I recently finished reading Ajahn Brahm’s book “Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond: A Meditator’s Handbook”. I’ve got a lot to say about it.

The book is intended to be an accessible description of the jhanas, the most advanced states of concentration practice that Buddhists cultivate.

The jhanas are also somewhat controversial. Since they involve complete dissociation with the senses, the physical body, and the concept of self, many folks question whether the jhanas are real. The center where I practice goes to some lengths to direct students away from this kind of intense concentration practice, known as samadhi. But at the same time, the jhana states are repeatedly and persistently emphasized as the path to awakening throughout the Buddhist suttas of the Pali canon, which is why I was interested in learning more about them.

Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond

One of the most rewarding aspects of the book for me is the run-up; Ajahn Brahm spends seven chapters describing the path of practice that leads to the jhanas in a very progressive, step-by-step way. It’s really the first time I’ve seen meditation described as a linear process, rather than a bunch of diverse but unrelated practices to use at your own discretion. It’s nice to see what steps occur in what sequence along the path of increasing insight and wisdom.

And he hits it all. There’s detailed descriptions of the five hindrances, the sixteen steps of mindfulness of breathing from the Anapanasati Sutta, the four foundations of mindfulness from the Satipatthana Sutta, the feelings tones (vedena), the cycle of dependent origination, and the techniques of walking practice, lovingkindness (metta), and open awareness. He doesn’t even shy away from providing a description of what enlightenment (nibbana) is like once you get there! And all of it is related to specific steps along a documented path of developing one’s practice.

Ajahn Brahm divides that path into seven major steps.

The first step is simply to focus on the present moment, letting go of all thoughts about the past and the future. Step two is silencing the mind, letting go of thinking and the perpetual inner dialog that most people live with. The third step is to narrow one’s attention to the breath, which means giving up the awareness of input from the physical body and the five senses.

The fourth step is simply sustaining that degree of attention on the breath for a long period of time. Gradually, the doer—the person who intervenes and causes action to occur—fades into the background, allowing the knower to come to the forefront. Rather than living in a state of reacting to stimuli or being on the verge of doing something, the practitioner rests in the state of simple awareness. These first four steps are the easiest ones, and what most meditators focus on. And that’s probably as far as most practitioners take their practice.

Step five is where concentration really takes hold, and things start getting a bit farther from our normal experience, as even the awareness of the breath itself disappears.

Step six is the manifestation of the nimitta, a vision usually described as an unstable mental image of light. It’s unstable because meditators usually respond to its manifestation with either fear or excitement, which destroy the stillness of the mind the nimitta occupies. Eventually, one can resist this inclination and manifest a stable vision. Ajahn Brahm describes the nimitta as a reflection of the knower, an image of the mind itself. This is the doorstep of the jhana states.

The jhanas are the final, seventh step. When one enters the jhanas, one is no longer letting go of some thing or any mental object, but of the person doing the thinking: the observer, the knower. The doer is completely gone. That eventually includes the dissolution of the ego and an accompanying loss of control, will, sense input, thought, decisionmaking, and time. The first-person perspective falls away in favor of a broader sense of unity.

Ajahn Brahm gives such central importance to the jhanas that he describes them as the true meaning of the final step in the Buddhist Eightfold Path: right mindfulness. He also cites an example of a man who, while in a jhana state, was so unresponsive that he was rushed to the hospital and evaluated as having no brain activity and no pulse until he came out of the meditation. See what I mean about things getting a bit esoteric?

It’s no coincidence that in each of those steps I describe the meditator as letting go of something. Ajahn Brahm asserts that the whole Buddhist path is one of renunciation, culminating in letting go of everything. That process begins with a simple practice of generosity, then giving up harmful actions and speech through the training precepts; relinquishing thought, the physical body, and the five senses; then finally banishing both the doer and the knower and any sense of a separate, eternal self.

As such, he describes the main barrier to enlightenment as attachment to the body, the five senses, one’s thoughts, and the will to act; in short, the doer and the knower. These are what block access to the jhanas. While it’s easy to believe one is free of those attachments, it’s not as easy as it sounds. Concentration practice—the jhana states—are there to get you close enough to see the ultimate reality, at which point insight practice is what brings the final understanding that there is no eternal self—nor any self at all as we conceive of it—and what the implications of that realization are.

So, as you can see, after humble, mundane beginnings, Ajahn Brahm does indeed get way out there. Yet his is the most down to earth explanation of jhana practice that I’ve come across. That doesn’t make it any easier to swallow, though.

Along the way, Ajahn Brahm drops some pretty good bombshells in his prose, too. He asserts that belief in rebirth is an absolute requirement. He believes that our actions are purely the result of the conditions that preceded them, and therefore there is no such thing as free will or choice. He asserts that one of the first experiences one has as a result of jhana practice is the ability to remember past lives. He says that celibacy comes naturally, as one gradually lets go of desire. He goes so far as to say that psychic powers often come with enlightenment. Although at the same time, he points out that it is against the Vinaya, the Buddhist monastic code, to claim any particular level of enlightenment to laypeople (and that it’s also against the rules for monks to run).

On the other hand, he also provides some great suggestions and observations, as well. These include:

  • He advises against the common meditation practice of mental noting of what is arising, because it puts one clearly in one’s head and reinforces the knower.
     
  • He warns about how easy it is to overestimate one’s level of attainment along the path. Such overconfidence leads to more difficulties down the road, and that focus on achievements reinforces the very ego that one is trying to overcome.
     
  • He suggests that one defer all judgment of a meditation until after the meditation period, at which point it is wise to review the session and examine what came up and what one can learn from it.
     
  • He stated that restlessness arises primarily because one is not finding enough joy in the present moment. It’s a way of avoiding being present, and his prescription is to find the joy that is happening right now.
     
  • Finally, he also suggests that meditators examine their state of mind at the start of a sitting. He indicates that advanced practitioners are perfectly wise in selecting the particular meditation technique that is best suited to address their present experience.

So in the end, I have mixed feelings about the book. The introductory chapters are incredibly useful in terms of revealing the progressive nature of practice, and relating all the individual techniques to one linear path. For that reason alone, I would suggest it to longtime meditators. But while I have great faith in Ajahn Brahm’s ability to represent the jhanic states as described in the Pali canon, I retain a healthy dose of skepticism, and I will continue to be challenged to believe and have confidence in all the aspects of jhana practice that he describes.

And I have one final thought to share. Although it wasn’t brought up by the book, I did experience one revelatory insight around the same time.

Typically, we are taught that an ethical way to live is to look at other people and realize that they are just like you, with the same kind of thoughts, emotions, hardships, and aspirations. That is, they’re not just animate objects you manipulate to obtain your desired outcomes. You are supposed to cultivate compassion and empathy by realizing that everyone else you meet is just as deep and genuine and vulnerable as you are. In short, they’re as “real” as you are.

But a Buddhist might say that’s the exact reverse of the truth. The reality is that you are just as shallow, surfacy, and impersonal as everyone else appears to be. You are just an automaton, responding mechanically or instinctually to the stimuli you encounter, even though you’re convinced you’re “real”. If you look at yourself in this way, I think you’ll be much closer to the Buddhist point of view than if you force yourself to see everyone else as deep and complex.

Interesting thoughts.

The human organism has been designed with particularly good eyesight. We’re especially attuned to detect and focus on any movement in our field of vision, which was a significant evolutionary advantage for an opportunistic species that might equally find itself as predator or as prey. If something moves, we want to know about it, what it is, where it is, where it’s going, and whether it’s something to eat, run away from, or have sex with.

The counter side of that is that we’re exceptionally good at ignoring things that don’t move, because they don’t warrant our attention. In our daily lives, we don’t notice the sky, the grass, or rocks. They’re background, not foreground. It’s really hard to spend any time looking deeply at something that doesn’t move or change. Have you ever tried? We’ve even honored the phenomenon with a derogatory cliche: “about as exciting as watching paint dry”.

Media companies have known this for decades, as you can see from the ever-increasing pace of cuts and context switches. The sudden movements and changes of color capture your attention because we’re hardwired to give top priority to the most rapid movements we see. I’m sure everyone’s had the experience of eating at a restaurant or pub with someone who is constantly distracted by something on the television, even when they’re not interested in the content of the program. Or the experience of being that person!

The price of this evolutionary advantage is a very real kind of shallowness. No matter what we are doing, we are continually distracted by whatever’s moving around us. Our attention jumps from subject to subject with the rapidity of a hyperactive hummingbird.

a rock

I noticed this walking to work this morning. It was a wonderful day, and I began looking at the nature around me: granite boulders, gently swaying trees, green lawns, and a cloud-spotted blue sky. But I kept finding my eyes drawn away: to a splashing fountain in the middle of a pond; to the cars passing by; to the maintenance guy painting a fire hydrant; to the men playing golf at the course next door.

And, of course, I began to wonder.

As I looked at all those things, I was just letting my eyes dart around, never resting on any one thing for very long. I wasn’t deeply experiencing the cars or the golfers or the fountain; my eyes were just registering them and moving on. I may have seen a lot, but I didn’t see anything very deeply or with any sense of richness or connection.

So I decided to “see different”. I concentrated fully on looking at the things in my field of vision that didn’t move: the trees, those boulders, the grass, and the road beside me.

The first thing I noticed was that it was really difficult not to let my eyes dart away. We’re so used to the quick cut and context shift that our attention is always fragmented. People no longer have the ability to actually concentrate on one thing for more than a moment.

The second thing I noticed was that once I did look at the things that didn’t move, my experience of the world around me gained tremendous depth and richness. There’s more visual depth in a bare stone than there is in any fast-paced car chase scene. And a single tree has more elegance and a more complex story to tell than any feature film.

By looking at the things that don’t move, I literally began to see the world anew, with wonder and awe, and a very deep sense of being present in the moment I was living. There’s beauty all around us, even in the most decayed urban wasteland, if only we made better, conscious decisions about how to use the amazing gift of our vision.

So my challenge to you is to try it. Stop letting your eyes mindlessly jerk your attention around. Take the time to actually look at the things that aren’t moving, that have always been background but never received your full attention and appreciation.

Take a good, long look at the things that aren’t moving. See the world for what it is, not for what it is doing.

So I was having one of those initial get-to-know-you conversations with a new friend. She’d perused my blog a bit and had a couple interesting observations after reading my most recent post about feelings here.

In response to my lifelong question about whether I have emotions and to what degree, and my pursuit of those elusive feelings, she offered the following: Don’t confuse strength of emotion with depth of emotion.

That’s really an interesting thought: that one can have deep/meaningful emotions without being particularly demonstrative or effusive. Is it true? Can someone have such depth while still showing a placid demeanor to the world?

Certainly there are things I feel strongly about that I don’t visibly manifest for others’ benefit, and sometimes I’ve been criticized for expressing deep emotions in this journal that were hidden from others who were present at the time! So maybe it’s true: when talking about feelings, emotional strength and depth are independent variables.

The other thing dealt with gender roles and preconceptions.

We’re all very used to thinking about men as penile: all about probing and penetration and aggression. What people fail to remember is that men also have testes. And what do testicles do? They hang out. They’re there, but they generally don’t get in the way. They’re pretty simple and easygoing.

Can that be extended to our conception of masculinity? Certainly men have the ability to be laid back, easygoing, strong, and paternal, in a way that women generally do not manifest. It’s that quiet strength and calming presence that often gets very lost in the public conception of masculinity. My friend contrasted it with the nearly hysterical “dyke dramas” that spiraled out of control in an all-female household she’d lived in.

She also extended the metaphor to include the womb in childbirth as an alternative model for the feminine: embodying pushing, rejecting, and loss, rather than the usual welcoming and nurturing.

I don’t have so much to say about that, myself, but I thought it worth including as a point for thought. But I do definitely think we need to do a better job correcting the balance between the image of male as pushy, demanding, and violent versus that reassuring, protective, and steadying presence that is probably a more accurate depiction of masculinity.

I'm afraid this is going to be a lengthy one, even by Ornoth standards. It's a good example of how one inoccuous comment can trigger a whole series of discussion topics.

Inna and I have been very close for four years now. During that time, we've become more intimately familiar, and more open and forthright, with one another than with anyone either of us has known before. I think it goes without saying that our relationship is something I treasure immensely.

Certainly there's an investment in education there: we've taken the time to really get to know one another deeply and intuitively, which only comes through long months of shared experiences. Contrary to popular myth, that kind of understanding cannot happen overnight, or in a matter of weeks. But the investment of time certainly isn't the most important reason to value a relationship.

Instead, there's a special joy in sharing your life with someone who really knows you, and who interacts with you at a level of depth and real understanding and intuition that simply can't be approached without that investment. For someone to take the time to know me so well is priceless to me, for that is the baseline for genuine appreciation and understanding.

At the same time, offering that intimacy of understanding opens one up to unparalelled criticism. To let someone know you that well is also to let them see your worst and most feared faults, even the ones you choose not to acknowledge, and hide from yourself.

A couple days ago, on the way home from a dinner, I was walking across the Harvard Bridge, accompanied by Inna and two of her friends, when I made the apparently understated comment "This isn't bad".

All that night, Inna had been hounding me to express an opinion about the evening. It is, of course, one of her triggers, because she is excessively concerned with how others perceive the events she chooses to take responsibility for. In addition, her emotional state is influenced to a large degree by how demonstratively happy the people around her are. In a phrase, she is more affected by how the people around her enjoy an event than by the event itself. All this results in people's reactions being an emotional trigger for her.

On the other hand, I am extremely conservative in demonstrating my emotions and enjoyment of any given event. It's just the way I am (I'll get into the reasons for that in a moment). But you can see already how this combination of personality traits will result in Inna feeling insecure, and me feeling pressured or criticized.

Inna reacted to my comment by indicating that "This isn't bad" is "the highest praise possible from Orny", and going on to attack me for being so stingy with my emotions. I went on to defend myself, and the evening ended quite unsatisfactorily, with each of us feeling hurt and angry for expecting something different from one another. Nothing that won't get settled, it's just that I needed to relate that bit in order to proceed from here.

In the rest of this entry, I discuss why I am so reserved. It's a lot of self-analysis and some of it I admit will sound quite adolescent. It's naturally something I typically try to rise above, but at the same time, it's also still something that continues to influence my behavior.

So why am I so reserved? It would be easy to cite the familiar axiom that it's easier (or safer) to be negative than to be positive. In the past, that has certainly been a factor in my tempering my reactions, even recently. I think that I've made great progress on this one recently, thanks partly to Inna, and partly to my increased participation in the creative community. I'm learning, gradually, how to be more supportive and less judgemental, at least when the circumstances require it.

But there's much more to it than that. There are ultimately two big reasons why I'm not more demonstrative: first, I lack the ability to feel, express, and act on my emotions, and second, I fear what might come out if I tried.

I'm unable to feel, express, and act on my emotions? Isn't that the easiest thing in the world? Well, to many people it must be, but I've never been ruled by my emotions; I've always kept them under smotheringly tight control, to the point where today I have great difficulty even identifying when I have emotions, much less what they might be. I know that's probably counterintuitive to most people, but trust me on this one; I know of what I speak.

The root of most of my insecurities surely lies in my reaction of our family moving to an unfamiliar town when I was nine years old. I think it's typical that most children will react to such a traumatic event either by becoming extremely extroverted (in order to attract new friends), or by becoming extremely introverted (out of fear). I fell into the latter category, and never had a large number of friends until late in high school (see below). My family reinforced the value of intellect over emotions, and my life goal became to live forever, so that I could learn everything there was to know and know how the world would turn out. And after all, what use are emotions when you're alone?

When I began find myself attracted to women, my introversion and insecurity kept me from actually pursuing relationships. They of course seemed extraneous to my life's goals, but with no outlet, the unreleased sexual tension of adolescence worked inside me, turning me into a very hateful, judgemental racist: a very dangerous hooligan, but without the disregard for traditional values that would have enabled me to do real harm.

The stage was set for my first real romance, which took place during my final year of high school. Jean was, of course, everything I was not, but most especially she was positive, in touch with her emotions, and impulsive. My entire life turned around in one moment that took place in my parents' back yard. On a warm, lush spring day, I watched as Jean actually laughed and skipped down a set of rock stairs into the grass beneath a maple tree. I (quietly, of course) stood there dumbstruck, watching her suffused with joy to overflowing: an emotion I never let myself feel, expressed in a way that I could never express. That was my revelation, and I made a very conscious, deliberate decision to be more impulsive (ironic, eh?).

At that time, I was one of the principals in the New England Tolkien Society, a group of young fans of the author who wrote "the Hobbit" and "the Lord of the Rings". The group had one or two camping trips each year where everyone got dressed up in medieval garb and pretended to be hobbits or elves or whatnot. This was to be the testing ground for my new impulsiveness.

At NETS gatherings, I stopped caring what people thought of me, and actually pushed myself to become an extrovert. I started acting before thinking, incorporating random acts of silliness and flirtation into my behavior. Amazingly to me, I became quite popular, even with the girls. I had successfully been able to "flip the switch" from cold, hateful intellectual to outgoing, silly, and impulsive extrovert.

The problem was that I was still living at home, where that kind of behavior would never have been acceptable. So in order to rationalize my different behaviors, I borrowed from schizophrenia, describing myself as two separate people. David, the name I used up until college, was the master of intellect and self-control; Ornoth, or Orny, which I'd used as a name in Tolkien fandom and other medieval recreationist events, was the flirtatious, uninhibited fool. That was the situation when I graduated high school.

Throughout college and into my marriage, I went through several phases when one or the other of these two "personalities" were dominant. Any given phase would last about nine months, but within those larger phases, I might switch back and forth (intentionally or not) for a period of days or hours. Friends who knew me well said that they could see in my eyes when I made the discrete transition from one to the other.

But as my language indicates, these two halves were never integrated, and my intellectual half never learned how to demonstrate, or even see, my own emotions. Two decades later, Inna wisely told me that this division was contrived and that perpetuating it from adolescence was unhealthy, so I tried to set it aside. Unfortunately, for the most part that meant losing touch with my emotions, though I shouldn't lay the responsibility for that wholly on Inna. After all, my ex-wife's parting shot was to give me a Mister Spock tee shirt, effectively saying that my coldness and rationality were the equivalent of the Vulcan's banishment of all emotion. And while working for Sapient, I twice took the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator, perhaps the most famous personality test in the world, and never scored so much as a single point on the "emotions" scale.

One thing I pride myself on is expressing myself accurately in written form, after I've had a chance to digest things and determine how I feel about them. But I am wholly inarticulate, unable to detect or describe my emotions in "real-time", as events occur. This was particularly well demonstrated when Inna and I spent a week on Cape Cod two years ago. At the time, Inna had no idea that I was enjoying the trip. To be entirely truthful, I don't believe I knew it, myself. But after coming back to Boston, I realized how much I treasured those memories, and how much I'd enjoy repeating them, and only then was I able to show Inna how much they meant to me. Of course, to her, who trusts emotions far more than words spoken after the fact, this sounded insincere.

So for more than a quarter century I've practiced a uniquely successful method of denying my emotions, to the point where today I find myself questioning whether I have the capacity for emotions at all, and if I did, how I could possibly recognize them in myself, much less allow myself to publicly demonstrate them and act upon them. There are, of course, both advantages and disadvantages to this way of life, but I think it would be nice (and healthy) if I had the capacity to choose whether to demonstrate my emotions or not, rather than having no choice at all because I cannot even register them.

And then there's the other question: if I demonstrated them, what might come out? As I mentioned above, I was a pretty angry kid in high school, and there is still some residue from that. I was hateful, racist, reactionary, and, more than anything else, judgemental. Those were the emotions that were most natural to me then; would they resurface? Of course, I've thankfully evolved out of most of those. I've put aside most of my racism and hatefulness and prejudices, and I've tried to be more supportive and less quick to judge.

But one thing remains with me: I'm really not fond of people at all. I can't say that I truly hate people anymore, which is good, but my tolerance and patience with them is extremely low. As my relationship with Inna proves, there are people out there whose friendship has immense potential for me, once it reaches a certain level of depth. I think my problem is that as an introvert, it just doesn't seem worth the effort to make that investment. Most people either aren't compatible with me (through no fault of their own, of course), or simply don't desire the depth of friendship which would make the investment of time and energy worthwhile. Most people operate at a very shallow level, and that bores me to tears. I need a few good friends who know me very well, who are intelligent and articulate, with broad interests which include some of my own, but also include other, new things that would help me grow.

But establishing those kinds of friendships takes time, during which you have to slog through all the common, surfacey stuff before genuine depth comes through meaningful shared experiences. And putting that time and effort into a surfacey friendship that might never "pay off" is what I, as an introvert, shy away from. And that's why I am so alone, though I live in the very heart of the city.

So my fear is that if I really allowed my emotions to show, my general impatience and intolerance of people would drive people away.

With such an attitude, one could reasonably ask why I need people in my life at all. For the most part, indeed, I have concluded that I don't. But there are certain reasons, most of which are either very practical or mundane.

First, being alone is dangerous. What happens if I have a heart attack or cannot live unassisted? That's a problem, but it's hardly a great basis for friendship!

I'm physically attracted to people. This is the one thing that I find most frustrating, this unquenchable desire. There's so much turmoil that I wouldn't have to face if I could just rid myself of my sexual desires. I've tried; that's just not going to happen...

People are necessary for my entertainment and growth. Even living a purely selfish life for my own amusement, I need what other people create. I need live music, interesting artwork, architecture, graffiti, fashion, literature, dining, modern technological innovation, and all kinds of shared activities. I need intellectual challenge, and people who can bring me new experiences and ideas. That's why I live in the middle of Boston, and why I can't just pack up and live in isolation up in northern Maine, even though that has its attractions.

Of course, none of these are terribly lofty reasons for interacting with people. The one thing that I really need from people, that I could never possibly deny, that makes everything worthwhile, is exactly what I described between Inna and I at the beginning of this entry: understanding.

What I need, more than anything else, is for someone to know me. Not just in a surface sense, but to really know everything about me, fully and deeply, and understand who I am, what I've seen, and where I want to go. Someone to share my pains with, to appreciate my fiction, to understand why I think DargonZine is an honorable life's work, to know what polyamory means to me as well as my negative opinions of marriage, to share the spiritual appreciation I feel of nature, to understand my philosophy and why I live the way I do, to know when to push me and when it's best to leave me alone, and to occasionally surprise me when they understand me even better than I know myself. And I want to be able to know them as thoroughly as they know me, and know the new experiences and ideas that they can bring me.

And, of course, I want them to understand the difficulty I have with feeling, expressing, and acting upon my own emotions, and help me to overcome it, rather than condemn me for this area of weakness.

Okay, this rant has been coming on for a while now, and now its time has come. This isn't meant to knock anyone in particular. In fact, it appears the whole world could be painted with this particular brush; each of the examples I cite below came from a different user's journal...

So I've been reading a couple people's journals that they keep on LiveJournal, and I must admit that's it's pissing me off. Here's why.

As I see it, there are two types of journals: one chronologically documents significant events in time, and the other is a place for exploring your private beliefs and feelings and reactions, and basically "working through" stuff, or at least recording the stuff that you worked through. That's why, when you look at my Web site, you get a listing of important or significant things that happened to me; and when you look at my LiveJournal, you tend to find fairly detailed opinions and thoughts.

Now, when I read other people's journals, I get neither of those. I get things like "I bought some cheese today", or "I hope I don't have to go to the DMV", or "I took an online test to see what Buffy the Vampire Slayer character I would be". Other people's journals are full of inane crap that is absolutely without any meaning or significance whatsoever. There's no unique viewpoints, there's no depth of character, there's no thought at all! And these entries aren't even valuable as historic documentation of significant events, because they rarely even get personal enough to deal with anything more than the mundane trivia of everyday life.

Let me attack this from another angle. When I share part of my journal, or when I note a special event on my Web page, it's because I want the reader to be able to connect with me and understand or empathize with me at a meaningful level. I want to share the joys of my life with others, as well as the unique insights that I've gained along the way. That's what I offer the reader, even if that reader is just myself ten years in the future. That's also what I, as a reader, expect from others' journals: I want to be able to connect with someone at a level that's beyond the inane surface that usually rules face-to-face interactions. When I have read someone's journal, I want to feel like I know that person better than I did before. Your journal is you being you, perhaps more candidly than you ever would in person; it's a sharing of who you are and what you value.

Or so I would expect, but that's not being borne out in my observations of real life. Sure, LiveJournal is a social phenomenon, and maybe I'm just expecting too much from a glorified public bulletin board. But if I were to judge solely by their LiveJournals, I would think that people in general are even more inane and shallow than I ever thought possible. If "I went to the bank and then bought a new highlighter" and "I forgot the sausage for dinner and had to go back" and "I'm making meatballs now" is the extent of what really matters and is important to people, so much so that they spend time recording it for posterity, I think that goes a long way toward explaining why I prefer isolation to society, and why sometimes I'm at such a loss to find anyone I can interact with on a the meaningful level I value. I really do hate to be so negative, when I've been trying hard to turn that around recently. And thank god there are the infrequent exceptions whose depth of character is a blessing I cherish; otherwise I'd surely either go mad from alienation or be labelled so by the majority for being so "different"!

"Got no life? Try LiveJournal -- no life required!"

Recently, I've tried to be a lot more supportive and (specifically) a lot less judgemental about stuff. Unfortunately, there's one group of people that I can't stop being judgemental about. So it makes sense to talk about it here.

There's a circle of people I know who share some of the same interests as me. It's not a single group, or even specific individuals; it's more like a personality type who tend to flock. I guess I started running into this kind of group sometime back around 1980, when I first started getting involved in wargaming and Tolkien fandom, and back then I was pretty well immersed in the group culture. You know who I'm talking about, don't you? They're all:

  • SCA members
  • MIT grads
  • computer geeks
  • bisexual
  • polyamorous
  • BDSM practitioners
  • early Usenet and Internet users
  • long-haired
  • unshaven
  • fantasy and science fiction fans
  • Star Trek fans
  • wargamers
  • "pagan"
  • Monty Python freaks
  • overweight
  • and (I fear) LiveJournal users
  • and so on...

Now, I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with any particular one of those attributes; in fact, I'm proud about sharing a couple of them. But the above list is the universe that defines them, and very few of them seem to want to interact on a meaningful level outside of the aforementioned topics. Despite intelligence and such an obvious breadth of interest, they seem very two-dimensional. That's one of the things that really frustrates me about these people.

Another is that this personality type floods most of the circles where their interests and my own intersect. This personality type dominates the local poly scene, the local BDSM scene, the local bisexual scene, and they tend to drive other people out. I'd just like to meet some "normal" people who share my interests who don't also come with all the predictable other stuff that this personality type engenders. But like kudzu, they seem to overpower a group, suffocating or driving out the real diversity.

And part of my problem is that I'm just so tired of the Python quotes, the pithy geekery, the tired sexual innuendoes. That stuff was funny back in high school in 1980, but it's so stale now that it only turns my stomach. I just want to grab one of these geeks and scream in their face "Evolve!". There's a hell of a lot more to a meaningful and fulfilling life than endlessly repeating 25-year-old rituals like cloven fruit and quoting "Bring out yer dead" and calling your car a "dragon".

I dunno. I used to be one of those people once, and I was happy. I guess I just moved on, finding that other things also made me happy, too. Some of the values I once had, I still retain, because they're still meaningful for me, but I've also surrendered others as I grew and gained more wisdom and insight. Today, being a cookie cutter geek, and never aspiring to anything more than that, seems like a horrible waste of the precious time I've been given, when there's so much more to life than being a "Level 60 High Priest With A Noodle" in Everquest.

For the past ten years, I've been an occasional visitor in that crowd, showing up for a few events and then disappearing for a year or three at a time. Each time I return, I find my patience with that stock personality type getting shorter and shorter. I don't think I'm predisposed against any individual that I meet, but each meeting tends to reinforce my generalizations.

There's no conclusion here; I'm just exploring and recording my own reactions to this group and why they're so strong.

Frequent topics