PhiloPsycho Freedom

• 6:00: Wake up and go to washroom to find my retired dad up and watching TV in the living room. Why the hell is he up?!
• 12:00-2:50: Get up, eat, play piano, read, and journal log. (this log, that is)
• 3:00: Lift weights
• 3:40-5:30: Piano, mostly readings (Cog Sci.. wooh..)
• 5:30-6:00: Drive to work
• 6:00-11:00: Work
• 11:30: Home

Today I've felt rather drained, energy-less. I think it's the lack of any screen time that's doing it. I need the glow of a monitor in order to be refreshed. I move outside to see if sunlight can be a makeshift monitor. Combining it with coffee should scrounge enough energy together to successfully lift weights. At least, I hope it will do...

***

Lately, I've been thinking about the concept of sexual objects. No, not sex toys, but people. In sentence structure, there is the subject - the actor - and the object - the acted upon. It seems that there is some consistency in the way that people speak about sexual experiences. Typically, one gender is consistently the object and the other is the actor. Stop for a second and see if you can guess which is which. Why exactly is this so consistent? I'm only thinking of heterosexual couples, as this doens't directly apply to same-sex couples.

So, who fucked whom? I use the verb "to fuck" as it is the most active verb that connotes this meaning (or the lesser form "to screw"). "To have sex with" appears rather neutral in activity, which is fine, but not the most commonly used phrase when talking about this subject (and if it is, it's probably closely followed by "to fuck"). Was it she who fucked him? In the sexual context, that sentence seems a little off from my perspective, as people typically place the male as the actor. Why is this? One idea I've had is that it has something to do with the fine line of defining when two women can be said to have had sex. I've yet to discuss this with any lesbians, but from most people that I've spoken to, they seem to think that it only classifies as sex when a penis is involved. Take this line of thought wherever you will, that's as far as I've gotten. As for now, the sun and caffeine have successfully replaced the familiar glow.

***

I've noticed that my behaviour is somewhat consistent with ego-depletion theory. Ego-depletion theory states that we have a sort of self-control resource that we need to spend on things. If you have to pull a huge feat of self-control in one area, other areas of self-restraint will be less likely to succeed. I'm spending a lot of resources keeping myself from doing my common behaviour, so I've had a little more junk food. But this isn't entirely in line with ego-depletion because I'm trying to gain muscle, so I have to eat more than normal anyway. Only reason I place it in line is because there is probably more sweets in there than need be.

***

There's always the looming threat - and fear - That I'll have learned nothing from this venture. Falling into old habits, kick started by a binge in the suppressed tendencies, as these ventures sometimes do. Of course, it's only natural to want to gorge in what was temporarily forbidden, but I'll have to try and resist. Currently, my plan is to only use entertainment after night fall, and occasionally drive in silence to clear my head. Cell phone use will return to normal, which is minimal in my current situation (max 3 calls, max 10 texts).

Something I've noticed is the eye-capturing ability of television. I will find myself absent-mindedly staring at it if it's left on in the room I happen to be in. I'm not even processing what is being shown, not consciously at least. But there I am, like a moth to the flame.

***

Today I noticed that the silence has become comfortable. Such a strange thought - that what was so familiar to countless generations before us has become strange and ominous to the people of today. The constant nattering of TV in the background used to ease the tension of being home alone, now has become a nearly unbearable annoyance (especially if it's global or fox news). It's a great relief to not have your thoughts intruded upon and commandeered by the talking heads. It reminds me of one of my favourite quotes by Aleister Crowley:

To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worthwhile. The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter.

(by the way, the picture is one I photoshopped of my friend. I didn’t feel like finding anything related today.)