a 'committed' life."] I think that her game is to gain my trust, then turn on me and murder me in my sleep [in my dreams?]. If I allow her to stay with me, I will have to be on constant guard, day and night. I will have to lock her out of my bedroom, or rather, lock myself up in it, to feel safe. [A symbol for withdrawal and isolation. This is what I have done, become independent so that I will not feel threatened by society. So, what? Society is a big bull dyke, enticing me with the promise of sexual favors, but planning to kill me in the night? Yeah, that seems about right.]
I allow her to carry out her agenda. She has sex with me, with her on top, satisfying herself in a frenzy of passion. I am nothing more than an instrument to her, an impersonal sex machine. [Society uses me like a machine. I am an instrument, a depersonalized cog in a wheel.] She has no regard at all for my presence, which is fine with me. [This is the conclusion I have come to in my life. I leave society alone, and it leaves me alone.] Her mate attends to her as she works to satisfy herself. After she is done, she falls off me toward the bottom of the bed, and her mate mounts me. She is less detached, though less passionate. [There is an aspect of this society that is more appealing. I like "lipstick lesbians," a postmod form of social appeal.]
analysis: The ocean is my mind/self (of course.) The islands are ego fragmentations, aspects of my fragmented social self. I must find a way to move between them, especially to get back to the main ego frame. Butch is the anima? (It doesn't feel like it. Comments above re Butch being society are later realizations.) She is the link between the islands (society). I am lost and fearful unless I can unite the fragments (into a social network.) This is a control fantasy. I must remain in control, always. The wild ocean is out of control, the totality of my mind/self threatening to overwhelm me. How do I overcome the threat? Via domination of the controlling element (Butch) of the "vehicle" that transports me between the fragments of my self. I exert my will in order to dominate society. This is what I did when I was out in it full time. But it beat me in that I became so stressed that I had to quit in order to enter a period of long-term recovery, which is over now. But I fear (not affectively, unless it is thoroughly repressed) entering it again, lest the same pattern will repeat itself.
Currently, I am working to dominate the great task of backing up my computer. It seems overwhelming. Many false starts. But I have just begun to make some progress, establishing a system. The dream represents this struggle, but is that its purpose, or is the computer itself a metaphor for the deeper struggle? Yes. And more than a metaphor. It's a part of the problem. I must be in control. I can't allow a virus or a crash to wipe me out, any more than I can allow stress to do it. [Notice the surfing jargon.] If disaster strikes, I must be able to easily reconstruct my system (computer and body/mind. I have been worrying about this for a while (computer, but not mind. That has been mostly unconscious lately.) Finally, I am beginning to do something about it. (The new therapy program.)

I awaken, feeling, what? I always assume, based upon how I feel, physically, slightly pained, always, even when, I don't feel it, pain, deep, inside my back, below the threshold of awareness; especially at these times, less aware, I conjure up the reasons for the feelings, vague as if lost in lost dreams, for the way I do not feel I feel. There must be reasons why I feel, the way I do not, feel. We assume what we believe from the evidence presented to us by our actions, one of which is, lying in bed, in an almost continual unfelt pain, being, in a certain way, having acted by the way I sleep, twisted into a distorted pain, for which I must invent causes.

WHAT'S GOING TO BECOME OF ME?
I don't often think this way, so when I do, it's a big deal. Here I am. Alone. For a long time now. Any semblance of normality long since past, having worn itself away. I have no one to huddle with in the dark night when fears of the big bad world threaten to overwhelm me. No one except myself, and my work, to comfort me. Do you ever feel this way? Awakening out of that incomprehensible dream in the middle of the night? If only I had someone faithful to write to, someone who would not break it off because I will get, sometimes, too weird. Write to me.


"What's going to happen to me?" It's a question I dwell on from time to time in the middle of the night. "Why am I so different?"

I can go for days or weeks, even a month, without saying a word to another living person, and never think an odd thought about it, never think myself strange for this behavior, because I exist among a network of psychic forces which appear to me as presences I contact.

I carry on complex conversations that could never take place in what we call the real world. I document these conversations, and thus I am an artist, entertained by my own inventions that I do not always recognize as such, but often think I am possessed, or visited. Or maybe I am.

I could create excuses, rationalizations, for why I am like I am today. I could say my situation is caused by: the physical pain I am in, which never abates but is only dulled into an ache by the medicine; the drugs I have taken, the drug life I used to lead; the paranoia-residue from having secured my financial future through illicit drug sales; Vietnam, and the subsequent Vietnam era politics. But these reasons would be at best convenient.

But all someone would have to point out is, "Yes. But what about your childhood?" and that would defeat any rationalization I could come up with, so I can only say, "This is the way I am."

I can imagine that there are a lot of people who fall into similar categories, people whose lives did not turn out the way they thought they would, if they thought of their futures at all (I never did), people who ended up in less than ideal circumstances after living a high or relatively well-off life, so that they end up asking themselves questions like "What's going to happen to me?"

Take Jayne Mansfield, for example. She could have been one of Howard Stern's early interviewees, if he had been doing his show back then. At least in part as a result of studio revenge against her marriage, which it did not approve of, she sunk to a level where she ended up making a studio film about worldwide seedy night spots and kinky sex parlors. The studio even went so far as to highlight her name as a part of the title, thus associating her public image with this underworld, perhaps as retribution. The corporation can be cruel when you won't toe the line.

Moments of Weakness

Let me describe my art, the artistic process. But wait.
First, let me explain my (now) infrequent moments of weakness.
In this life, you've got to be strong. You've got to become independent and stay that way, avoiding as much as possible bouts of insecurity and fear. If you cannot manage to do this, you get stepped on. I have learned how to do this, avoiding being squashed or poisoned like a bug. I bolster myself through introspection, digging deep inside when I am most vulnerable, exposing the delicate matters of which most people prefer to remain unconscious. All of this writing, especially the dream-renderings, is a "pouring forth" of the contents I happen across in my life, awake and asleep. The therapeutic value is obvious, if I will take the time to do it. First, and most basic, I am temporarily emptied, bringing an immediate relief. Next, if I examine the stuff in greater detail, which eventually I might do, in rewrite if I do not set about to examine it immediately in a sort of instant analysis, I get an insight into what is really going on, which over time begins to take hold in consciousness, as a more permanent awareness, as the same or similar material comes up and out, again and again. And finally, while reviewing old material later, I gain an historical perspective of my development. This is my art. The fact that it is in a marginalized form is not so disconcerting as I have made it out to be. I wouldn't have it otherwise. If it were acceptable mainstream, I would probably be doing something else. I don't like the middle of the road. It's a good place to find yourself as road-kill. I know. I've been there. I've been clipped myself a few times, but fortunately I was able to crawl back off to the roadside and lick my wounds. This is my therapy, my art, licking my wounds and learning from the experiences that caused them. The deepest wounds are the oldest. The material I manage to dredge up from the depths of childhood and adolescence is the most profound/disturbing:


Poketa hill: Linda F and I are sledding down the hill.[¥] We're having a good (i.e., an intimate) time. We're on the hillside to the north of the road, both on the hill itself and below,[§] above the flat [¥] across the road from Brooke's. Scene progresses (changes?)to Hamil Rd/Boyce Campus(inside).[§] David B/Anthony Michael Hall is hitting on db, but she's putting him down while paying attention/catering to me. We have a "map" (more like a paper outline) that we consult, using it to plan our "journey" (our life.) [I used the word "life" instead of the grammatically correct "lives" when I first transcribed this, in a near-hypnagogic state. I almost "correct" this as I type it into the computer, but I resist the change, because it seems this may be an unconsciously intentional "mistake." See later re multiple characters as self.]
hill behind 6023: sled-riding along a "trail" that we create laterally on the hillside, north to south along the cliff face,[fai] around the curve to the east, then back above the yards toward the north down the hill and across Poketa Road and onto the low road, a dangerous crossing because of the traffic.

analysis:

dreams of LF[¥] could point to a supportive ideal I have that I cannot achieve in reality. But I create that ideal, internalized. Thus, I don't need a partner to "support" me---like db supports me in the dream, i.e., psychologically and socially, and like LF supported her husband in real life when he lost his job at the steel mill and she worked while he set himself up in his own business. This is a fantasy of mine that I had briefly realized when I was married: if two partners have jobs, when one of them is fired or laid off, the other provides the support until a new job is found. A corollary to this fantasy, never realized, is that each of the partners can actively search for new jobs, honing interviewing and other job search skills as they go along, in their turn quitting their jobs and taking new ones when the new position offers: 1) better potential for advancement; 2) an increase in pay, substantial enough to cover any potential loss if the job has longer travel time or lower benefits or, otherwise: 3) better benefits; 4) closer to home; 5) et cetera. Thusly, the domestic partners can leapfrog each other to a higher level of affluence and financial security. But it's a false security if based only on finance and social position. I had this kind of (false) security with db, but I have learned how to transcend it (the co-dependence, that is, but not the financial aspect.) I am independent (of all of this "need," i.e., co-dependence.) I support myself, both psycho-logically and financially. This is a success of mine, a goal achieved, first established when I was a teenager as the enactment of a drive toward "self-sufficiency," learning how to survive in the wilderness with nothing but my skills (which I now see as an elaborate mechanism defending against insecurity/fear, a motive later realized by the mechanism's transformation (sublimation?) into financial terms when I became a successful "businessman." Moments of weakness experienced awakening out of dreams are recognitions of how I feel when the defense mechanism (independent financial self-sufficiency) is not consciously in place. The affect it guards against (the syndrome: worry > doubt > insecurity > fear > paranoia) is a very normal human condition, at least in the shallow end of the spectrum. I have been thinking that this is a pathology, and in a sense this is true, when it escalates to its deepest levels, but at its most mundane, it is a very ordinary state of existence, more or less defended against by repression and other defense mechanisms. And one of the ways that "normal" people defend against it is via "co-dependence," relying on another person for a (false) security that they cannot find within themselves. No other person can establish your security any more than money can. People and money are nice defenses against the fear that you will be lost, alone, abandoned, forsaken, helpless, et cetera, but these mechanisms do not provide real security, which must be ontological. And in this light, money seems to be a better defense than people, because it is more objective, more inert. People can abandon you. They can change their minds about you, especially when you reveal a weaker and/or pathological side to them, but money sticks by you (as long as you know how to hang onto it, make it work for you, and appreciate it.) Money has its faults: it depreciates; it is endangered by economic and nationalistic risk factors; it is impersonal (maybe this is more of an advantage than a disadvantage). Yet money is less volatile than people. I substitute money for people. It makes me feel more secure, while people make me feel less. I always appreciated Linda because she made me feel secure, because I felt that she appreciated me for the job I did, for my expertise, which made her job easier. So, she has become a symbol of my internalized security.

Mapping (outline) "life": this is what "normal" people do, between each other. I do this within my own self--and I dream about it, the psychic functions represented by dream-characters. I desire a dyadic existence. But for "security" reasons, I overcome and master the desire, seeing sharing life with another as a threat to my freedom and security (both at the same time, financially.) I become my own "partner."

association upon awakening: Mom telling me about DavidB paying out quarters to kids to suck his dick, which I haven't thought about in years. Why did she tell me that? It's such an unlikely thing for her to have done. Probably, she wanted to check to make sure I wasn't involved, that I hadn't participated. But why wouldn't Dad have done this? I can imagine the conversation:
"I'm not asking him that. You ask him."
"It's not my place to ask him that. You're his father."
"I don't care. I'm not asking him."
I want to remember that she told me, not asked me, but maybe I'm wrong. As I try to remember, it seems that she told me about the incident first, then asked me if I were involved. Maybe that's the way it went. She was just being properly parental, checking out the possibilities and caring for her brood in a careless, dangerous world.1
So, by dreaming about David hitting on db, am I really dreaming that he's hitting on me? By associating the dream with the cock-sucking incident, do I "fear" that my self-love that I identify is homosexuality? But it's not. It's Narcissism, maybe--which has homosexual overtones, love of self (same sex.) But I'm in love, not with my image (not at all), but with my anima. I'm in love with my inner self, or a part of it, the female part (which does not love me back, being a lesbian.) In other words, from my "other" self's POV, I hate my (male) self. Thus, I am engaged in a true love/hate relationship, with myself. This situation (independence via internalized desire, support, and comfort) is no better than co-dependence (because the parts are not well-integrated.) Both are the same thing: co-dependence in this sense is (my idiosyncratic) independence projected onto someone else. Or, more exactly, my independence is introjected co-dependence (using object relationships as replacements for a truly intimate partner?) But maybe it's a step in the right direction. All I have to do is heal the schizoid split. (No small task.)

Sledding[¥]: I slide down hills into doubt and fear. Tops of hills represent my consciously controlled self. After I have sledded down the hill, I needed db to support me, against the fear that David/Michael would take her away. [Is there a connection between db and DavidB (i.e., re initials), or is that just coincidental? Is anything coincidental (i.e., accidental)?] The (real, not the dreamed) sled-riding track did not traverse the cliff-face, but ran straight up the hill at the extreme southern depth of the bluff. It was a path via which I walked to school, a short-cut, to avoid the far longer walk all the way around the high, wide hill. [We sledded down the path, jumping a small six-foot wide flat at its mid-point and becoming temporarily airborne, then if we landed correctly and did not fall off, we sped down the remainder of the big hill, turned a precarious right-angle onto the dead-end road, and if we negotiated the turn perfectly and the road had not yet been cleared, we sped down toward the intersection where one of us, each in turn, stood guard, watching for traffic, ready to wave the rest of us off, crashing into the yards, if a car was coming. But if the way was clear, we would continue on across the road, negotiating an even more precarious turn, this time only forty-five degrees, but taken at a higher speed, if Poketa Road had not been cleared and we weren't slowed by the friction of metal runners on asphalt. If we failed to negotiate the turn, we slid off the right side of the road sideways into the creek. If not, our momentum carried us down the lower road nearly to the bowling alley.] Is sledding some kind of a short-cut? A way to get an education, maybe, by descending into the primal fear of insecurity, to learn from the experience. It's a stretch, maybe, but it fits. The "fear" was excitement back then. It had not yet rigidified into anxiety. We didn't know enough to be afraid. Or maybe we did. We knew enough to post guards at the state road. Ah, the glorious excitement of youth, when you take the risks that later you will refuse. All of my later anxiety was (is) traceable to risks I took that I did not wish to take but felt were what I had to do, for my own good or betterment. How simple it all was back then, when parents provided the security that money now provides. I've substituted money for the safety and security that had been provided by my parents, having tried for years to substitute people, but finally having given up on them, because they were so fickle, or so manipulative, having their own agendas which interfered with mine. And the sad thing is, I think this strategy is okay. I don't see anything wrong with it. It works. I like it. I'm happy. Why would I want to disturb it? Because deep inside there is a motive that I don't want to admit to, that causes me to dream of the object relationships I no longer establish and maintain. My dreams are more real to me than my reality. (Actually, they always have been.) I sled down into this world, my past, and awaken from it to write about it, in order to learn and understand. It's an education.
PREARRANGEMENT
Before contacting me, read everything on my website.
It may save you a lot of disappointment later on.

--from "Literary Lives" by Edward Sorel,
  The Atlantic Monthly, Dec, 2001
(Buy the magazine and read
the whole piece. It's great.)


Myself

birthday: August 9th
gender: male, but I'm open to suggestions.
parents: Joseph A. Jackson, Mary M. Kruth
born in: Pittsburgh, PA
grew up in: Pittsburgh, PA; Penn Hills, PA
currently residence: Penn Hills, PA

hair: gray (formerly brown, but now with a tinge of gold)
eye: sometimes green, sometimes hazel
height: 6' 1"
weight: 180
body type/build: thin, but muscular (i.e., not wiry)
appearance: I look young for my age and wise for my years. I have several appearances. Sometimes I look like a biker. Sometimes I look like a college professor. Sometimes I look like a mystic guru. Sometimes I look like an ordinary working stiff. These are disguises. Appearance is illusion. The real me is often locked up deep inside. But it can spring out at any moment, only to be more or less quickly hidden away again. This is the nature of appearance: it appears and disappears. Avoid superficiality. Look more deeply for the truth.

occupation: writer
income: non-existent
educational level: formal--B.S. Psychology; informal--a lifetime of independent study
emphasis of study: Psychology, Physics, Cosmology, Teleology, English, English Literature, Psychoanalysis, et al.

ethnic background: Euro-American
languages: English with minisule amounts of French, German, and Spanish, but willing to learn whatever you speak, if you have the patience to teach me (anything, not only language).
religion: Zen Buddhism, if I must choose, but I believe in all religions to some extent, and in none of them fully, especially when they begin to proselytize or dogmatize.
frequency of attending services: daily, in my bedroom, in meditation, for several hours. Never, in a socially organized way.
spiritual beliefs: We are all one continuous being, divided only by illusion.
past lives: Once, on acid, I experienced myself as a sixteenth century gendarme who was stabbed in the back by a bayonet and died. Purged of all flesh, my skeleton (which my spirit continued to inhabit) was hung in a building where medical students could study it, and where I continued to experience the pain of my death for years to come, every time someone twisted the skeleton sideways into the same positon I had been in when the bayonet was plunged into me.
political inclination: far left of radical.
political views/beliefs: If we could live without government, if we weren't all such assholes, I'd be all for it.
financial views: save every penny you get and live off the interest only.
financial situation: financially independent, so long as I don't spend too much money.

sun sign: leo
moon sign: I looked it up once, but I forgot it
rising sign: ditto
chinese sign: ya got me.

# of children: none, thank God. Actually, it has nothing to do with God. I've been very (overly) careful.
# of children desired: less than zero.
in my family, I am known as: an asocial rebel. (It's not really true, the asocial part, but that's a complicated subject.)
how you feel about pets: love them, but hate to have to take care of them.
pets you own: four goldfish that I bought when my neighbor, who since moved away after he split with his girlfriend, decided that he wanted to set up the pond in my side yard between our houses with a pump and fountain so that we could sit outside beside it on hot summer nights and drink beer. (He drank the beer. I don't drink any more.)
pets who own you: You mean besides the ghost of my dog? (The only soul I ever cried over when it passed--and there have been a lot of those souls over the years.) I haven't seen the spectre in a while now, but it still shows up every so often, looking for a scratch on the head or a gentle word, usually when I am half-asleep.
pets you'd like to own: Oh, let's see. How about a Beauceron. I love dogs, especially the kind that reserve their loyalty for only one master.

smoking habits: I don't smoke. I hate it. And I'm highly prejudiced against people who do.
drinking habits: completely abstinent, and loving it, although I do miss the occasional beer sometimes. But unlike smokers, whom I have absolutely no tolerance for whatsoever, I more easily forgive drinkers their fault, as long as they retain their sensibilities and social conscience.
marital status: divorced, or single depending upon whom you talk to. (There are still some die-hard religious zealots who believe that common law marriage is a sin against God.)
favorite activities: writing, reading (but not so much any more; I'd rather watch films), surfing the net, cooking a beef roast with vegetables on a cold Sunday afternoon.
favorite drink: It used to be orange juice, but any more, it's just plain water.
favorite food: lobster tail. (Oh, yeah!) Or else, a cheese sandwich with mayo and raw onion. And pizza's not bad, either.
favorite cuisine: Oh, I don't know. I like all food. Maybe Polynesian.
favorite type of music: alternative or electronic, generally. But I like all music, even the mindless stuff like country or gospel. I especially like Mexican music, or TexMex, but I don't hear a lot of it here in the north. Some rap is okay, especially stuff like Slim Shady, by eminem. I like radical music and am generally turned off by the stuff that copies everybody else--unless it's satire. I love good satire. Weird Al.
favorite musician: There are so many. Probably Pink Floyd, overall. ZZ Top ain't bad. Goldfrapp is great. K.D. Lang, Leo Kottke, Arlene Bishop, The Sex Pistols, Tom Waits, Thelonious Monk, Veruca Salt, Stravinsky. There are so many...
favorite song: Again, so many. It changes every week. My theme song is probaby "Shine on, you Crazy Diamond," by Pink Floyd, with "Wish You Were Here" a close second. But songs like "Shadowboxer" or "Sullen Girl" by Fiona Apple are right up there. And too many others to list.
favorite reading material: strange short stories or poetry
favorite authors: Can Xue, Donald Barthelme, Richard Braughtigan, Kathy Acker
favorite book: whatever one I'm reading at the time
favorite magazine: I hate magazines.
favorite tv show: South Park, Ally McBeal, Nova, Insomniac, Ozzy.
favorite movie: Being There
favorite actor: Ellen Barkin. (She's really hot.) I admire Sean Penn for his talent, but I probably like to watch others a whole lot more.
favorite director: no doubt about it: Robert Redford.
favorite comic book: I've lost touch with the comics, unfortunately. It used to be Mad magazine, but that was along time ago.
favorite scent: I'll leave that one to your imagination. (Peach is a good second best.)
favorite season: summer. Oh yes! I like it hot and lazy.
favorite place: my home.
favorite color: green, and orange.
favorite hobby: I hate the whole concept of hobbies. If you're going to do something, dedicate yourself to it in a far more serious way.
collections: Everything I own. We're touching on a sore spot here. This is a pathology with me. I have an obsession to collect, and a revelation that dictates that I get rid of everything I own and live in penniless submission to the will of universal nature.
favorite quote:
If I never meet you in this life, let me feel the lack.
A glance from your eyes and my life will be yours.
energy level: bipolar, which I hate--and love. Somewhere between a couch potato trapped in a state of deep ennui and a motivated slave of production when I'm focused on something I consider important.
favorite places to go out to: Oh, do I really have to go?
favorite sport (to play): Pool
favorite sport (to watch): watching is for wussies.
biggest flaw: thinking I'm paranoid when I'm not.
biggest asset: ego fusion.
what you'd want to have if stranded on a deserted island: a boat.
what you tend to daydream most about: time travel.
what bothers you most: stupidity.
coolest toy ever: the computer.
perfect escape: slip down through the ventilation system and tunnel out under the wall.

self-description: http://jaijack.tripod.com
descriptive adjectives: Artistic / Ponderous / Overly-sensitive, but self-effacing / Serious, and not / Shy, for lack of a better word--maybe, rather, quiet / Determined / Purposeful
ideal place to live: somewhere in the south where it never gets cold.
description of personal living space: organized, but seldom cleaned
fashion sense: What's fashion?
sense of humor: I love to laugh and make things up to laugh at. Unfortunately, most people don't get the joke. But, as a high school friend of mine used to say, "Humor is where you find it."
party attitude and behavior: As Chauncey Gardener said, "I like to watch."
worst fear: that there is no afterlife.
biggest fantasy: I'm a corporate executive with an unlimited budget.
biggest dream: Someone will love me some day. Or do I have this mixed up with the previous one?
with free time on a day off, I most enjoy: doing what I do every other day. I love my life now.
on-the-job attitude: no overtime, but otherwise obsessively loyal; these are remnants of a former life. I don't work at a job any more. Success. It's everything I've dreamed of.
time sense: I'm never late. I'm always five to ten minutes early, and I don't own a watch. I have an intuitive sense of time. But I'm not really into time, man. Einstein proved that time is relative.
pet peeves: sloppy fat people / people who block the aisle in a grocery store.
sexual preference: yes
turn-ons: petite women / women who understand me (another fantasy) / women who admire me for my intellect and my artistic genius--in a genuine way, and not as a form of flattery.
turn-offs: loud, argumentative people who just cannot get along / women who use alcohol as an excuse to flirt (with other men--but if they do it with me, they'll do it with others too).
type of relationship you are seeking: totally committed, otherwise why bother? You're headed somewhere, and if it's not with me, get on with it and stop wasting my time, and yours.
willing to relocate: Yes, definitely, but only at your expense. I ain't got the funds to uproot my life. I'm well-entrenched.

My Partner

gender: female, although if she'd rather be the man, that's okay with me.
appearance: important, at first, but of decreasing importance as the personality shines on through.
intelligence: of low importance at first, but of increasing importance as the importance of appearance wears off. In other words, impress me with content, not form.
age range: 18 to 60 (older if you look like Ruth Gordon), but the younger you are, the more likely you're not going to last because you haven't experienced enough life to tolerate my social deviance.
location: anywhere, as long as you're willing to come here.
hair: yes
eyes: at least one
body type: ideally, petite and/or thin, although curvaceous, even if a little bit overweight, has something to be said for it. Ultimately, self-image is far more important.
languages: any, with at least a smattering of English.
ethnicity: any. The more exotic, the better. Eskimo would be nice. Or Tibetan.
religion: any, as long as you keep it to yourself.
education: more is always better. Ideally, you will be better educated than I am. But I doubt it. I benefit immensely from others' educations.
occupation: If you work for a corporation, it will benefit you not to have too good an opinion of it. If you think of your job as an unfortunate compromise you've had to make in order to earn enough money to survive and prosper, that's a good attitude. Otherwise, whomever you work for is okay, as long as you feel that your career and your profession is more important than your employer.
income: several million a year would be nice, but it really doesn't matter. If you make no money at all, that's fine, as long as you don't want any of mine. I'm financially timid, very worried about which will give out first, my money or my life.
marital status: any except married. But, listen: if you're living with a guy and looking to get out as soon as the first good prospect comes along, be honest with yourself, and me. What am I supposed to think you're going to do when you get tired of me? If you don't like the guy, leave him. If you do like him, commit to him and stop playing the waiting game. Get off the fence. Consider this: would you be willing to sign a pre-nup with me agreeing that we will never divorce, despite the circumstances? And women say that men are not committed.
smoker: Absolutely not.
drinker: If you can handle it. It's been my experience that most people can't, and the older they get, the worse they get.
children: Okay, if you're capable of taking care of them. I'll be their buddy, but I won't be their father. I hate authority, even my own.
wants children: Not with me you don't.

Our Relationship

perfect first date: We don't go anywhere. We sit and talk, and you do most of the talking. I don't mind. I like a woman who talks. It saves me the trouble. I like to talk when I have something to say, which can be pretty often sometimes. But I hate to talk when I feel pressured to do it. I prefer communing to communicating. Words are overrated. My ideal woman will always carry the social ball and act as a buffer for me in social situations. Sorry, but that's the way I am. (Of course, I'm not looking for an ideal woman, or an ideal anything. See below. Whatever you are is probably all right with me.)
what you expect on a first date Nothing. I try never to expect anything, from anyone. The good things that I then get are always welcome and I am never disappointed.
perfect subsequent date: More of the same. If you don't start it, I won't finish it.
ideal relationship: Let me live in peace. It's taken me a long time to come to the conclusion that I am actually able to do it. Don't set out now to ruin my life.
what you've learned from past relationships: People expect too much of their mates. They have this unrealistic ideal that their significant other should satisfy all their needs because they can't fathom the truth that all needs are satisfied within the self. Thus, couples become increasingly codependent and begin unconsciously to hate each other for it. Two people can come together as one soul, but not as one body or one mind. Every person is an individual in this world of illusion we live in. We can break the illusion, but we can never eliminate the spell that physical existence holds over us that dictates that we are individual entities. So let's not pretend that we can by acting as if another can give us what we are not willing to find within ourselves. And yet, when we find it within, we realize the other is already there.
description of ideal match: There are no ideal matches. If you're waiting for the perfect mate, you're going to wait for the rest of your life and be ultimately disappointed. There are only compromises (at worst) and acceptance (at best) in any "perfect" relationship.


This is a picture of me and my ex from a while ago when we were still young and naive. We split up because she wanted to grow up and I didn't. She did. Maybe I still haven't. She married again and had two kids. I didn't. This was her favorite picture of us. She framed it and kept it on a table in the living room. I never appreciated it, which may give you an idea of why we broke up. It may seem like such a superficial thing, but it's not.



JUST ORDINARY THINGS
I don't want to go dancing. I don't want to go on long romantic walks, or sea cruises, or... I don't even, necessarily, want to cuddle by a cozy fire, or do any stereotypical activity. I just want to co-exist, doing ordinary things, like preparing dinner together, washing dishes, or sitting watching television. Romance is overly labeled as specific things that women want to think are emblematic. I'm too old to go running around looking for whims. I want to stay at home and cohabitate.

Let It Happen

It occurs to me, after having reviewed over a period of about nine months the descriptions of women who post their photos and profiles on matchmaking services on the web, that I don't so much want to meet a woman in this way. Although I am attracted to many of the photos and although the descriptions entice me, I find myself loathe to contact these women, because I know what will happen: eventually, they will want to meet me, which is okay. In fact, that would be the purpose of the contact. But we would have to arrange a date, and then meet somewhere, and during the course of our time together, we would have to talk about who we are and what we want and where we are going with our lives, and through all this, I would be the one who would be expected to carry the conversation, in a typically male manner, that is, I would have to, however subtly, begin to pursue her. This is not how I want to go about the process of finding a woman. I'm tired of this whole process. I want to do it another way. I want to "accidentally" meet someone, with no intent of becoming involved with her at all. This is the way in the past that I have met my (few) truest loves. I want us to get to know each other gradually, in the course of an ordinary social relationship. Then, if and when she feels that we could have something more together, I want her to act on that idea to get to know me in that way, preferably directly, without resorting to all kinds of games that try to provoke me into making the first move. I want to take life and love as it comes and not push it in any way, because I know what happens when you do that sort of thing, try to make a relationship more than what it is: you go too far, men and women both, and conflict and discord ensues. I don't want conflict, of any kind, in my life. I've had enough of conflict. I want a peaceful coexistence, and in terms of an intimate relationship that means a take-it-as-it-comes situation (and leave it as it goes). If she doesn't want to be with me, I don't want to chase her, even, or especially if her not wanting to be with me is not a real display of her desire, but a game she plays in order to get me to chase after her and overly commit myself to some plan that she is trying to con me into, to satisfy some transference she is trying to establish or some instinctual mode of being she is trying to live out. Okay, I want it all my way. So what? If a woman doesn't like this, hey, that's okay. No pressure. I'm not trying to get anything here. All I'm saying is let's let it go along within a social situation and see what happens. Let's not try to prearrange things. Yes, I want to find love, but no one is saying that the love I want to find has to be anything more than just that, love. I love to relate to people in the immediate moment. It's what I do best. But when it comes to trying to twist that moment into something more, to satisfy some less than transcendent ego-love, well, that's another ballgame, babe. Get someone else to play your games. It's this attitude that I try to avoid when I avoid contact women with the purpose of a date in mind. I prefer the casual, slow, developmental route to a relationship. I've been through too many of the other kind. The trouble is that I am in so few social situations any more that I am all but cut off from the kind of opportunities I want to find. And I have no incentive to establish further social contacts that might expand my opportunities.
I DON'T KNOW YOU DON'T KNOW
I doubt that you could tell me anything about myself that I don't already know. (Not that there aren't things I don't know about myself, but that what I do not know, most others don't know either.) I have been very deep into my psyche, there are few surprises there, those that remain are not about to be released through typical social interaction, and you are not likely to engage me any more intimately than that. (But, oh, how I wish someone out there would set themselves to the task of proving me wrong.)

Intimate Avoidance

I tell you my secrets, but I lie about my past.
-Tom Waits, "Tango Till They're Sore"


I (have) [unsuccessfully] avoid(ed) casual relationships, trying to focus on traits in women that make them suitable candidates for long-term relationships (albeit on my own specific terms, which greatly narrows the field and probably accounts for my lack of success), because I fear (the) rejection (of my mother-object). I want women to be faithful to me long-term because I feel (unjustifiably) that my mother wasn't faithful to me and, therefore, that all women will eventually reject me, which they have, a self-fulfilling prophecy, because I arrange the situation to make it unbearable for them to stay when I implicitly insist on having my own way re my stalwart demeanor and my "spiritual" belief structure, i.e., I drive them away with my strivings for perfection, which I never understand at the time, nor do I understand their reactions, even now, because I never insist that they be perfect, only me, and in any case, they can always talk (or act) me out of it at any given moment. But maybe it's too much for them. Or maybe I overstate the case. Or maybe they leave me for other reasons altogether, ones I cannot see. Probably. I used to think I drove them away because I saw too easily into them, a behavior they always initially like, as long as I keep it superficial or mostly to myself. But when I will insist that they hear what it is I see in them, it always either freaks them out or drives them into denial. And maybe that is the real reason they leave: they cannot tolerate my intensity, which seldom seems to let up. [You cannot really understand this piece (although you may think you do) unless you read Social Dis-ease, my self-therapy journal.]
FAIR WARNING
I am not normal. I do not react in the way that ordinary men react when women will expect certain specific social responses. I do not think the way ordinary men (or women) think. I am different (I think.) When folks want me to be the same, I  bristle.  Sameness  is too much like everything else, all over the place, resistant to any change that might be beneficial. If you want everything to  remain the same, I'm not the one for you.


notes and quotes for:

"Conversation with a Woman"
or
"Why I Don't Have a Girlfriend."

SO THAT YOU KNOW
I have a lot of faults: I can't afford to give presents, I need every penny I have to assure my future, I can't work (or I won't, under these social conditions), I have a back problem, which is intermittent, I have a minor heart problem (if any heart problem can be called minor), which forces me to be exactly perfect in the way I conduct my life, which is probably a good thing, because I did not conduct my life so well when I was younger, I experience a certain anxiety in social situations (which over the years, via a determined program of psychological conditioning, I have mostly overcome, but a lot of that success may be simple avoidance of the situations that will precipitate the problem, when it will escalate the longer I am immersed in a callous society which will not attend to the mental well-being of all of its citizens--that's far more than I intended to get into on that subject here), I recognize the way in which women blackmail men (and men too, or in different ways, blackmail women) with social expectations such as wanting to receive such things as diamonds and jewelry, Valentines, flowers (I know they're feminine psycho-symbols), candy ("you're so sweet"), presents generally, as tokens of affection, and I recognize how men will respond, compliantly, in order to mask a self-suspicion that it is true that they do not feel so much the affection their partners want them to feel, and so they will allow themselves to be blackmailed into certain social practices they think are stupid. I don't think, like other men, that they are so stupid; I think they are deceitful. Isn't it better to bestow genuine affection instead? I have a lot of "faults," some of which are listed here, but one of those faults is not that I am unable to bestow affection. If I have a fault in this regard it is that I tend to bestow too much.


I don't have a lot of money, just enough, if I am careful.
I don't have money to go out a lot, which is all right.
It's a karmic fact that "fate" has handed me, because
I don't want, so much, to go out any more, I've been out.
I used to go out a lot. Going out had been my essence.
Now I want to stay at home, maybe to a fault. Anyway,
I don't have money, to spend, on non-necessities.

A Zen Attitude

Relationships begin, and end. Women come and go. I have
been convinced, women have been oppressed. I have known
for a long time, since before liberation, when its seed was in
Zeitgeist, women whom I had to encourage, to break the mold.
Having girlfriends and affairs, I gradually become, committed
to an idea, women want, difficult material, to glean, from minds
so different as ours, alien beings, what men are not, capable of
giving in ordinary states of mind. Permanent commitments are
necessities for a better propagation of the species. I submit to
superior intelligence at work, relegating passion and pleasure to
the purpose we are placed here for, to continue on, developing
in the best way we know how, which means we must settle to
the task at hand and forget our wanderings. Inevitability sets in.
Now, I wonder, now that I am once again alone. Is it always so
much of a cold hard fact that I must be so perfect? Can't I see
a less than universal self, an egotistic, relative, self-serving me,
being as anyone who is as ordinary in her self-centered state of
mind, determined, by her genetic make-up, disguised as well by
her own studied facade, released from it only, if at all, in sex,
the only key which keeps us both together? She will go away
one day, if only into death. Nothing is so permanent as a life
together, nor so fragile. Acceptance, I am told by masters, is
the key to love, and life. Detachment, not withdrawal, limits
the illusion of desire. When they are here, I celebrate. When
they are gone, I do not cry. Always alone, I now know why.

Change
a transition into therapy

The uncertainties which are inevitable in any working through to attain restructuring are easier for a patient to bear if his curiosity about his unconscious desires and goals is reinforced by a supporting relationship.
--Thomä p. 313


I'm looking for a hard-headed woman.
--Cat Stevens, "Hard-Headed Woman"


I will not change because I don't want to change.
I will change if someone supports me in my attempts to change, or more accurately, if a person comes into my life for whom I will want to change.
Specifically, I will change if someone approaches me with the right proposal (this doesn't have to be a verbal statement; in fact, it's probably better if it isn't), patiently persists within the kind and gentle (i.e., non-aggressive) approach I need (yes, I still need, even normally, despite my, attempts at detachment), remains loyal and loving (accepting), never faltering, for as long as it takes to convince me to decide that her one small section of the world is safe enough to trust, that not all the world is a manipulating, rejecting format. Will this ever happen? I doubt it.
I am not looking for any more, in a woman, so much my next lover as an analyst. (Actually, in part, I have always been looking for this.) This would be a symbolic role, of course. And it need not be a conscious one. (It's probably better if it isn't.) It need only be patiently supportive and persistent. (The analyst supports the patient in making the transition into the "new beginning.") Otherwise, I will backslide into isolation, because forces other than neurotic keep me there.
My "problem" is not so much one of pathology as of practicality. I have, now, what I want: financial independence. But it is a marginal, fragile existence. I can afford only minimal expenses if I am to make my money last a remaining lifetime. I do not want to risk the stress of having to go back to work. Only within this framework will this new relationship prosper. My doubt as to its occurrence is based, not on psychological, but on practical matters. If it were only a psychological limitation, I would have already overcome it, probably several times at least, in the same way as in the past, i.e., by establishing object relationships that I become mired in, at best using my life/relationships as a mechanism of research study, and at worst, losing myself in either love or, more likely, sacrificial forbearance, a kind of love without passion/feeling, for the sake of her (and ultimately my own) advancement. As it is now, in my more hesitant state of mind, the frame is very narrow and the criteria for the analyst-lover very specific. The whole proposition is one shot in a million--or more. And it is further limited by my minimal social acquaintanceship. I do not meet so many women any more and most of them are not eligible. So, my doubt is not nay-saying, but based on practical reasoning. Under the circumstances, I would call my slim hope of ever establishing another intimate relationship, even a typical object one, extreme optimism. The important point here is: I am still hopeful. That's something.

no more to follow
altho i may intersperse additions

the next (more or less) logical continuation
of this thread of thought is therapy

[click the footnote number to return to that respective point in the text.]

1. This is exactly the kind of situation/event that in the past would have pissed me off, that someone would ask if I did something that I myself know I never would have done. But there is no hint of that kind of anger here, either because I have matured to the point where this kind of incident is no longer offensive to me, or, more likely, because there is no real threat here in the first place. Anger is an indication of past hurt, repressed. When I get irritated (at best) when people assume bad things about me, it is because, in a certain sense, perhaps only psychologically and not actual real-world fact, they are true. There is no hint of any kind of truth here, and so I feel no need to defend myself, either now, nor in the past when Mom told/asked me this. But I do go into a lot of detail explaining this, so maybe this is all one big rationalization. Getting to the "truth" is so confusing.

2. Marcia/Eileen, out front. She taps me on the shoulder, or she doesn't, but I become aware that she is there, and I turn, having been preoccupied at rebuilding the wall that has collapsed, using interlocking landscaping blocks. At first, (I think) it is S who has come up from behind (thus my conclusion that she is M in disguise), but it turns out to be E. She snuggles up next to me and I put my arm around her shoulders as we walk toward the driveway where her car (red wagon) sits. I'd forgotten how small she is. My arm (my personality?) encompasses her.

3. Dale/CaroleG/a young Katherine Ross, on a sidewalk leading to a street, as if it is some kind of a park. She is either saying goodbye to or greeting her parents, who are in a car, facing them with her head over her shoulder looking toward me. She wants to run away with me, but can't, or she wants to go home with them, but can't, or both, so that she is stuck between us. This is our transference? I am a father-object that she is trying to use to replace her father? That seems right. Yesterday, she just happened to come out into the yard when I was working there, again. I wonder if she does it on purpose, hoping I will say more to her than the ritual greeting we have developed. I always wait for her to speak first, which I prompt by looking at her, after she looks at me:
"Hello. How are you?"
"Good. How are you?"
"Good."
"Good." [Overly enthusiastically.]
I should say more, plan it out ahead of time to avoid the repetition (and to get closer to her, I realize; this is an unconscious agenda that, at first, I didn't want to recognize.) But that would be a violation of my philosophy, and possibly, of our transference. But maybe not the latter. She wants me to be her father-object. And I want to be it. But I can't allow it. She must be direct and honest with me, i.e., "intimate" (ala Berne.) But she can't do this. She's too young, but even if she were older, still, she will probably not be able to do it. Most people cannot transcend their object relationships, probably even including me. I can see them after the fact, but that's not good enough, if I am to live in an eternal present. And anyway, if I allowed the transference to develop, then wouldn't it be my responsibility to interpret it to her. Maybe not. I mean, who am I anyway, the world's psychoanalyst? No. But perhaps I am psychoanalyst to those few people who take an "interest" in me. But again, maybe not. It may be enough to interpret transferences and countertransferences only to myself. Maybe that's the limit of my social responsibility, to understand what the fuck is really going on. Responsibility is such a burden anyway, especially as it is so difficult to know what one's responsibility is. As Anthony Quinn said in Barabas, "God should make himself plain or leave me alone."

[top] [studio menu] [menu]