because i CAN (compute absolute noes)

i always took control of my own medication-process. even to the extent of telling doctors what they need to prescribe, rather than leaving it to whatever pills are being pushed by pharmaceutical companies that week. have seen too many friends in horrible states where they kept adding more and more pills until — am quite serious, i knew this one couple that were medicated so badly, were prescribed over 50 pills a day each.

being open or honest about medication is dependent on the social situation, i think. like in the past, i would never share a single thing with employers or fellow employees on the job. you want new people to get to know you, rather than having to deal with pre-formulated ideas. in fact, part of my continuing to work over the years, was so i could be around people who saw me as “just another worker” and so i could compare THOSE reactions to the people in my personal life who believed me to be a mental illness.

so i was able to quantify and discover the reality that those who knew about “my medications” were in fact treating me as sub-human and of less import. what you have to say means nothing, because you are considered a person with a broken mind. so i found out by working jobs with no one the wiser — that it wasn’t what i said or my ideas that were at all outrageous — it was the fact that those closest to me were coloring everything with a basic misunderstanding of mental illness itself.

i don’t know what the future holds, when all psychiatry works on is creating more classifications to add to their book. it is not a business of solving any problems, but one of finding more problems to stamp unsolvable and thereby growing an industry rather than growing a basic human understanding of what it means to be yourself.

WP_20140401_14_18_15_Pro

collaboration of social understandings creates false validations

have come to an interesting ‘revelation’ about relationships and understanding other people. an optimal ‘mode’ is for someone to talk to you and then get to know you.

but within social ties, it often doesn’t happen that way. instead of talking to YOU, a person will talk to someone who also knows you. IF they come to some sort of consensus on who you are or what you are about, they then consider that ample understanding — rather than talking to YOU.

i have been messed up by this “bug” in our social system more than i can say. because then when or even if you get one-on-one time, understanding has to center around ‘unlearning’ what has already been falsely established, and often that’s impossible.

now within online interactions, even though there are limitations within communication via words only (and body language is considered 80% of all communication) — yet that remaining 20% proves to be more able to establish understandings because they are minus the misunderstandings generated when others talk to each other ABOUT you, rather than talking TO YOU in order to understand YOU.

how often in male/female relationships, do problems arise because instead of talking things over with a husband or wife, things are talked over with friends or others who know both of you? and this creates a mis-validation of traits solidified regarding a spouse, and they then take the place of actually getting to KNOW your significant other.

categorizations within “mental illness” act exactly the same way. behavior patterns or a reactive status are seen as ‘typical’ of this and that illness, and then take the place of actually getting to know someone. and the thing about “looking” for a trait or reaction, rather than simply noting ALL actions or reactions …… is a type of selective observation. it is the same “social bug” or error that occurs quite often in scientific experiments, when the scientists should know-better. they go into an observation or experiment already ‘hoping’ to come up with this or that conclusion — and therefore ANY events that refute those conclusions are more likely to be ignored.

now, the thing on getting to ‘know’ someone online is that unless there is mutual interaction — it becomes a one-way understanding. in that, those who read my blog or writing here, but do not interact …. create an understanding which you then run up against in “real life” when you go to talk to them after not interacting for months or years. mostly in those situations i am puzzled or left disoriented — because certain responses might be anticipated from me, but i am not in ‘writing mode’ — i am in conversation mode. and that means you start where you left off in whatever state previously within ‘getting to know someone.’

unfortunately i have had to deal with so many misunderstandings of me and/or my character that my entire body of writing is often saying only one thing:

you don’t know me.

but that is to those in my ‘real life’ relationships ….. for those known online and only through the internet and more one-on-one interactions minus the gossip, no reversal to an understanding is needed.

why are some more gossiped-about than others? i think the answer to that is that those persons do not fit many pre-conceived molds or understandings. and that for whatever reason, others either do not want to know who they really are, or there is basically a laziness in wanting to understand more complicated individuals.

also, within the general social idiosyncrasy that relegates others as “less” in order to bolst misconceptions of oneself as being “more” …there becomes a propensity to relegate those who are difficult to understand (or who do not fit in general social roles within actions/reactions) into a category of “less” rather than formulating an actual and personal understanding of that individual.  how many true understandings do you have?   a true understanding of another can only happen when that other is seen as an equal human being. equal feelings, equal rights, equal ability to feel pain when those who are loved and closest know you the least.  the best way to get to know a person is by talking to them, not about them.

we touch others by listening to who they are and finding mutual interest outside of the mutual ‘views’ of others.  every family has its ‘black sheep’   …………but doesn’t have to.  if simply replaced with truly trying to understand each other, bonding factors can occur that are not only stronger – but more flexible over time.  people change, and part of that change is not necessarily a revelation into what others expect, but rather a demonstration of what that individual expects of themselves.

older desktop startup problems

working on the poor old emachine has been like a comedy of errors.

the problems started at the junction of a few factors. changing the CMOS battery, adding sata hard drive, installation and uninstallation of Windows XP service pack 3, but mostly it became unstable after service pack 3.

at that same time i had tried an NVidia graphics card friend gave me. but quickly switched it back to the ATI it had in it the whole time it was a stable system. it remained unplugged and in outdoor storage for a long time. and then there is the ‘jostling’ factor of being moved around. but am thinking that maostly happened AFTER it became unstable and i stopped using it.

so far, am looking at a possible problem in the IDE controller/drivers. that along with possible IRQ conflicts, where practically every hardware element is attached to IRQ 11.

many seem to get around instability problems on emachines by installing a new power supply. but i’m thinking that just forces the machine to reset the other drivers/firmware. or extra power somehow kicks things into working at least for awhile. not a long-term solution.

if i run the Bios under RAID — it starts up fine booting into a Linux thumb drive. that is with the main hard drive disconnected. have tried re-adding the SATA drive to the machine, having it only on SATA and saw some improvement in the boot. not a lot — but enough to give me some hope. but it still will only run it under the IDE controllers. Linux errors come back with a hardware error. which i have read that it is usually the memory, or the motherboard just plain crapping out. the memory passes all the Linux memory tests.

so these are the possible problems:

  • IDE controller corrupted
  • ACPI controller corrupted
  • APIC controller corrupted
  • blown/faulty capacitor in power supply
  • blown/faulty capacitor on motherboard
  • Bios corrupted
  • Memory hardware failure
  • Video controller corrupted
  • CPU failure – thermal paste is a little dry
  • Sound card failure

already downloaded every driver available from the maker website, including a Bios update that is not really an update since the date on it is less than a year from original Bios — from 2005. but have run every package on it, some a few times. flashed the Bios and all that … but very hard to tell if any of it actually went through and re-installed the original firmware.

i could spend $129 for various parts, including a new CPU …. but that doesn’t guarantee anything because corrupted motherboard firmware might still be in place and create the exact same problems. i suppose i could order the parts, and return them to Amazon if they don’t do the trick. but i don’t think that’s a very honest thing to do.

my next step is i will try to run the system on RAID — the problem i have with that is that does not even recognize the SATA or IDE HDD under RAID. i’m not even sure how or why it would recognize a USB drive under RAID but not a SATA.

so i’m really leaning toward the problems with this machine being related to the hard drive firmware. so IF i can get RAID to work on it somehow and recognize the main hard drive, then i could install an OS under RAID and see if simply not using the IDE controller fixes everything.

it is very confusing when trying to research problems with computer start up, or cold boot problems. the machine runs fine once it has been on for awhile. it’s just that initial stage of coming alive that seems to be unstable and difficult. to the effect that errors that should NOT create a reboot, do create a reboot.

and the sad thing i guess is that it reminds me of how i myself have gotten old, and harder to get going in the mornings now. it is really weird but i feel like if i give up on this computer, i’m conceding to old age just being the problem. and i’ll tell you, that emachine might be a dinosaur but in her prime she was a fine piece of machinery.
too bad can’t say that about myself…. :)

it was a good race

what can go wrong will go wrong
this week it’s more like
what will go wrong makes no sense as it goes wrong

everything
always
takes
your
measure

i see good and bad
but mostly
those
acting out
have to be smarter
than me

it is a terrible realization that you might not be smart enough
a sort of shaking in your boots feeling
the possibility of being played
like a cheap guitar on a sunday afternoon

no
body

sees the circles
the run around of
their own pitiful smoke

why the best defense can be humility
i find it only works when you are done with anger

feisty
i would rather be feisty
not forced to present an empty shell
bluffing is only bluffing
do they have bluffing in chess?
oh to bluff is to sacrifice
everything hinging

on one callous move
how do you get what you want
when what you want
is to not have to care
there is knowing and there is never concerned

all
are
measured

so you play it low
and shoot high only
at the end of the day

of course that may be a bluff
….. but i’ve never hurt from facing demons
most die a natural death
because better will always be better

did i tell you who i was?
my mom named me eileen
but i was the kid
who understood it all
without a test

yearned for center stage
showing that guaranteed
a place in the shadows
don’t ask me what i have decided

it only feels like sorrow
it only feels like i have refiled
every single note

what do i believe?
i believe that every test is built to find
and capitalize on a weakness
i believe man isn’t evil
but men are

i believe that we should smell more
the stink of the automobile
and that only pride will reverse
the course

i was smarter than them all
that means you never lie
on the mean

where are the mental illnesses

where are the mental illnesses
for those whose first response is rudeness?
the mental disease that causes someone to
always be in a hurry?
the chemical imbalance that creates a person
who has to live in clicks and feel superior and
then work to keep just the right percentage of
people as less and inferior to themselves?

where are those mental illnesses?
where is the mental illness for the man who yells at a grocery clerk
or the woman who keeps her nose in the air
while children play and live in cardboard boxes
soaked in water from the gutters
where runoff is just another name for sorrow…

why don’t we decide people who run red lights are mentally ill?
obviously have an incorrect view
delusions that getting somewhere is more important
than getting there ALIVE!

other side of THAT coin is you have the mental
illness of playing short odds — needing to be
special — believing you will be the exception
how many want to stand out
as not like anyone else
while severally conforming
and creating laws TO conform

what kind of mental illness shall
we call those disasters of logic?

long ago in my piddly life
anger created its own classifications
even if they’re not named, heck–they’re there
we have those who base every transaction
on illusion
who believe control is some kind of free pass
and that the more they control others
the more correct they are in everything
decisions, politics,
life itself and where to vacation on Tuesday

decisions decisions
there are huge decisions made
to benefit only the very few
sitting at the top but they made that up too
so even beyond responsibilities
we have the concept of kickbacks

you wash my back
i’ll scratch yours

what kind of mental illness shall we call
that?
a politicians’ folly?
seasoned opportunistical
silver spooned reactionist
above the law below the belt
preposterous complicationists
the wanna be’s
the drooling competitionists

see all these mental illnesses cherished and sheltered
are not considered mental illness at all
no imbalance to creating imbalance
those who worship
money and wealth
…. oh they have their eyes on every prize!

and considered completely sane
the epitome of normal

of course ‘normal’ in my book means you’re crazy as crazy gets

you see the Norms are a French crossed with Vikings …… think on that the next time a psychiatrist tells you we should all be just like them

my favorite condemnation
was that i was always “inappropriate!”

makes you want to ask, “to WHO?
to YOU? GOOD — that’s what i was aiming for”

see it’s sad that the best people on our planet
are demonized through mental illness
just because you don’t know why something is happening
doesn’t mean there isn’t a reason

but they’re not going to find it if they don’t look
you’re not going to understand
if you think wrong is something real

see even the Lion
even the Lion only had a thorn in his paw
a thorn that made things a little sharper

and only the tiniest mouse was able to see…

2013-04-15_15-29-48_67