The Desk.

Here's my official anniversary post, just because I needed a reason to post, even though I never need a reason to post. Been workin on it all spring break, let's see if I can finish up.

They say I didn't used to have
Such an anger as I've found,
But now I'll tell you, friend, to wait
As I reveal to you the history
Of where I've been and where I'm bound,
You'll then see the nature of my face and of its paint.
They say I wasn't always cool,
The guy you want to have around.
Even now most around me hold I ain't.
They say I couldn't always be
The funny village grio clown.
Even now most villagers claim I cain't.
They say I didn't always wear
This perverted cynic's crown.
Even now a few may see the taint-
Ed remnants of a softer, sad facade
Word only on a boy who'd been cast down
By the ones that by this taught him hate.
True, my anger shaped the years to come,
Seeking vengeance in this newly foreign town.
I sought them out, seeming weakness was my bait
As I became the Robin Hood of bullied boys.
Quivering behind a quiver with the bloodthirst of a hound,
My wit became my arrows, so it was my words they ate.
They say I couldn't always string
Together words of such soul-stirring sound,
And methinks it was this need that brought me state-
Ly words and ways to speak.
But soon it came to spread beyond this mound
Of idiotic foes with whom I was irate.
As I taught myself to fight,
The very skills I used were those that brought me 'round
To see that comical nature that for me is innate.
I forgot to care what arrows
Simple foes might shoot to bring me down
Because I had better thoughts to think on as of late.
So when they say I am
Consumed by viscious rage or bound
By deepest angers of my early dates,
Tell them it is not the
Bitterness, but rather apathy I found.
This sweet knowldge set me free from hate:
I do not have to give a damn.

A person's relationship style is largely dependent on the type of relationship they had with their parents. The three major types are secure attachment, in which the child is able to form solid relationships, and is the ideal and most common relationship style familiar to Western society; insecure avoidant attachment, in which the child is raised to fend for itself and seeks independence and dominance in relationships; and insecure ambivalent attachment, wherein the child is overprotected and infantilized, and tends to be needy and clingy. You'll look at this and automatically peg me as the second type, as I did initially, but upon closer reflection of my childhood, I found strong influences of all three in my relationships with my parents and others. What I have determined from my analysis of my childhood (or what I can remember of it) is that I must have developed a secure attachment with my father and an avoidant relationship with my mother. At school I was treated in a way that would normally manifest an ambivalent style, but all I got to show for it was a massive inferiority complex that enhanced my already avoidant nature. The simple fact that much of what I remember has to do with him leaving with Aaron to go on camping trips and soccer tournaments suggests that it was significant when he was gone, and less so with mother, implying the type of relationship I had with each. So now my relationships follow one of these two patterns, making your experience either hot or cold with me. For the most part, I am the classic avoidant type. I don't get close and I don't need to, and this is how I relate to and deal with people. But if I do let you in (and I haven't figured out yet why it is who it is that I let in - I'm looking for patterns but haven't found any), there can be a lot of powerful things happening. I believe that people all have personal and interpersonal powers that affect their relationships in the manner in which and degree to which they are transfered. Because of my experiences in the world, and because I mostly keep it in, I have great power stored up that is transfered through various means when you find them.

Everybody can see the power transfered through someone's voice and physical presence, and these things can draw people in or drive them away, but I find that the greatest power is found in the eyes and hands. I don't make eye contact that much unless I'm using it for something - even then I have to force it; it's very unnatural for me and you'll know the difference if you've seen me make genuine eye contact. Physical contact is another major determining characteristic in relationships, and I remember very little throughout my life except with my father. So now I generally don't touch people. Some people have to touch everybody all the time because that's how they know how to relate, and these people tend to make me uncomfortable. Physical contact is a symbolic thing for me, and a paramountly significant one for this reason. It's one of those things I can't make myself do. I can use my words, movement, and sometimes eyes in any way to convey any kind of message I might want you to hear, but I've never been able to use physical proximity and contact without being genuine in it.

What I'm getting at here is that people can relate to each other in different ways, and the particular manifestations of their relationship does not make their attachments any less powerful or deeply felt. Some people need to show things a certain way and other people another way in order to prove the reality of the relationship to themselves or others, but what matters is not how it is expressed, but what is known. The depth and definition of a relationship should not have to be discussed or expressed in any socially prescribed manner if it is truly and genuinely known by the parties involved. The reason I don't like titles is not the responsibility or the commitment that people seem to think I fear, but rather the absurdity of them. Relationships are what they are if it is natural. If it takes that much effort and discussion, clearly the relationship does not deserve the title. In other words, just let it flow, and it will be what it will be, what is best and right. Because that's what a relationship is, is what you feel, not what you call it.

Gods have been sanctioning suffering and death ever since they were created. Human sacrifice, holy war, enslavement, and general mistreatment of nonbelievers have been the most visible result of religions throughout the history of the wolrd, but no god has been worse in his treatment of mankind than that of the three Hebrew faiths. You Christians, Muslims, and Jews worship a god who has not only done nothing to stop the evil of this world, but is in fact responsible for most of it. Your god is directly responsible for the deaths of six million civilian holocaust victims, and for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians fighting on both sides of the conflict surrounding it. Your god is responsible for the death, suffering, and fear in the hearts of every person living in the midst of terrorism in the middle east. Your god ended the lives of nearly seven thousand in one act of His terrorism on September 11th, 2001, and also the lives of so many American, Afghan, Iraqi, and other soldiers and civilians in the ensuing conflicts. The peoples of Sub-Saharan Africa live in constant turmoil, civil unrest, and war because of politically disruptive colonial governments established in the name of saving the heathens. Native North American populations were literally decimated by the military forces and deseases by Europeans for the glory of your god. His name is also carried proudly by a certain Christian sect of the American West (Mormons) developed specifically for the justification of genocide of local native groups. A bloody conflict has continued unceasing for over three hundred years in Northern Ireland, all over the promises of your god. The Spanish Inquisition was the most significant, though not the only, case of men being tortured and made to suffer for the glory of your god. Nearly a third of the Western world's population destroyed itself in His name during the three major crusades of the middle ages. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries brought wars between the Catholic and Protestant states of Europe that did not see a stretch of peace lasting longer than ten years during the entire span.

Your God is behind the sword that kills more men than any devil or any disease. Your god is the cancer of this earth. I don't give a damn what scripture says about peace and love and all that when I see the facts of history in front of me. If this is righteousness, if this is peace and love, and if this is what it means to be faithful to your god, I don't think it will be too hard to see why I'm a skeptic. That is real which is real in its consequeces. I've said before that God is very real when people truly believe it, and use it to rule their lives. This is how they use it - this is what your god is. Peace and love my ass, your god is a warmongering peddler of suffering and death. Your god is the enemy of all that is good and right. All that is backwards and wrong in this world starts with God - his peace is our war, his love our hatred, his cleanliness our filth, his health our pestilence, and his glorification is our destruction. This is not my opinion. This is the fact of history.

As much as I need to be in control, I hate being in charge. I'm like a plantation owner who hirers out slave drivers to do the actual slave driving while I maintain control in principle. At first I thought this was because I don't like the responsibility that comes along with being in charge, but I've seen some other reasons recently. I hate holding all the cards because that puts everything on me. I never know what to do when I'm in charge so nothing ever goes anywhere. I am definitely not an instigator, and I almost never make the move. That's why I need her to have an equal share of the power, it makes my life easier. Aye, equal; she can't have more power or less because that means somebody's above somebody else, and not only to I hate being beneath people, I hate people who let themselves be beneath other people. Especially in something so supposedly significant. It all comes back to the same reason I'm a conservative, the same reason I'm an atheist, and the same reason I'm a romantic. I believe in individuals, and I despise people that let themselves be sheep. So just like I don't like the idea of giving in to a god or a church or a government, I don't want anybody giving in to me. I find it, in fact, more repulsive than both Christians and liberals. Of course I'm speaking strictly of people with whom I want to deal. If I already don't like you anyway, there's really nothing else you can do about it, so go ahead and kiss my ass all you want; it's your only chance of getting my attention. Otherwise I like people I respect, and I respect people who get their business dealt with. Dependence, desparation, and clingy are probably the most unattractive personality traits there could be, where I find confidence and independence highly appealing in any relationship, be it business or pleasure. I guess for me opposites really don't attract because what I look for in other people is the same thing I strive to be myself. Ultimately I like the big fish, I like a challenge, and I like the chase. After all, the chase is the only fun part anyway.

So I had to write three to five pages of dialogue for a theatre project, and, since I can't read or write fiction, I went straight to my own experience for a topic. At first I wrote a little scene about some people around here, but I decided the dynamic there just didn't have the spin I wanted. Plus I wouldn't be able to let anybody here read it because it was too real and gave too much away. Also the scene changes and visual things I had in there would lend themselves more to film, and just wouldn't be possible on stage. But mostly it just didn't have the kind of feel I was looking for. So as I thought about what else I could write about, I inevitably turned to the subject of all the story time stories, and indeed the very content of such.

If you've read story time, the plot of this script will sound very familiar to you, even if you've just read story time's introductory page. But it's got a very different angle, and I play with time a little bit and bring in a lot of different elements. And of course I can't write more than a page without taking a shot at Christians, so that's in there, and a lot of deep psychological sort of play. I write what know, so the world of the play is close to my reality in it's form and dynamic because the dialogue I write is that which is familiar and common to me. It's based in the truth, but I had to change the roles of certain characters from actuality in order to put in the theme and psychological development that I wanted. It's written very much from an actor's perspective, and is very different in the way it should be performed than if the same story was written by a director type or playwright. It's heavy on action, blocking, and delivery, with very specific stage directions for such, and is light in its set and production specifications because that is not my background. It's romantic in the literary sense of the term, and it's message is very much in line with the romantic ideals of the nineteenth century, even though the style is modern and absurd. I've tried to balance the dark, heavy side of it with my trademark delightful quirk, and I think it worked out well. The story at least is coherent and I think I've got a decent framework.

The three pages are due tomorrow, so I'm turning in what I have, but I intend to lengthen and deepen it into a full play in the next little while, just for my own purposes. So I welcome you all to stop by my office and take a look at it, and give me feedback on not only the story but on whether I conveyed well the meaning and purpose of the peice. I would especially appreciate if you creative writing and screenwriting types gave me some professional criticism as I work on it.

I tend to be a very passive person and a very passive-aggressive person. I do not like confrontation. For example, when people make comments on the riot board that have nothing to do with anything, I prefer just to delete them instead of responding and perpetuating the childishness. If, however, they make a relevant and insightful argument to mine, I will respond in a professional way, unless I just plain don't like you and the very mention of your existence makes me physically ill, then I'll delete it no matter what you say. For the most part, though, I pretty much don't care, and it's only in drasticly undesirable situations that I make any significant move. I would much rather just leave when I am in a situation where I do not want to be, rather than get into a big argument with everybody. I like to let people handle their business and I like them to let me handle mine, when the two do not interfere. Last night, for example, I made an honest mistake, and did not intend to end up with the leverage that I had. I was just going to open up the alternate like I have been and let y'all do what y'all want to do, away from me. She on the other hand seems to be the queen of confrontation, and all those hostage negotiations, as they were, were entirely her perogative. I know exactly why she wanted what she did, and it is very interesting, as she could have just as easily given it up but for the image. Like I've said, it's all about the images, and she had one she wanted to show to somebody that required her to negotiate like she did. Had that particular individual not been present, or if a certain other individual hadn't been where she was earlier none of this would have mattered. But as it stood, I ended up back exactly where I've been trying to get away from. But at least I had a buffer zone, at least for a while. And why is this? Because I'm still too damn passive. I've been giving the go-ahead and she's been taking advantage of it, mostly because I'm not sure what her reaction will be if I drop it. I've been deferring on all things and sacrificing the principles. But I'm done giving the green light. We're not playing tee-ball anymore; I'm going to start throwing curves. But watch out, she might still swing away. Brace yourselves for Monday's cage match.

Once again I've created numerous problems for myself by being too nice. There's only so much of this I can take, and that line was crossed a long time ago, but I didn't do anything about it because I'm too damn nice. Put it's not getting put up with anymore. Because putting up with it means she's worth dealing with that, and that's saying a lot. I need to have a consisent approach to implementing my policies, even if that means sacrificing some of the things I enjoy. It's a matter of principle. Because I do enjoy her company, but it's just not worth all of the rest of it. So I'm not going to make that effort anymore when I don't have to. I'm just tired of it, end of story, and if you don't know what I'm talking about, then it probably doesn't concern you and we're cool. I just can't tolerate this crap anymore - I've let it sink in too long and everybody's gotten settled in like this is how things ought to be. This is not how things ought to be. Operation zero tolerance is back in effect, and alternate movie night is up and running again, just like before only in my office. Because in my office I make the rules. Because I know I have not the right or the ability to kick people out or shut people up on common ground like the TV room, but in here I can, and I need that. Because there's a certain way people ought to behave and this isn't it. As for you, friend, just think about how you know I feel about these people, and what I do inspite of that. And this isn't just for me. I'm not forgetting about you. So stop by the office anytime; I'm just surprised and mad at myself for letting that stuff happen for so long. You did it to me. I got so caught up in all of that that I didn't see what else was going on. But I see it again now, and I'm done with it. Otherwise I'll go to sleep when I'm trying to tune people out because I zone out when that happens and you'll never see me awake again if I stay around the rest of them.

Here's to all the foxes
That have tried to tame the wolves.
Here's to all the phillies
And their stallion's wild hooves.

A tigress snares her broken prey,
But a lion keeps his pride.
And even those cute dolphins
Only play when their sharks hide.

Pretty kitties need to watch
For alley cats around the bend,
And Robin better watch his back;
This Eagle's tasted blood again.

So here's to all the foxes
That might try to tame the wolves.
I'll warn you phillies now:
Stallions ride on wild hooves.

Women want what they know they can't have. (Please, no feminist rebuttals, everything I'm going to say can be true of many men as well, and nothing I'm going to say is absolutely true of all women. I'm a sociologist, I talk about trends.) Initially, it appears that this is due to the fact that most men that no woman can have got that way by being the kind they would want regardless, but I find there are deeper psychological motivations behind these attractions on the part of the attracted that supercede the simple attractiveness of the receiving party. Primarily, they know that if they can never have it, they'll never have it to lose, which is a principle concern of the fairer sex. They know he'll always be there and that they can't screw it up. At least when they realize that I was right about the fact that relationships are nothing but a hassle, they like this idea of being with a guy they can't have. In fact the knowledge of a man's inaccesability can actually make him much more accessible. With me, for example, they know that I catagorically avoid relationships, but that doesn't mean I don't like chilling with them. So they know that we can hang out and flirt and have as much fun as we want without it having to mean we're trying to be in a relationship. (Note: I'm not saying I'm in the same catagory as Orlando Bloom; I'm unattainable because I just don't do relationships, but feel free to convince me that I'm appealing enough to be considered unattainable for the same reasons as Orlando Bloom.) It's much more stable than getting involved with a regular guy because there's no precedent there. With most guys in whom they may take an interest, they feel like they have to ask him out or something and then they feel obligated to go through with something, but if they know they can't have him in that way, then they know it's safe. Especially for those types that really aren't prepared for a relationship, either the emotional or physical aspect of such, an attraction of this kind is both natural and appropriate. And thus is the deep psychological meaning behind the appeal of celebrities that goes beyond the fact that they're so damn good-looking. So when I say that women want what they can't have, I'm not talking about the fanciful fantasies of your whimsical gender, but rather a psychological defense mechanism that draws you toward a safe attraction where you subconsciously know he won't start a relationship, designed to protect you from being hurt or forced into a bad situation.

The holy is that concept which defines and distinguishes a religious from a nonreligious act, idea, or thing. It is common to all religions and absent in everything nonreligious simply on the basis of that definition. But how do we determine what is or is not holy? It is that which we are humanly incapable of comprehending, not on the basis of limited knowledge or capacity on our part, but rather because it is and has to be that which is completely outside of, beyond, and other than everything we know or can know. It exists in an entirely different way, on a different plane, governed by different laws, and is, by definition, incomprehensible by us. Therefore when we are seeking the holy, we are seeking that which is not and cannot be.

And so we developed heirophanies - physical or at least comprehensible things to embody and represent holy bodies. At various times and in various traditions, nearly everything imaginable has served as a heirophany: celestial bodies, plants and animals, people, water, fire, clothes and artifacts, and even specified behaviors, words, and designated places. Because these things are easy to wrap our minds around and understand, and easy to teach to the children, we present them as bodies through which the holy can be perceived. But where is the line drawn between a heirophanic translation of the holy and sacreligious idol worship? Obviously the line can only be drawn inside the mind of each individual, and his own interpretation of the holy, and if he really understands the difference between the holy and the earthly thing that represents the holy. This brings us back to what it means to truly believe. Natural laws would impy that the holy remains constant whether everybody believes and understands it or not, just like the laws of physics apply whether you know about physics or not, but we've already established that the holy is not governed by our natural laws. Now I could get real existential right here, but you know where that one goes, so let's try something new.

The Hebrews (Jews, Christians, Muslims) worship a god originally named Yahweh meaning "he who is called "I am.'" So, using Otto's definition of the holy as that which is entirely other than what we know to be, then for God to be, is for it to be in a way that is not, and if it is in a way that is not, then clearly it is not and cannot be. There is only one way that things can be, and that is for them to be in a way that is, if they are not that, then they are not at all. So here's where an existentialist would say that the holy most certainly exists and is simply that which each individual imagines it to be, and any religious would say that the holy most certainly exists and is simply that which his doctrine imagines it to be. But what I'm getting at here is that based on the principles of logic, the holy does not and cannot exist, purely on the basis that even if it did, it wouldn't, because of how it is defined.

So if God is not, and I believe it is not because the definition of God is not, and you believe God is, despite that God is defined by being not, does that make me the theist?

Tonight I went to the first rehearsal for the Black History play I'm in, and it was absolutely inspring, but not for the obvious reasons (I grew up in East Winston, I'm quite familiar with the history of the AME Zion church.) Anyway, She's one of the most amazing people I've ever met. She can't be older than twelve, and here's she's written an episodic tribute to the history of Black Christianity, organized its production, and is directing people of all ages to play in it. She's gotten two dozen or so of her parishoners to play the roles, and has coordinated all the rehearsals and everything, and even made the effort to reach out to get outsiders like me and a few other UNCW students involved to fill White roles. On the phone she talked to me like a professional director and told me everything I needed to know. She has approached sensitive issues like slavery and the civil rights movement with respect and a fair eye, and is able to bring these things into to the play in a serious but not depressing way. She's really running the whole show, telling everybody how to play their characters, getting people ready before they go on, and even filling in to read for the people who aren't there. There's not a shy bone in her body, and she's got the sense to channel her tremendous energy into making this production. At her age I still hadn't learned how to hold a conversation, and I have to say I'm genuinely inspired by this girl.