For whatever constellation of reasons or non-reasons (chocolate consumption?), I've been extra happy the past few days. I've also once again realized how the absence of a "boyfriend" in my life has not been a problem, at all, for months. I'm also well beyond grieving my last crush (from last summer) and my last long-term primary relationship (which ended during spring 2002).

A significant factor in my ability to cope without a "significant other" is the strength of my Buddhist practice. I don't spend much time fantasizing about a desired future, or ways to change my life for the supposed better. Another significant factor in my enjoyment of the single life is my ability to have wild and awesome sex all by myself -- making masturbation into my own personal art form :o) Another significant factor is the strength of my support group -- wonderful siblings and friends who care a lot about me. Another significant factor is my ability to get some of these friends to snuggle with me (or even occasionally to have sex with me) on an irregular basis.

Heh, I've unpacked the role of "the boyfriend" ... all that stuff that most people look to their "one and only" for, I look to myself, my family, and my friends to supply.

-----

Especially for us gay men, I don't think it makes sense to reflexively limit ourselves to the "one and only" game. Despite our idealistic notions of equality with straight people, there are rational reasons for gay men to have different kinds of models for their relationships than straight people have. Two men aren't likely to spontaneously produce offspring, so long-term relationship stability is not as important for gay men as it is for straight couples. Men are genetically programmed to spread their seed widely, so sex and intimacy don't have to intersect within a monogamous couple in order for gay men to meet their human needs and desires.

I've noticed that sometimes my moods appear to have no rational or mental source. I'm full of energy, so I'm happy. Or, I feel tired and cranky, so I'm depressed.

Sometimes a good night's sleep is all we need to fix our moods ... especially in this sleep deprived American culture.

I also know from experience that caffeine use contributes to mood swings, for me. As does chocolate. The artificial chemical lift makes us feel good, that's why we drink the stuff. I presume the same applies to most other mood-altering substances, such as nicotine, alcohol, THC, MDMA, etc.

-----

Often, when we are in a chemically induced mood, we mistakenly attribute this mood to other things in our lives. We think ... while in this mood ... and by thinking we wrongly convince ourselves that we are happy because of [event X] or unhappy because of [event Y].

This can become a problem, especially when unhappy, because we can erroneously condition ourselves to feel unhappy whenever we think about [event Y]. Basic Pavlovian conditioning at work -- we find reasons for our bad mood, or justifications/rationalizations for our bad mood, and then whenever we think about those justifications we get upset again.

In this way, some people actually train themselves to become clinically depressed!

-----

That is also a hazard of keeping a Diary. Now, keeping a Diary can be helpful. But it can also feed an obsessive perfectionism. If we are relentlessly negative in our Diary, we are actually training ourselves to feel negative thoughts, to hold negative beliefs, to spread negative attitudes.

A Diary can also be used in a positive way, to record pleasant experiences, to exert a positive spin control over the events of our own lives.

One thing I've learned from keeping a Diary for several years is this: my moods tend to swing around regardless of my life circumstances. Yeah, certain stressful events can drag me down, but the static circumstances of my life (relationship quantity & quality, career status, income, exercise habits, etc.) do not guarantee that I'm always happy or always depressed.

Nobody lives a perfect life. Anybody can sit around and find things to criticize, things to "fix", ways to improve. If you use your imperfections as reasons for feeling down, then you will always have reasons to feel down! The same goes for other people, and the universe-at-large. You can always find something to criticize. Unfortunately, you can train yourself to be hypercritical and mad at yourself and the world around you, as your default mood.

-----

Sometimes I feel like everybody wants to be dictator of the universe. Or at least dictator of their own perceptual well (including their mediated experiences). We can't all be dictators. And even dictators don't always get their way.

In early February 2003, only 37% of Americans felt their country was on the right track.

I've often felt like my country ran off the track completely as it reacted to 9/11/01. Sigh.

-----

But ... another one of them Buddhist insights pumped into my head yesterday, while I experienced several hours of idle sitting at the H. Carl Moultrie I Courthouse here in the District of Columbia.

I'd been called for jury duty. My first time! Jury duty involves lots of idle sitting. Eventually I was excused because I claimed I would not be able to give a "fair and impartial" verdict in a criminal drug possession case. Of course not, I don't think drug possession, even with "intent to distribute", should be a felony. For some reason, allowing the law to chew up people's lives is considered "fair and impartial".

-----

I brought a book about Scrabble called Word Freak. I was reading it slowly. I don't read as quickly as I used to ... I'm often distracted by my environment. My attitude toward books has changed ... I lick them slowly, tasting, savoring, allowing my mind to wander tangentially ... it's something special when I actually finish a book. Occasionally I read a fiction book that pulls me through all the way to the end.

-----

I sat next to a fella who was reading one of them mainstream business-oriented magazines, the type I used to read, back when I subscribed to a lot of worldly magazines. He was reading an article about water supplies in different parts of the world. I suddenly felt, "Who Fucking Cares!" There's absolutely nothing I can do about water supplies in Tanzania.

I'm even feeling that way -- Who Fucking Cares! -- about many of the topics presented in the two Buddhist magazines I get. Some Buddhists seem afflicted by the same Perfect World Syndrome that afflicts both the Christian Right and the Progressive Left (and let's not forget the still-struggling Libertarian Party, and the quixotic Greens).

-----

And, while reading LiveJournals I encounter so much boyfriend-related (or lack-of-boyfriend-related) angst. I guess if your life doesn't revolve around the Perfect World Syndrome then it must revolve around the Perfect Boyfriend Syndrome. Where do people get these ideas from, that there are perfect potential-boyfriends out there, somewhere, hiding?

-----

People try so hard, to imagine their lives as models of perfection, and then to make their imaginations into a reality.

Even worse, they try so hard to make other people's lives into models of perfection.

-----

I found some abandoned magazines in the juror's lounge. I took a break from my book to read an article about a blended family of two adults and four children, each of whom had his or her own computer. The parents had decided to purchase a computer for each child so they wouldn't fight with each other over computer use.

Heh, long ago my parents finally purchased a television for each child so we wouldn't fight with each other over television use. Before that, we tried living with an elaborate system in which each child was allowed to specify one hour of television viewing per day ... except that my older sisters ignored that rule when my parents weren't home, and forced us to watch icky shows like Starsky & Hutch.

-----

I liked Wonder Woman.

-----

Now I never watch television. I don't even own a television.

-----

The article had a sidebar for parents -- Should I Control How My Children Use the Internet?

Apparently a large proportion of parents believe in setting rules about nearly everything their younger humans might want to do. A lot of parents use those filtering programs that try to keep "inappropriate" content away from children's eyes. A lot of parents set arbitrary time limits on computer usage, because they think "too much" time on the computer might be harmful.

People talk about Internet addiction ... and I've occasionally been concerned about my own level of computer usage ... but what we call a "computer" has changed a lot since the first PCs tumbled out of IBM. My computer is now my stereo, my television, my telephone, my post office, my library, and my publisher. Oh, and it plays games :-)

-----

I feel like I can sense how people are programmed now. And most of them have no fucking clue that (1) they are programmed, or (2) they could shed their programming if they wanted to.

But people identify with their programming. People label themselves and then fight vigorously to maintain and retain those labels. Then they try to export those labels to loved ones, friends, and strangers. They wish the entire world would reprogram itself to be just like them.

Why is it so important to "know" what is "good" and what is "evil"? To fight for your own vision of how the world ought to be? It certainly creates a lot of melodrama.

Mine.

Insecurity, jealousy, possessiveness ... love ...

So you get along really well with somebody, you feel like you have a lot in common, the making out is great, the interest is mutual, you're both "single" or "available" ... so you start dating each other. A relationship is born. Expectations arise. Now that you are dating, a set of rules apply. Supposedly. What are these rules? Where do they come from? Often each person in a dating couple has a different set of rules. Sometimes people don't know what they want the rules to be, or they want to change the rules as the relationship "progresses" into something more "serious".

Sometimes you don't like the rules, even when you believe in them. Sometimes you don't even realize they are rules until you break them.

-----

The rules often go well beyond purely sexual fidelity. There might be certain conversational topics that are kept within the couple, certain secrets. There might be certain activities that are kept within the couple, certain special restaurants or movies -- such as "our song" -- you'd never dance with somebody else to "our song", that would be a betrayal.

The purpose of the rules is to keep others out, to defend a relationship hierarchy in which the couple is supreme. In practice, the rules are more a matter of emotion than logic. Is your partner OK with you doing this, or will he feel hurt by it? Would you feel comfortable doing this, or would it bother you?

-----

Where do these feelings of hurt and bother come from? They come from a societal relationship model that values couplehood more than singlehood. They come from existential insecurities and fear of loneliness. They come from sexual inhibitions that protect us against sexually transmitted diseases and so-called illegitimate children.

The existence of exclusive couplehood creates an artificial scarcity of sex & intimacy for those who are not properly coupled. Those who discover that they don't actually need couplehood to satisfy their needs for sex & intimacy are typically viewed as "immoral" sluts who are "afraid of commitment". If everybody realized that they don't need couplehood to satisfy their needs for sex & intimacy, then maybe more people would be tempted to leave their partners ... and that would be "bad" because the model values couplehood more than singlehood. And, anyway, losing a partner hurts, a lot, perhaps more than anything else in the world.

-----

Of course, all this is more complicated when children are involved. Because children take so long to grow up, they often outlast the optimal parental relationship-timeframe (7 years?), yet our society believes that parents should be responsible for raising their own children through the age of 18-22+. Couplehood is also more complicated when significant property is involved -- who should get what? Heh, you can solve most of your couplehood problems by avoiding children and wealth ;-)

-----

Some people openly and intentionally claim that they have the ability to form multiple romantic relationships simultaneously. Some of these people call themselves "polyamorous". I tried being poly for a few years. I'm not sure whether that label still applies to me now that I have no official romantic relationships at all ...

Having an ability doesn't necessarily mean we have to act upon it ... in my own experience multiple romantic relationships means multiple emotional rollercoasters operating simultaneously ... a replication of the monogamy model rather than a reformation.

-----

The strange thing about commitment is that it doesn't seem necessary. Typically people don't want to commit to each other unless they are quite certain that they like each other, and that their feelings are reciprocated. If you both really like each other a lot, and you are obviously the best person for the other, why go to the trouble of making a "commitment" that you will continue to like each other a lot? Why can't you just keep liking each other a lot?

The only logical purpose of commitment is to keep people together after they no longer like each other.

Well, perhaps a secondary purpose is to keep people from pursuing other people they might like.

-----

The concepts of ownership and investment affect our thinking about relationships. We think that we've put a lot of effort into this relationship, so we don't want it to disappear. It is ours. We don't want to "start over" with somebody else. The more anniversaries, the more we've "invested". We get used to thinking that this person is my partner. A significant portion of our decisions were made together, compromises and sacrifices were made together. Some of our skills atrophy as we depend on our partners to do certain things for us.

Most obviously, we typically view the end of a relationship as a great loss, not as a great opportunity. Something we owned has been stolen. Instead of viewing singlehood as a creative adventure, we view it as a pitiful between-couplehood holding tank for those temporarily incapable of making a relationship work.

We call past relationships "failed relationships" and wonder what we did wrong, or blame the other person, or both.

I've written before about the proliferation of endless reinterpretations of Buddhist teachings. A search on Amazon yields 5754 books about Buddhism. I don't plan on reading all of them during this lifetime. I've probably read fewer than one percent of these books. Who can read them all? Should I even try? I would like to read about other topics once in a while.

What are the essentials of Buddhism, anyway? I've written about that before also, though I've probably changed my mind since then.

Can I summarize Buddhism in just one sentence? Sure! Seeing things as they are, not as you desire them to be.

-----

Is there any room for morality inside such a summary?

Perhaps not.

When I see the world as it is, without judgment, realizing that good and evil arise only inside the mind ... I realize that any attempt to create a system of morality is inherently biased and incomplete. The morality of the butcher is incompatible with the morality of the farm animal. Each living creature has the same basic needs, desires, and aversions. Each living creature uses resources that another could use. Competition is inherent; without the pressures of competition (conflict, death, and even extinction) evolution could not have created the wild variety of life we see today (including our human selves).

When I see the world as it is, I am aware of extensive, seemingly infinite pain and suffering. I could not stop all of this pain and suffering even if I devoted the rest of my life to this goal. Too much empathy hurts my own will to live, and increases my own pain and suffering. What good does it do for me to feel your pain? Won't I have enough of my own, from time to time?

-----

Many Buddhists do subscribe to a set of morals that are more or less based on the idea of karma. Having seen the pain and suffering in the world, having seen how we are all interconnected, Buddhists try to reduce the world's pain and suffering by seeing their own negative interconnections and modifying their behaviors appropriately. That only takes us so far. There is a lot of pain and suffering that I'm not at all responsible for. And sometimes reducing my own negative effects on other people will create negative effects on myself.

And sometimes, perhaps even most of the time, we can't really know the ultimate outcome of our actions. Sometimes our kindness keeps a person from necessary opportunities for growth. Sometimes "tough love" is the best option -- telling a person painful truths and letting her sink or swim.

-----

We only act within the present moment, yet our actions ripple outward into the future in unpredictable directions. No system of morality can prepare us for all the circumstances of every moment we will face.

Yet, many of us still struggle to be good to ourselves and to others. The struggle is the reality, the "good" is a mirage. We struggle, or we don't. That is all. Either way our actions ripple outward in ways we can not predict, merging with the ripples of billions of other intentional acts, combining in ways that no single consciousness can grasp.

-----

Morality is always a system of control. If a particular system of morality were universally useful to all, then human social interactions would be much more peaceful than they are. Instead, people's needs, desires, and aversions collide. Conflicts are resolved via dominance, submission, violence, cooperation, mutual retreat, agreement, arbitration, and/or law. Who should win? The stronger one? The smarter one? The needier one? Which principles are the most important? Should these principles be more important than the actual outcome?

Buddhism does suggest that many, if not most, of our conflicts are illusory, fought over advantages that are not necessary for survival or even for happiness. Many conflicts are fought between people who believe that more of something will make them happier, so they each want more of the same thing, and there are not unlimited supplies of desirable things in this universe.

I've reached a happy plateau. It probably isn't permanent. I've never known any mood to remain forever. I swing from highs to lows to mediums, from craving to satisfaction, from loneliness to overstimulation.

But, right now I feel happy and fulfilled. I have a job -- a career even -- that pays me more money than I need (and all the benefits I need) without much stress. I have a lot of great friends, I'm close to my biological family, I'm physically fit and healthy. I get enough sleep, I don't go hungry, I exercise, I go out, I stay in. I have a variety of people who are willing to exchange touch with me. I like my apartment and its location. I like living in the DC metropolitan area. I get to travel. Friends from all over the country travel to visit me.

I feel spiritually engaged with the world, in touch with my body and its needs, in touch with my emotions. I feel politically engaged as well. I feel compassion for others.

I have time for "a life" because my job has never required me to work overtime. I use that time to explore a wide variety of interests. Right now I'm taking a photography class. Later in the summer I'll take a two-stepping class. I read a wide variety of books. I watch DVDs. I visit museums. I see the wonderful memorials and monuments that surround the Capitol Mall on a daily basis.

Am I happy at this moment because I've learned radical acceptance, or am I happy at this moment because I lead a charmed life? I've been very lucky to have all that I have. My intelligence, my personality, my looks ... while I'm not perfect, I have characteristics that some employers adore and some people embrace.

Well ... I don't think the answer is an "either/or" answer. I think the answer is an "and" answer. I think I am happy right now because I recognize, appreciate, and accept all that I have. I have a lot to appreciate, and I'm not whipping myself with desire for more.

-----

I could, for example, desire a larger apartment, or a condo, or pets, or a boyfriend, or a car. I could desire a more challenging position, a larger salary, more responsibility. I could desire straighter, whiter teeth, or a smaller belly, or a more active sex life. I could desire a Democratic President and Congress. I could desire gay marriage, legalized marijuana, and solutions to all the problems of the District of Columbia.

(Adapted from something I wrote on 7/14/00)

I guess the major critique of idealistic Anarchy is that violent crime would flourish and we would return to the so-called "State of Nature" that was supposedly eradicated by adopting the "Social Contract".

That's funny, I don't recall ever signing a Social Contract ;-) It seems to me that we are born into whatever political regime runs our homeland. Some regimes allow some of the people to choose some of the office holders directly, every so often, by plurality vote, usually from a restricted list of pre-nominated leaders.

If you are unhappy with your homeland's regime, your options for change are pretty limited, even in a Constitutional Democracy. You can devote ever increasing amounts of your time and fortune trying to get particular laws enacted or repealed, and maybe that will help ... but that isn't the same as changing the political system. Usually revolutions don't work unless you have a combination of inept leadership and dire economic crisis. One person's dissatisfaction really isn't going to topple a government.

-----

So, what does anarchism mean to me? It means that I do not pledge allegiance to any flag. It means that I view legal systems objectively -- legal systems, whatever their means of legitimacy, are merely imperfect systems of control and punishment. Laws are not morals, and do not command my loyalty. If I disagree with a particular law, I do not feel like I am a bad person, and if I break a particular law, I do not feel like I am a criminal.

Whenever we act purposefully, we make a judgment about the benefits and risks of our behavior. One of the risks of illegal behavior is that we might get caught and punished by agents of the state. Ultimately, the state might imprison or kill us for our disobedience.

Anarchists see the state for what it is -- a powerful force that tries to control our behaviors -- and some Anarchists do what they can to oppose the state. But I don't think we'll ever get rid of the state. There are too many control freaks out there. As soon as you destroy one form of government, another one pops up in its place. If you oppose the state too vigorously, if you actually threaten the state's existence, it will dispose of you.

(Adapted from something I wrote on 7/8/00)

I get meaningful, significant gains in muscle mass when I work out, and I don't even work out that hard. I learned years ago that weightlifting doesn't have to be as difficult as most people make it, and there are scientific data to back me up.

I follow a regime that I call Muscle Exhaustion Training.

I do about 10 or 12 different exercises when I work out, alternating my gym days between "arms & chest", and "torso & legs". I find a weight that is heavy enough that I can not complete 12 reps, and I do one set. That's all. One set. I don't camp out on a particular machine doing multiple sets for 10 minutes. I do just one set at such a high weight that it exhausts the muscle I'm working on. If I can do 12 reps, then I move the weight up.

And I use proper form -- count 2 on the way up, and count 4 on the way down. Any faster than that and you are cheating with momentum.

This method gets my entire workout done pretty quickly, but still pumps up my muscle mass. Creatine can help with this kind of exhaustion training, because creatine kicks in when your muscle is pushed to exhaustion. Otherwise the stuff is worthless.

Scientific studies have shown that you get most of the benefit of working out from the first set (if you actually exhaust the muscle). The additional sets might make you feel more butch, and they might cause your muscle more pain, but they don't add much benefit. In fact, sometimes the extra sets actually tear down so much muscle fiber that they retard your progress.

And, you don't have to hit the gym every day. Once or twice a week per muscle is plenty. Working out more often can actually retard your progress.

The thing is -- your muscles will naturally respond to exhaustion by adding mass. All you have to do is exhaust the muscle once, and then give it a few days to grow. That's all! Anything extra is just a waste of time.

So, why am I the only person at my gym who follows this kind of training? Why haven't you heard of this kind of training before? I don't know. How often do most people read scientific literature? Never. The average person has never read a scientific study.

Exercise magazines are not peer reviewed scientific journals -- they exist to sell advertising and to create consumer anxiety (thus, leading consumers to purchase advertised products to relieve their anxiety). Some of the leading exercise magazines are owned by the same companies that sell dietary supplements and exercise equipment.

Plus, people like to think that more work is better. Isn't that the entire foundation of American culture? That more is better?