xnilx's Blog

It often seems as if I'm 'preaching to the choir,' so to speak. There are so many deep and insightful people here that I can't help but feel that any pearl of wisdom I may have gleaned has long since been unearthed by any one of them, ya know? I'd compare it to the run-of-the-mill seeker of knowledge stumbling upon a Freemason meeting and shouting "Hey! I have discovered (insert profound life truth here!)" And a Mason replies "Oh, THAT? We've known that for centuries..." But I doubt any of my wonderful E'Peeps feel that way - and if they do, they're far too kind to say so ^_^

The whole is, of course, more than the sum of its parts... but at the most basic level, I am a collection of contradictions. Such as...

- Blunt and straightforward at times, shy/vague at others. This tends to either confound or irritate people =P

- Idealist/realist

- Grounded/whimsical

- Opinionated/open-minded

- Crude/polite

- Raucous/Reserved

- Precocious/childlike

- Falsely arrogant/self-deprecating

- Some would say that I am foolish in my blind faith... but I think there's a unique sort of wisdom to be found in optimism, even when it's not exactly practical

P.S. Please note that my extensive blogging about none other than mahself (=P) isn't from any sort of vanity or inflated ego. My postings on this site are often just me acting as my own shrink, working out my quirks and tendencies in an effort to TRY and solve my problems. And catharsis is quite a healthy thing.

But wouldn't it be easier that way? I'm sure a lot of you can relate - the people like me, for whom loving is the default state of existence. Who make deep connections quickly and find themselves conflicted and confused and a little bit guilty

I've found that most stereotypes can only be perceived as derogatory if you look at them from a defensive point of view. After all, someone who's used to being attacked is more apt to SEE an attack. In fact, most of these generalizations are merely neutral observations of a common trait among a group of people. So, what I'm trying to say is... why so touchy? Unless a certain statement was made with negative intent or directed towards you, don't let it bother you.

Another thing that we, as a society, put too much stock in is a group of 'taboo' words. You know which ones. All the red tape around them only increases their power! Those among us who appreciate the fine art of satire know how ridiculous this is. Of course, I would never make a statement to deliberately offend someone, or with the knowledge that some toes would most likely be stepped on. But it's a bit irritating when some jokes are made in good fun, all parties involved having no intent of harm, and some overly reactive, disaffected moron has to come and question our morals.

(Haha, narcissism xP) I had to downsize my 'About Me' section, from fear that my previous verbosity might have put a few people off

- Instead of taking the time to describe my sense of humor in detail and list the myriad influences thereof (the slapstick, satirical, ironic, absurd, macabre, crude and irreverent), let's just make it simple and say I laugh at what's funny = ) But it is, nonetheless, important to balance that lightheartedness with a healthy regard for the feelings of others!

- I've been told that my false, joking arrogance is probably a facade to hide the insecurity

- Music-wise, anything and everything suits me. Though I have a strong preference for progressive metal, electronica in its various guises, alternative, and hard rock, I've been known to listen to reggae, reggaeton, ska, blues, classical, country, or rap (not the moronic "Bitches hos bling WEEEEED variety ^_^) as long as it's good. I don't think I'll ever subject myself to the tortures of polka, however

- I can think of a hundred things to be thankful for, and more! I spent almost an hour last night thanking the God that I believe in (it's fine if you don't, of course) for everything I could possibly think of, in excruciating detail. I think I covered every positive thing in existence 0_o (and yes, adversity is a good thing too, if only to make you stronger)

- While I am an optimist, I wholeheartedly believe that everyone has the right to acknowledge how they feel and, in doing so, fully realize their humanity. When we name the beast, we lessen its power over us. That said... everyone has bad days, and we have every right to admit when something bothers us. It's unfortunate that the world can be so cruel a place that one is met with reproach instead of sympathy and support when expressing how they feel, and trying to overcome those emotions by giving them a source of release

- At the simplest level (but is anything ever really simple???), I am a collection of paradoxes. The key, for me, is to fully embody each of those contradictions without being a hypocrite

RANDOM FACTS TIME!!!!!

1. I am Claudia

2. I have come to steal your brownies!!! xD

3. I was named after my grandfathers, both of whom were called Claude

4. I secretly love to watch reality shows - those vapid, catty bitches inspire as much awe as amusement!

5. I am a sapiosexual, and I will secks yo BRAAAAINS!!! (Thanx, Effervescence ^_^)    

6. Intelligent conversations (especially on topics existential and philosophical) are my air! Or my opium...

7. (This one's rather adult-oriented...) When I have an orgasm, the backs of my thighs and calves sweat! '__'

8. My boyfriend and I have been together for 8 months, and I love him more each day

9. I compose entire songs in mah head! If only I knew the notes for all the instruments in them :'(

10. I play the saxophone

*** I will add more when I think of them =) ***

Our relationship has had its share of tumult, but I can't say I'm free of blame. I know I should try not to be so needy... but regular life is so mundane in comparison to being with him. So I experience a sort of withdrawal. I can say with honesty that I always express my emotions to him in a kind way. It's the fact that I normally end up crying that seems to bother him. Emotions have been troublesome things for him before, so now he pays them little mind.

He acts as if I'm supposed to be zen and content with the world all the time, instead of having the right to acknowledge when something bothers me. That doesn't mean I'm surrendering to it - quite the opposite. In being honest and expressing what I feel, I take away some of its power over me. Even if he thinks my reasons are invalid, he should have sympathy simply for the fact that I'm upset. Maybe that's why I seek understanding in friends, online and off (especially guys '__'). Which is all well and good, but I shouldn't have to do so out of a lack of fulfillment...

Anywho...

To elaborate on the situation further... he's been very busy lately, working extra hours just to keep his job and taking care of his mother, who is currently ill. What sucks is that I have dial-up, so I wish that he would take a couple of minutes to call me and let me know that he'll be busy, so I can stave off the ennui online instead of hovering neurotically by the phone.

However, the main issue isn't his working - it's when he has the day off and doesn't use the time he has (even if he's busy that day, he could call me on the way to wherever he may be going, or find some kind of way) to try and contact me. The thing is, he used to make every effort for me. But I have the feeling that he thinks I'm more upset with him than I really am, so he's wary of answering my calls - which increase in frequency with my frustration, making matters worse.

Maybe I wouldn't be as bothered by it if he would reply my emails. But I understand that when he gets home from work at midnight, he's exhausted and needs the time for himself. Thinking of stuff to say can be quite exhausting =P

But things are better now - I'm learning to be more self-reliant, and he actually makes an effort when not pushed so hard. It's great that I'm able to talk to him more often, since I haven't seen him since February.

I find it best to, once again, format this in a bulleted form. Besides, it saves me the effort of making fluid transitions and all that other writer jazz ^_^

• At the most basic level, it can be argued that the Bible was written by MORTAL MEN, held sway by their own beliefs and the norms of the times, and is thus not necessarily the ultimate truth or the word of God. Does it make much sense, logically, that every other religious text ever written is thus rendered invalid? They all claim to be the word of the divine as well, don't they?
• Who is to say that that every word of the Bible is to be interpreted literally? It's obvious that many parts of it are antiquated and simply a reflection of the times in which they were written, which casts doubt on how much faith is to be hinged on a direct interpretation of ANY part of it. If one focuses on a literal interpretation of the Bible in its entirety (as opposed to viewing some verses as merely anecdotal, written to describe events as opposed to guiding conduct), they will find many contradictions.
• In Genesis, it is stated that God created the sun on the fourth day. Were all the days before that, then, necessarily 24 hours? One of God's days could be eons, or millennia! It is foolish to measure the actions of an omniscient being by our own mortal standards.
• The description of God's creating the animals (and Adam and Eve) isn't at odds with the theory of evolution at all - evolution is merely the belief that life adapts to its environment (Darwin's writings aren't the whole of evolutionary philosophy). Think about it. Who is to say that the various creatures didn't simply evolve after their creation? Does the Bible ever say, specifically: "And God created the beasts of land and sea and air EXACTLY AS THEY ARE WHEN YOU ARE READING THIS PASSAGE"??? Perhaps you should all try to think for yourselves instead of blindly accepting what an oppressive and all-powerful institution is trying to force-feed you

That will be all =)

Oh dear... where to begin? I'll go ahead and bypass the fact that there's a good possibility *GASP 0_o* that the Bible isn't the supreme truth or the 'word of God', because any simpleton with half the intellectual advancement of an amoeba is aware of that, regardless of spiritual belief. (What's the difference between it and countless other religious texts all claiming the same thing?) So...

1. The Bible was written by mortal men, and is thus a reflection of their own personal beliefs and the mores of the times in which they lived.

2. Leviticus (the book most of you intolerant bigots quote), is an antiquated code of conduct, and most of its tenets were abandoned long ago. Is it also your belief that disobedient children are to be stoned to death? That mixing fabrics or eating shellfish is an "abomination"? That if you touch a woman who is on her menstrual period, you are thus impure and must journey to the temple to sacrifice a chicken? Most likely not. But oh, wait... if you view one part of Leviticus as an end-all moral rule to be interpreted as literal truth, should you not treat the rest of it as such? Otherwise, you would be nitpicking parts of the Bible to throw around at YOUR convenience, as justification for your blind intolerance. So much easier than striving to recognize and transcend your ignorance, huh? (I find it prudent to mention at this point that Leviticus was Moses' law, not God's law)

3. On a related note... it has been verified that the scribes originally hired by King James to translate the Bible from Hebrew either mistranslated key words or, upon discovering that some words had no direct English equivalent, substituted that word with whatever they wished. For example, the Hebrew word that was translated as "abomination" meant something that was simply distasteful - far from being a mortal sin. The notorious verse that condemns gay sex as an "abomination" is actually in reference to the common belief among men of the time that sleeping with male temple prostitutes was a way to get closer to God. Paul subsequently told them that this was not the case.

4. Another oft-cited Biblical damnation of homosexuality is the fable (yes, fable) of Sodom and Gomorrah. While it is mentioned that the men of the city wished to have sex with the angels sent to visit Lot (who then proceeds, in essence, to inquire: "Hey! Why bone a guy when I have two perfectly good virgin daughters you can pound instead?!" T_T Ahh, the hypocrisy and moral corruption of Old Testament times), is homosexuality ever specifically described as the sin for which God destroyed the cities? Many scholars believe that the folly in question was greed.

5. At this point, it would be best to refer you to an article that handles many more points of this argument with more skill than I could: http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653

P.S. The whole heated gay marriage debate is also rendered obsolete when we consider a founding principle of our country: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Marriage has evolved with the times to become a civil institution, despite any religious roots. Churches can refuse to marry gay couples, but trying to force their beliefs on the entire country is a contradiction to the fundamental conservative belief of minimal government involvement in the lives of the people. Hmm... smacks of HYPOCRISY!

My mood: pretty inventive

Buried Love
__________
I have come to bury Love
Beneath a tree,
In the forest tall and black
Where none can see.

I shall put no flowers at his head,
Nor stone at his feet,
For the mouth I loved so much
Was bittersweet.

I shall go no more to his grave,
For the woods are cold.
I shall gather as much of joy
As my hands can hold.

I shall stay all day in the sun
Where the wide winds blow, --
But oh, I shall cry at night
When none will know.

___________

Longing

___________
I am not sorry for my soul
That it must go unsatisfied,
For it can live a thousand times,
Eternity is deep and wide.

I am not sorry for my soul,
But oh, my body that must go
Back to a little drift of dust
Without the joy it longed to know.

_________

It Is Not A Word

_________
It is not a word spoken,
Few words are said;
Nor even a look of the eyes
Nor a bend of the head,

But only a hush of the heart
That has too much to keep,
Only memories waking
That sleep so light a sleep.

___________

My Heart Is Heavy

___________

My heart is heavy with many a song
Like ripe fruit bearing down the tree,
But I can never give you one --
My songs do not belong to me.

Yet in the evening, in the dusk
When moths go to and fro,
In the gray hour if the fruit has fallen,
Take it, no one will know.

_____________

Fault

_____________
They came to tell your faults to me,
They named them over one by one;
I laughed aloud when they were done,
I knew them all so well before, --
Oh, they were blind, too blind to see
Your faults had made me love you more.

_____________

The Cloud

_____________

I AM a cloud in the heaven's height, The stars are lit for my delight, Tireless and changeful, swift and free, I cast my shadow on hill and sea-- But why do the pines on the mountain's crest Call to me always, "Rest, rest?"   I throw my mantle over the moon And I blind the sun on his throne at noon, Nothing can tame me, nothing can bind, I am a child of the heartless wind-- But oh the pines on the mountain's crest Whispering always, "Rest, rest."

___________

Moods

___________


I  AM  the still rain falling,
Too tired for singing mirth --
Oh, be the green fields calling,
Oh, be for me the earth!

I am the brown bird pining
To leave the nest and fly --
Oh, be the fresh cloud shining,
Oh, be for me the sky!

She tilted her head skywards, contemplating the brooding blanket of gray clouds as snow crystals floated down, catching in her eyelashes, melting on her cheeks. "It's like standing at the bottom of an hourglass," she thought almost wistfully. And she couldn't help but feel like time was passing her by, leaving her in its wake - like a snowflake at the mercy of blizzard winds.

My love for you is vast as the star-strewn heavens.

He smirked. "In circumstances like these, it pays to listen to the wisdom of Oscar Wilde: "The best way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it." With mock reproach, she reached up to twine her fingers in his hair, pulling him down to her level and peering into his eyes, close enough that their breath condensed on their faces like steam. "But I don't want to be as morally bankrupt as Oscar Wilde," she whispered.

"Well, then..." he replied as he scooped her up, uncharacteristically brazen. "Perhaps you would subscribe more to Nabokov's brand of morality..."

_________________________________________

They lay still beneath the sweat-dampened sheets, limbs entwined in the aftermath, and he was content simply to stroke her hair as she lay her head on his chest. She smiled in the darkness. For this moment, at least, she had this illusive creature pinned down, within her reach. Who knew what the future held for these two, merely pawns in a grand scheme as impossible to fathom as the stars that dotted the heavens. Though she often felt as if they were two pieces of driftwood afloat in an unpredictable sea, now was perfect, serene - whole.

A sadness stirred within her at the thought of leaving him. Was this all he could ever be - a dalliance? A once-in-a-lifetime temptation that refused to be denied, and nothing more? Some part of her - the idealistic, longing side that ignored all rationality and stubbornly clung to its childish hopes - made her promise to herself that she would not let him go. Though life, its mundane drag and all its entanglements awaited her back home, she knew this couldn't be the end. She prayed his paralyzing fear of intimacy and the hurt it often brought wouldn't cause him to push her away.

Then, with a pang, she realized that she loved him, this broken yet heartbreakingly beautiful man. There lay a strength in his fragility that made her ache for him. She wanted nothing more than to lift him up, steal his pain. I'll carve out a special niche for you in my heart and guard you there like the treasure that you are, so no one can ever hurt you again.

Drawing close to him, she wished she could tell what he was thinking, and whether he echoed her sentiments. He was unreadable as stone at times, this enigma. Though she had cracked the veil of ice, he still kept something guarded, out of reach and thus safe from pain. She understood this and only loved him more - it became her desire, her conviction to prove that she would never hurt him.

But in the end, she opted to keep all of this to herself, choosing instead to take his hand and press a chaste kiss on the hollow of his neck, hoping that her actions could speak the words she could not. As far as she was concerned, they had all the time in the world.

xxxxxxxx

To my muse - the deepest of my heart. I would gladly bear the burden of the world for you

    A sigh of relief, barely audible, escaped her lips upon his exit of the room. A moment of lucidity was vital to preserve her sanity... out of the reach of his welcoming arms, knowing eyes aflame with lust... his smug half-smile, well aware of the effect he had on her - and relishing every moment. A puppet-master, delighting in the push and pull, the game... she had to catch her breath, regain her center, or perhaps her resolve would crack. No, not now... it was too soon to surrender, though all her senses stood on end and begged this of her.

    The sound of his footsteps at the doorway elicited a chill of longing, her heart aflutter like a trembling animal, and as soon as she turned to face him she was in his arms, all prior conviction gone, hushed by primal needs, urges. His kisses on her face, her neck, briefly and teasingly on her lips - he knew the torture he wrought  and she allowed him this, rendered helpless to do anything but feel. Desperate now to sate the rapture building in her core, she coaxed him backwards to the foot of his bed, pulling him on top of her as she sank into the softness.

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................

Cliffhanger! Bum-bum-bummmm >: ] Bwa ha ha HAA!!!!!

My mood: a bit mischievous

Reality - is it something that exists only for the individual, tailor made to that person's perception? Or is it, as a whole, a concrete, independent entity, with the various views of it all being separate delusions, detached from an absolute truth that exists despite peoples' thoughts of it? I think it's a mix of the two - some truths are objective, absolute, while personal nuances that color a specific person's reality, as well as individual values and beliefs, are subjective. I'd love to hear your views. When we add insanity and delusion to the mix, the definition of reality gets a bit confusing, and it kinda detracts from my argument (after all, maybe their perception is real, and all the sane people are really the ones mistaken =) Is there a whole autonomous reality for them? Or is their concept of what is real just... wrong?

Morality - Is any act ever purely black or purely white? Let's say, for instance, that a seeminly rational person commits a murder in cold blood - not in self-defense, not even for revenge (which in itself is not a completely justifiable motive). Does that act lie completely at the "evil" end of the scale? Perhaps this person only seems rational, and is in fact driven by a warped mind? How are we to know? (And how does sanity, or the lack thereof, affect the measure of good or evil?)

On the other side of the coin - is an act of kindness ever completely selfless? For example, I derive much pleasure from performing kind acts for my loved ones, and strangers as well. I do it simply for kindness' sake - but an indescribable feeling always follows, without fail, in seeing the effect that I was able to have on someone. I am not motivated by that feeling, though I expect it. I am kind simply for kindness' sake... altruistic just because it feels right. But does relishing this feeling make me, in some way, selfish? Feedback is appreciated! =)

    Well, not ALL (but the title had to be an attention-grabber, as my blog seems to be quite a popular debate forum)... if you're respectful of others' beliefs and don't sneer in contempt and perceived superiority upon people that believe in God from your pedestal of professed enlightenment, then you can stop reading right here. As the gangstas say: My beef ain't wit y'all =) And it isn't with your beliefs, either - to each their own, right?

    No - my problem is with some behavior I've observed on this site from self-professed members of your ranks that has really irritated me. Why in hell do you feel the need to bombard posts from members who obviously believe in the existence of a god with your snarky little comments, in essence belittling them and implying that they are somehow ignorant/blind for their ideals? In all actuality, you are only proving your own ignorance... not to mention arrogance and unwarranted grandiosity which probably stems from a deep-seated insecurity that gives you the need to treat others like shit to bolster your piss-poor self image. How pathetic T_T Listen, I know that many organized religions (most notably Christianity) are notorious for their bigotry, self-righteousness and intolerance - but is it not a bit unfair to display such brazen disrespect in the name of a tired generalization that comes nowhere close to applying to everyone who follows those religions, or believes in God?

    Well, since you're all so devoted to the rationality and cold-facts logic that you preach like sacrament, why don't we weigh the main opposing existence theories (intelligent design vs. primordial soup) in terms of probability? The beginnings of the primordial soup theory (and by that I mean organic molecules and single celled/simple organisms) seem plausible enough, I admit... but once we get to the complex instincts, processes, behaviors, organ systems, etc of more advanced organisms (especially humans), does it not seem a little outlandish that all these finely honed, specifically developed attributes came about by one-in-a-zillion chance? It could easily be put forth that it is a "leap" of logic and not of faith that these things were designed as opposed to randomly coming about.

    In closing, I end with a somewhat worn out, but nonetheless valid, argument. How many of you believe in love? To those that do - can you see it? Not in the strictest sense of the word. But you can FEEL it, and that feeling affirms its reality sufficiently enough to you, does it not? Well, let me letcha in on a little secret - people that profess a belief in a "higher power" do so because they feel the presence of said higher power in their hearts, in their souls. Whether you find this belief to be invalid, an illusion, bullshit, or whatever - please be mature and show some respect, please. I used to be like you (i.e. belligerent, in days more recent than I'd like to admit '__') and it doesn't pay to hurt or inflame people, inadvertently or not. Have a nice day =)

P.S. Though I've seen a lot of atheists bashing religious people on EP, I have yet to see the opposite. But I'm positive that it HAS happened! So the other side is just as much to blame - and the small minded imbeciles that perpetuate this unfair stereotype of intolerance and bigotry among those of any spiritual faith

It is suggested that anarchy is a way of eliminating the corruption found in government - this is likely akin to the comparison of government to a machine as opposed to an organization of people. Surely a few of the same power-players that would influence legislation and conduct affairs in a state of anarchy would have been government officials, were such a system present. Yes, a lot of the corruption would be removed from the whole business by taking away much of the greed and powerlust motive, but there would still be people out only to satisfy their own ends. If being an anarchist meant simply wishing things would work if "the people" handled their own affairs, then I, a serial idealist, would call myself one. But with so few people involved (in comparison to conventional government), as it would be on a grassroots level, any corruption's effect would be that much more direct. I choose the path of the realist (though some would call it cynicism) and thus recognize the flaws of human nature that would prevent anarchy from working.

My mood: somewhat tickled

Religion - Is it not better for us, as unique human beings, to follow our own spirituality - to find our own core, instead of trying to force our beliefs into the mold of one religion, like the proverbial square peg and round hole?

Anarchy -  There are just too many problems to make it a viable system, in my opinion

   If some kind of vigilante "people's court" were to be established to decide the fate of such criminals, then wouldn't it be suspect to prejudice and the fickleness of human whims? That's why we've established laws as a relatively fixed entity. There's a fine line between freedom and chaos, and for liberty to work, the extremes and excesses of human nature MUST be kept in check. There's no way around it. And there are also many intricacies in running a country that would best be handled by something as organized and yes, powerful as a government. The only good things I can say about anarchy are that it is nice IN THEORY, and that the symbol is awesome

Respect - I don't have any problems with you finding flaws in my beliefs, or countering them with your own. After all, my opinions surely aren't the "supreme truth", now are they? But do so respectfully, please - because when you mock me (cough, cough), laugh at me (COUGH, COUGH), or otherwise disrespect me (when I have done nothing disrespectful to YOU to justify such behavior... *cough*), you are acting like a flaming ass and/or b*tch and are asking to be put in your place. The End ^__^

My mood: a bit drained