I am sleeping in a bed that a girl named Brandi was just lying in; it’s my bed. Big John is sad tonight because he’s not getting any female affection. He asked me tonight if I thought it was because of his weight. “It’s the weight, isn’t it,” he said. I countered by looking down at my skinny self and saying, “John, if it makes you feel any better, I’m not getting any girls either.” But it probably is the weight.
Holly and I went to the hockey game tonight, and afterwards, we drank hot chocolate and played Parcheesi in her room. We talked some. It was very nice. And unlike my date with Erica the other night, I don’t think that Holly is anxious to be involved with me sexually, which is a wonderful situation. Some of life is sex, but most of it is not, and I joy in finding those people to whom I may be brother.
I talked with Mike just now, telling him I went to see the game, and that I felt unsatisfied at the overtime tie. He reflected that they just weren’t getting the puck in the basket like they used to…and that he didn’t know what to do about it. He thanked me for coming to the game.
And today I had thoughts of being supple. The realization that it’s good to be easily moldable by yourself, for your mind and body to be flexible and capable of learning. Actively and passively free, willing and able to do what it takes to arrive at the destination of choice.
I realize how I love community, and how I love to reflect at the end of the day. And I regard my method of building relationships as superior to that of my friends. They invest in the short term, the one night stand : they want to get their dick sucked. I generally refuse offers of immediate lust, taking instead patterns of action that demonstrate to people that my interest in them transcends the function they serve in my life. That is a different kind of logic than most people follow. It breaks the rules, extends local definitions of possibility. It honors them, rather than honoring me, and that’s unusual. A relationship that is constructed without taking heed to the sways of the inconsequential will not be broken by inconsequential sways.
And it struck me during the hockey game as simple, that whatever you regularly spend a lot of time doing, you will be good at. First I thought…if I ice skated every day for a month, I’d be a pretty good ice skater. Then I added writing and computer programming and now I add math, social activity, and creativity in general. If you have the needed resources, and you apply the appropriate energy to an activity for enough time, you will be good at what you do, and you will get things done.
“the backlightining of some former girl”…interesting phrase. I am sitting in the dining hall on Super Bowl Sunday and almost every conversation I have heard in the last 30 minutes was about drinking…I was totally trashed, I cannot remember what happened, the next thing I remember we were fucking…that is the theme of this age, apparently. I have been among this for some time, and still I find it foreign. It is uncomfortable for me to be around these people…and I question now whether there has ever been a group of people I feel comfortable around. Occasionally youth groups, occasionally my Colonel White friends…but no, not regularly, not consistently have I found community with groups of other people. More often have I sampled oneness with other individuals (and for longer periods of time than I have with groups) but even here, I identify with Einstein’s comment that one becomes gradually aware of one’s inability to understand and be understood by others.
I see a man with a certain appearance, in this case the distinctive alternate, chain smoker, automotive workclothes, shaggy multi-length hair, dilated red eyes…and he reminds me of the musician who adopts a certain look to accent his talent; and I wonder what talent will contrast my look, my low-key, plain, quiet, jean-wearing self.
I am thinking that in addition to searching information, predicting the future would be a good thing to learn. To be able to know with more accuracy than others what will happen next would be profitable. Imagine betting situations. Sports, the stock market, wars, hostage situations. It would be on par with the materials research lab at Wright-Pat, that aims to simulate the behavior of molecular structures inside computers so that it doesn’t have to be simulated in real life, which simulation is costly and time-consuming. Imagine being able to simulate with a fair degree of accuracy the behavior of human beings…to have a deep understanding of human behavior. From which two thoughts arise : If (1) macrobehaviors like I would want to predict are composed of microbehaviors like those of molecules, then (2) the best I could do would be to make general approximations as to the microbehaviors that produce my macrobehaviors. Another though I have had before is this : if the world is [at least] a four-dimensional space, could I not come up with a method of analysis that would give me some information about other 3-d parts of this 4-d space in which I exist? Let’s try an analogy. If my data were several 2-d cross-sections of a chair, would it be possible to gain some information about the 3-d nature of the chair? I suppose if I had stored examples of chairs I had experienced in one of their 3-dimensional entireties, I could match up these representations and extrapolate that the rest of the chair I was trying to predict would be similar to the chair whose outcome I had already seen. Would this work in 3- and 4-dimensions? That would be like if my data set were several 3-dimensional frames, and I could find in my memory a more complete series of 3-d frames that were similar to the set I was trying to examine. Then I could predict that the future of the set in question would be similar to the past future of my example in memory. Isn’t this what people do all the time? Isn’t that how I make the prediction that since when I pulled the trigger then, a bullet came out, when I pull the trigger now, a bullet will come out? It seems similar. So where a computer might aid is in making connections and recognitions that a person might not. Where the data to be compared are too complex, or of a nature not normally handled well by people, a computer might be employed to recognize similarities that might lead to more accurate predictions.
Frustrating to me still is the nature of prediction and remembrance. The nature of our memory seems to give a sense of heading to the dimension of time…it seems to be moving in a direction, or there seems to be a difference in moving along the dimension of time that is related to the direction in which the movement is taking place. Why is that? Something in me rejects that there is a big difference between remembering and predicting. It seems to me that both are easy within close time-proximity of the moment of prediction/remembrance…easy to remember things that just happened and easy to predict things that will happen very soon…with exceptions on both sides. Sometimes you have a brain fart and can’t remember a part of what just happened, sometimes something unexpected happens, and your predictions of the near future are very wrong. Maybe I am trying to find too much similarity between the two; there are major differences that seem hard to deny. For instance, nearly unchanging records can be kept of the past, in the form of videotape, CD digital data, ink-and-paper writing, where similar records/predictions of time’s other direction do not seem possible. Why is that? Do I give too much credit to the permanence of historical records? Do I too quickly discount the possibility of future predictions that exist with the same permanence and accuracy of historical record? What is the nature of this difference by which, from a particular point in time, I interpret one direction as known, and the other as unknown?