today we only whisper.
tomorrow we only scream.
i dont want anything to ever be okay ever again.
add ache to various words.
lately ive felt like i must look paranoid. as if im always looking around at everyone as if they are suspicious. im not sure if other people see me that way, or if thats just how i think i look. also, when i checked the phone for change on my way into my apartment the other day, i felt as if i appeared very obsessive-compulsive, since i do that every time i come in. but i really do it every time because i intentionally made it a habit to do that every time. also, a while back i learned that people get addicted to hot salsa through a similar mechanism as people who are addicted to cocaine, sex, or maybe even exercising; it had something to do with endorphines, which more correctly are endomorphines, or endogenous opiates. regardless, i conciously made the decision to increase my tolerance for spicy foods, and now, five months later i eat only hot salsa and the 'extra hot' sausage from hannafords. now my question is, can you intentionally make yourself addicted to something? having set out the goal of becoming addicted and tolerant to spicy foods, does it still qualify as an addiction? i suppose one thing to try is to quit eating these foods, switch back to mild or something, and see if i crave the hotter ones. i suppose that is what i will try, and we will find out. somehow i cant imagine it being all that physically addictive. if it isnt, ill try meth-amphetamines to see if those will work.
The amino acid residue sequence (primary structure) of β-endorphin is: Tyr-Gly-Gly-Phe-Met-Thr-Ser-Glu-Lys-Ser-Gln-Thr-Pro-Leu-Val-Thr-Leu-Phe-Lys-Asn-Ala-Ile-Ile-Lys-Asn-Ala-Tyr-Lys-Lys-Gly-GluOH (Fries, 2002).
i know youre only a dream. but i dont care. its nice to see you. even if youre just a dream.
yesterday it began snowing on my walk home.
people like the way i think.
pick a word, and then make a list.
concerns: good question... girls? jobs? im not sure really... money? not really any of these so much.
abilities: analytical, observant, smart, stupid, scientifically and technologically adept.
interests: shit... i need a fucking hobby. other than spinning my car around repeatedly after fresh snow, (which was great last night).
goals: teach other people the novel aspects of life that i have stumbled on; specifically computer science and physics, since those are definitely of broad value, as opposed to personal experiences and lessons.
loathing: traditions? beliefs? religion? people? no, not people. but something about people in general...
okay, so the boy was told he has certain deficits that he will never overcome.
i was told i had no limitations, on anything, ever.
i dont think either method was right in raising a child.
if i ever have kids, i want them to know that they are capable of just about anything. and if they come to something they seem to be lacking, they can work on it, and at least make it better to some degree. maybe they cant become the most sociable person on earth, but they can meet people and get to know them and have healthy relationships with them none-the-less.
"you know, i, i uh, i alphabetize insurance forms 60 hours a week and i was noticing i have a hard time concentrating so they put me on this new medication and i can focus real well. --- YOU SHOULDNT CHANGE THAT, no you shouldnt want to alphabetize insurance forms, that was a good thing that you had not concentrating on that. " –Doug Stanhope
start looking for the emotions behind the statements.
i need to start. start looking for the emotions behind the statements.
for a moment the whole world looks very beautiful. with the lights on the trees under a few inches of snow, and a few inches of bright white snow balanced carefully on every branch. huge flakes falling gently to the ground; to my tongue.
kevin and i built a snowman of magnificent proportions.
i want to talk to stefan and other people about such things as the attitude we take towards personal accomplishments versus work-oriented accomplishments, like i talked with tom the one night. i think those ideas were important.
aggression for the sake of aggression. recklessness for the sake of recklessness.
experts cant converse with novices; its more like a lecture or a lesson.
unconcerned does not equal indecisiveness.
if i seem not to know where im going,
it is because i am not too concerned with where i end up.
years ago, lindsey mentioned romance to me. which prompted me to determine what exactly romance is. after much consideration, the definition i came to was "love expressed". at the time that seemed satisfactory, but now i see that although 'expressed' is well defined, 'love' is not. so now to define love more clearly. in the context of emotions, love is obviously a very powerful emotion. as with all emotions, it is a short cut to reason. as an unreasonably reasonable person, it seems unlikely that i am fully capable of experiencing love. although i guess thats probably not the case. dammit. it could go either way really. once again reason has muddled things up, and i have to just drop the whole idea.
the way i have cut my hair most recently may look somewhat more typical than normal, but that is okay with me, because i have something others do not! greesyness. yes, due to my socially unacceptably low rate of showering, my hair is in a perpetually dirty state. too many words that end in 'y' in that sentence.
theyre appealing to quiet desperation.
this is an interesting quote, by a child between four and eight years old: "my mommy loves me more than anybody. you dont see anyone else kissing me to sleep at night." i find it interesting because my immediate interpretation of 'mommy loves me more than anybody' is that the child believes he/she is the most loved noun in the mother's world. but then the second sentence implies that the mother is simply the noun from which the child receives the most love from in their [the child's] world.
theres nothing to fix about me because theres nothing wrong with anything i do. and if someone else thinks its wrong, ill be willing to listen to your argument, but you better listen to mine too. most people have ideas of what are right and wrong that are not based on first principles or firsthand experience, but rather on information passed on to them by others.
what are my concerns?
do we actually know for certain that antimatter has normal mass? i highly doubt that anyone has checked its gravitational mass, as i think that would be very difficult to do. but perhaps theyve verified its inertial mass, and its been assumed the two must be that intimate. which gives me an interesting idea... say you did find a type of mass that was repulsive instead of attractive, (gravitationally); would you expect its intertial mass to be 'flipped' as well? would you expect it to behave opposite to centripetal forces? move to the inside of the curve when you sped around a corner? it seems unlikely to even conceive of. perhaps there is some insight in all that thinking that might reveal why there is no 'repulsive mass'.
"are you to be trusted?" "--of course not."
have paper and pencil by your side because there are going to be gaps; details you are going to have to fill out. you are going to have to figure out. and the gap between them would be the remainder.
so i figured out last night that parametrically defined fourier series will work if i want to construct my name with a single (relatively) simple equation: if you scroll down past all the intimdating but not too bad mathematics, there is a graph of a box, made from the X[t_] and Y[t_] equations. the next step is to extend it to my entire name!
goodnight for now.