I was going to look up Flouride controversy documentaries and study anything objective but there is nothing out there except madness. So I listened to a Ted talk that led me to Bela Bartok and the mention of Rhinemaidens. So I'm now listening to Der Ring des Nibelungen starting with Das Rheingold. I have no understanding of it or Wagner. But I'm going to listen to them first anyway.
My head is a little better. Even after coming back from 2 or 3 days in Mayo, I was not yet myself. I still feel isolated. I still can see myself being sensitive (touching-on- paranoid). And I still have some way to go. But I am better. I am struggling with concentration and I am not yet happy with my financial situation. I could do with a break there.
I may have felt the bubble burst... but alas, I'm telling myself it is my being sensitive. Would this make any sense to read in a year or two?
I'll try to make some sense of what I am saying/writing. I'm always very conscious that whether I am or not, I write like a mad woman these days. That is to say, when I write, I write erratic, sometimes disconnected, sentences about disparate things. It seems madness to think these things would be connected.
I always called people I had a crush on things like "objects of my attention" because there are no words really. He. The person I feel for. The person for whom I have feelings that are not rational. Well, him. I wanted something that would burst my bubble - end the fascination and fervor for. I don't want to be the woman who is constantly seeking approbation and approval - look at me! I do it though. That stupid woman who wants him to think "wow, she's interesting." I'm almost 40 and I still think and act like a teenager. But again, I am too hard on myself and being angry and chastising myself will not heal this. After some discussions, he said in his fashion that I was a "behaviorist".
My initial thoughts were that this was his way of saying that I either worked as, had a component of my character or work as, or had an interest in psychology through examination of behavior. It wasn't really in line with the discussion. I was talking about neuroscience and research on the brain related to images and hallucinations. It grew out of a talk about cave paintings and how those who painted on caves were not bad artists -they were accomplished. Someone asked why they went down to the darkest areas of the cave and said it was for sensory deprivation so they could hallucinate basically. I saw it on a BBC documentary. So I was a bit confused and asked him what he meant and his answer was disjointed or maybe I didn't hear fully that behaviorists were the people who were responsible for "have a nice day". I assumed he meant the psychologists involved in advertising and communicating employees and customers in the business or corporate world. I announced that I was never so offended in my life. I was joking and taking it with humour. It was only afterward that I was actually a bit offended. But I don't think he meant to offend me - I don't think he actually said I was one of those people.
It was like the time Pat Inglesby had a go at me. Pat took a real hatred to me. I haven't really every gotten over that maybe? I shouldn't care what he thinks. But I care what this person thinks. I care far too much what he thinks.
Then there was that guy, I think his name was Frank. When I tried to explain how I was curious about people to the extent that I liked watching them, he seemed to think it was sexual or some kind of social masturbation. The cheek.
I was looking at Lucien Freud paintings in the book he had. I knew a lot about him because he had got me interested. I think I related to how Freud stared at people - men and women. Not just observed them. They become too real on the canvas. I asked him if that was why he liked another painter. He explained that Freud just stared, but the other artist was trying to say things and change things. Within him, there is this cynic and also the optimist.
Loading comments...