Dreamlike…

On the way back from the theater, I stopped at a convenient store to pay a small parking ticket I'd gotten that night. As I was leaving, a man with crutches, a club foot and a very thick left sole walked in to buy something. I left and noticed his keys were still in the ignition of his scooter. Who would steal a crippled man's scooter, with its cane-holder and widened floorboard? I drove farther up the same road and stopped to get a drink before I reached home. As I parked I saw a man sitting on a bench: his left foot was injured, wrapped in a bandage, and he had a pair of crutches resting by his side.

+ + +
Last night I was walking to get some steamed dumplings. It was after hours, so the sidewalk was dimply lit and nearly all the shops were closed. It was late. Virtually no one else was on the streets. I passed a clothing store and immediately noticed someone standing at my left. A pale figure. It was a mannequin. I paused and turned on my heel to behold her. She was naked and armless, her hips turned toward the street, her head back towards the store, towards me. I leaned in––we were half a mannequin's length apart––and gazed at her eyes: a dusky purple eye liner filled the eye lids. I walked on to eat my dumplings. On the way back, I stopped before her, much closer now, and gazed into her face. "I want to dream this mannequin tonight," I said, out loud, to any invisible mannequins that might have been there. I let her face fill my field of vision, and felt fear. She was unblinking, despite her feeble nudity and solitude. "I want to dream this mannequin tonight." I did not dream of her.

Gym regimen - September 2010

4 September, 2010
Ur-Workout: 60+ mins
90kg, BMI 25

0. Warmup: Stretching

1. Bench press: 12, 10, 8, 6 @ 60–75kg
[I held myself back from putting up too much weight. I'm really serious about giving my chest time to develop and catch up with the rest of my physique. I refuse to be in a rush. Interestingly, since I had to work my tris more the last couple weeks to let my strained left pec recover, I can really feel how much a role my tris and lats play in my bench. From what I have read, this is a very good thing, since most lifters place so much emphasis on a "celebrity chest" (with flyes, chest compressions, exercises with truncated range of motion and high pump, etc.) that they actually fail to develop the elements of a strong bench press. I definitely felt more confident and stronger on the bench. 6 reps at 75kg felt very good.]

2. Pullups: 13, 14, 15 @ bodyweight
[I used wrist straps on my last set.]

2a. Lever bench row: ø

3. Barbell military press: 12, 8, 6 @ 35-45kg
[These felt pretty good. I think I'll shoot for 35kg, 45kg, 50kg next time. I raised the front end of a bench up with some planks of wood, so as to keep my hips more tucked under me and curb that unpleasant bowing of my spine.]

4. Barbell curl: 10, 8, 6 @ 35–45kg
[Felt very good. Getting stronger! Patience, Humility, Confidence…]

5. Supine French press: 10, 8, 6 @ 30–40kg
[Very good form on these. Less intense weight than my previous workout, but I'd rather work my triceps up to real strength slowly with better form than yank my way through a few extra kilograms. I will swap them out for elbows-out tricep extensions next time.]

6. Leg extensions: 18, 15, 12 @ 40kg, 50kg, 55kg
[These just aren't as satisfying as the decline leg press, so I'll go back to that beloved exercise next time. In fact, maybe I should do both by dropping the weight on my leg extensions and moving them to my first exercise as a warmup.]

7. Leg curl: 16, 13, 10 @ 35-45kg
[Felt some strain in my right knee on my second set, so I might drop the weight a bit for these on my next workout.]

8. Standing calf raise: ø

9. Kneeling rope pulldown (20 + 10 obliques): 30, 30, 30 @ 35kg, 40kg, 40kg
[I used wrist straps on my last set, since these were just killing my forearms and thus making me lose good form.]

Cooldown: Ski machine and stretching

+++
I had a long nap this afternoon so, while I was a bit sluggish getting out the door and hadn't had lunch or much of a dinner before working out, I felt good tonight. There were very few people at the gym, which might have been due to the light rain, but is probably more due to the fact it was Saturday night. I make a special effort to workout the same time in the future, since not having to deal with other people makes everything smoother and faster.

Speaking of naps, I had a dream this afternoon. I rarely remember my dreams but lately I've been having dreams more frequently. Despite having seen it three times in the theater, I think part of the reason I can't sink my teeth into Inception, like so many other people seem to be doing, is because I can't get into its depiction of "the dream world." On the one hand, its portrayal of dream consciousness just seems fake to me, too smooth, not erratic or creepy or soothing enough––in a word, all too consciously designed. On the other hand, insofar as the characters are supposed to be professional dreamers––masters of lucid dreaming––, while Inception's depiction of that kind of dreaming may be spot-on, it's a kind of dreaming so far removed from my own experience as to seem boring and phony. I had a friend in high school who got very good at lucid dreaming; once, he told me, he flew to school one night to look for a lost textbook of his and found it in the same spot the next day. Props! As for me, I've only had a couple recurring dreams and my total dream catalogue would probably not amount to more than a few hours of "cutting room floor footage" glued together for people with lots of peyote in their bloodstreams.

DiCaprio was in Shutter Island, which came out six months or so before Inception and Shutter Island had the most stunning and believable depiction of dreams I have ever seen. Scorcese nailed what dreams are like: innocuous objects suddenly loom large, backgrounds shift without warning, disturbing symbolic motifs pop out of nowhere, and such events are nearly always taken in stride. I also recently got sucked into "the Primer universe." Primer is a 2004 independent film, by former software engineer and first-time director Shane Carruth, which not only has received high critical acclaim but is also a cult classic. Carruth made the film for US$7000 in five weeks (!) and only hired one professional actor for it, but it really is one of the best SF films ever made, and certainly a contender for the best "time travel" film in history. It is immensely complex, since by the end of the film, we are trying to navigate multiple non-linear timelines, so I ended up watching Primer three times in a row (whilst intermittently reading online "explanations" of it) one day last week. (Hey, it's only 77 minutes.) Primer deals with dreams only circumstantially––apparently, a certain kind of shared dreaming is an effect of the technology used by the characters––but it added to my recent interest in dreaming as such.

It also dawns on me now that there are some long-standing contributing factors to my perplexed, "bystander's" interest in dreams. For one thing, the opening chapter of my favorite book, Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man, is a dream sequence. Second, one of my all-time favorite films is The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which, while it focuses on memories, does show how dreams give body to our memories and memories give birth to our dreams. Third, another of my top-favorite films is Blade Runner, which is the film adaptation of Philip K. Dick's novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? And then there's my recent return to Twin Peaks, a TV show that simultaneously intrigued and baffled me as a kid. I believe dreams are very important to David Lynch, since his work is so heavily driven by dreams (for better or worse!). Indeed, Special Agent Cooper's famous dream in "the Red Room" is the (ahem) linchpin to the progress of the series, as he claims he knows who the killer is based on some revelations in the dream which need only be deciphered to crack the case. I suppose it also says something that I've got a "Dreams" category in my blog, which surprised me when I re-realized that fact while writing this post, even though there are only two (now three) posts in that category. I generally find sleep boring since it's unproductive and, more important, I have such a scrawny dreamscape. Yet, dreams seem interesting enough to me that I've made a category for them. Frankly, I wish I enjoyed sleep more, which I think I would if I dreamt more. So….

So I have once again taken up the gauntlet and have begun a dream journal. I've once more taken up trying to read Harary and Weintraub's Lucid Dreams in 30 Days. (Incidentally, this video is a subtly hilarious saga of one man's journey to achieve lucid dreaming in 30 days with the same book!) Keeping a dream journal is one of the core steps in developing higher dream consciousness, since, allegedly, it says to your brain that you are serious about accessing your dreams. Another step is to develop the waking habit of frequently asking (and checking, by various means), "Am I awake right now?" so that, while dreaming, you may reflexively ask the same question and thereby trigger semi-lucid awareness in the dream. Another technique is to write an "A" (for "Awake") on your hand or arm, etc., so that, in the dream, you may recall seeing the "A" and thus wake yourself in the dream. Another technique is to note "dreamlike incidents" during the day, so that you will be more keen at saying to yourself, "This feels like a dream," which may allow you to say the same thing in a dream.

I won't record my recent dreams here, but I do want to record a few dreamlike experiences I've recently had.

1) A few weeks ago at Mass, I was sitting in a pew towards the back of the church. I glanced ahead and seated about twelve pews ahead of me, to my left, was an older woman holding a very large stuffed bear. I couldn't believe my eyes. I visibly squirmed in my seat and stared at her for several moments just to confirm what I was seeing. It was truly unheimlich. (A funny coincidence is that in Lynch's Twin Peaks, there is "the Log Lady," who is also an older woman––remarkably similar in appearance to the woman I saw at Mass––who carries a log with her wherever she goes. I saw "the Bear Lady" weeks before recalling "the Log Lady" by watching clips of Twin Peaks.) It was one of the few times when I could genuinely say, "I feel like I'm in a David Lynch movie." I said that to myself in the Mass, weeks before coming back to Twin Peaks. I saw her again a couple weeks later––with the bear in the crook of her elbow––, so it was not a figment of my imagination. Just that much more unheimlich.

2) A couple nights ago I was sitting talking with someone and there was a pause in the conversation. Suddenly a soft but insistent moaning sound filled the room. It was the tea kettle, in the kitchen, apparently designed to howl gently rather than whistle like conventional teapots. As soon as the sound began, I felt my ears arch back, like a cat's, and my spine stiffened. Again, extremely unheimlich and dreamlike; and again I said to myself, "Am I in a David Lynch movie?"

3) Just this afternoon I was reaching for something on the counter when I accidentally knocked an object into the sink. It gently struck a metal thermos and at the exact same instant my cell phone beeped to alert me to a text message. Certainly it was a trivial and perfectly explicable coincidence, but what made me pause––spine stiffened––was the exact timing and how the tones were in perfect harmony.

4) A few days ago I was catching up with a friend in Gmail chat. She told me she'd had a very vivid dream about me and some things in my life. What she told me was very apt. Hearing about her dream didn't seem dreamlike but, obviously, it stoked the flames of my interest. This friend is a very devout Christian and she wanted to encourage me that her dream could very well be a message of encouragement and confirmation from God. I admit it had that effect to some degree.

The Bible lays a lot of stress on the importance of dreams and in college a friend asked me, "What do you think is the biblical teaching on dreams?" (Apparently, she had a very active dream life and was wondering how to interpret various dreams: from God or just neurological backwash?) I pondered for a moment, trying to devise one of those dense aphorisms I strive for. I said, "Biblically, dreams are either indications of what's going within you or signs of what God is doing around you." That doesn't settle the question of "immanence"––viz., whether a dream is just my subconscious or an actual spiritual disclosure from God––but my point is that that may be a false dichotomy. Biblically, a Christian's entire 'external' life is but a mode of his 'inner' life with God and, more fundamentally, his existence as interiorized in the life of Christ Himself. Hence, if there is anything to the abiding, spiritual, and sacramental bond created between the believer and Christ, what my subconscious is showing me directly bears on what God is showing me, and vice versa.

Here's to praying my aversion to sleep and my scrawny dream life is not a sign of blocking out God or some truths about myself.

Reading the Summa contra gentiles...

SANCTI THOMAE AQUINATIS: THAT GOD IS HIS ESSENCE

[1] From what has been laid down we can infer that God is His essence, quiddity, or nature [haberi potest quod Deus est sua essentia, quidditas seu natura].

[2] There must be some composition in every being that is not its essence or quiddity [In omni enim eo quod non est sua essentia sive quidditas, oportet aliquam esse compositionem]. Since, indeed, each thing possesses its own essence, if there were nothing in a thing outside its essence all that the thing is would be its essence; which would mean that the thing is its essence. But, if some thing were not its essence, there should be something in it outside its essence. Thus, there must be composition in it. Hence it is that the essence in composite things is signified as a part, for example, humanity in man. Now, it has been shown that there is no composition in God. God is, therefore, His essence [Si igitur aliquid non esset sua essentia, oportet aliquid in eo esse praeter eius essentiam. Et sic oportet in eo esse compositionem. Unde etiam essentia in compositis significatur per modum partis, ut humanitas in homine. Ostensum est autem in Deo nullam esse compositionem. Deus igitur est sua essentia].

St Thomas had shown in chapter 18 that there is no composition in God. His chief lines of argument for this conclusion are that 1) while any composite being is divisible by act and potency, in God there is no potency; 2) every composite being is potentially dissoluble––i.e. it can not-be––but God, the necessary being, cannot not-be; 3) composite beings require an efficient cause for their unity, but God is the first cause of all things, not subject to efficient causation by anything else; and 4) God's primacy of being makes him noblest in simplicity and unity, unlike all composite beings.

As for point 1), Thomas had shown in chapter 16 that there is no passive potency in God. His reasons for this conclusion are that, because God is eternal, as he had shown in chapter 15, He is ipso facto devoid of potency. Thomas had demonstrated God's eternity by deriving it from God's immutability as First Mover, a position he had defended at length in chapter 13 by way of the argument from motion.

I point these links out not only to remind myself and the reader of "how we got here," but also as a reminder that it's very difficult, and very risky, to take anything St Thomas says in isolation, out of context. With every chapter, the edifice gets more and more elaborate, yet it all remains 'simple' in a mind like that of St Thomas, since he always has before him his first principles. It's no shame to have to go back and read those previous chapters just to grasp the logic of Thomas' logic in, e.g., this chapter. Indeed, it may be the only proper way to really understand the Summa contra gentiles. The SCG is like a complex movie with what they call "high repeat-viewing value."

[3] Moreover, only that which does not enter the definition of a thing seems to be outside its essence or quiddity; for the definition signifies what a thing is. But it is only the accidents of a thing that do not fall in the definition; and therefore only the accidents in any thing are outside its essence. But, as will be shown [in chapter 23], in God there are no accidents [Solum illud videtur esse praeter essentiam vel quidditatem rei quod non intrat definitionem ipsius: definitio enim significat quid est res. Sola autem accidentia rei sunt quae in definitione non cadunt. Sola igitur accidentia sunt in re aliqua praeter essentiam eius. In Deo autem non sunt aliqua accidentia, ut ostendetur]. There is, therefore, nothing in God outside His essence; and hence He is His essence.

[4] Furthermore, forms that are not predicated of subsisting things, whether these be considered universally or each is taken singly, are forms that do not subsist through themselves as singulars individuated in themselves. We do not say that Socrates, or man, or animal is whiteness, because whiteness does not subsist as a singular through itself but is individuated through its subsisting subjects. In the same way, also, natural forms do not subsist as singulars through themselves but are individuated in their proper matters [quia albedo non est per se singulariter subsistens, sed individuatur per subiectum subsistens. Similiter etiam formae naturales non subsistunt per se singulariter, sed individuantur in propriis materiis]. … The very essences or quiddities of genera and species are individuated through the designated matter of this or that individual, even though the quiddity of the genus or the species should include common form and matter. That is why we do not say that Socrates or man is humanity. But the divine essence exists through itself as a singular existent and individuated through itself; for, as we have shown, it is not in any matter [Ipsae etiam essentiae vel quidditates generum vel specierum individuantur per materiam signatam huius vel illius individui, licet etiam quidditas generis vel speciei formam includat et materiam in communi: unde non dicitur quod Socrates, vel homo, sit humanitas. Sed divina essentia est per se singulariter existens et in seipsa individuata: cum non sit in aliqua materia, ut ostensum est]. The divine essence is predicated of God, therefore, so that we may say: God is His essence.

Thomas had shown in chapter 17 that God is not in any matter, the chief reason being that he had shown, in chapter 16, that there is no potency in God, whereas all material things are in potency to form.

[5] Again, the essence of a thing is either the thing itself or is related to the thing in some way as its cause [Essentia rei vel est res ipsa vel se habet ad ipsam aliquo modo ut causa]; for a thing derives its species through its essence. But nothing can in any way be the cause of God, since, as we have shown, He is the first being. God is, therefore, His essence.

[6] Then, too, what is not its essence is related to its essence, according to some part of itself, as potency to act [Quod non est sua essentia, se habet secundum aliquid sui ad ipsam ut potentia ad actum]. That is why the essence is signified in the manner of a form, for example, humanity. But, as was shown above, there is no potentiality in God. He must, therefore, be His essence [Sed in Deo nulla est potentialitas, ut supra ostensum est. Oportet igitur quod ipse sit sua essentia].

I think Thomas here means that any being not identical with its essence will possess its essence only potentially. For example, while Socrates is essentially human, humanness is not essentially Socratic. Socrates is not identical with the essence of humanity (humanitas) and Socrates only has humanitas by dint of his essential form, humanitas, being individuated in Socrates' proper matter. God, by contrast, is identical with His essence, since there is no form of divinitas 'outside of' or 'apart from' its singular actuality in God. Socrates is an individual member of a specific form ("rational animal"), and, moreover, of a genus ("animal"). By contrast, God is not an individual member of a larger species or genus of any kind (as Thomas will argue in chapter 25). As Thomas had said in part [4] above, "the divine essence exists through itself as a singular existent and individuated through itself".

-- SCG, I, xxi

Readings from...

JOHN HENRY NEWMAN: Bartholomew, the apostle
When people begin to feel they have a soul, and a work to do, and a reward to be gained, greater or less, according as they improve the talents committed to them, then they are naturally tempted to be anxious from their very wish to be saved, and they say: "What must I do to please God?" And sometimes they are led to think they ought to be useful on a large scale, and go out of their line of life that they may be doing something worth doing, as they consider it.

Here we have the history of Saint Bartholomew and the other apostles to recall us to ourselves, and to assure us that we need not give up our usual manner of life, in order to serve God; that the most humble and quietest station is acceptable to him, if improved duly — nay affords means for maturing the highest Christian character, even that of an apostle. Bartholomew read the scriptures and prayed to God; and thus was trained at length to give up his life for Christ, when he demanded it.
-- Plain and Parochial Sermons II, 336-337.

ST. AUGUSTINE: Vocations in a Monastery
Although good order reigns in my household, I am human and I live among humans. I would not dare to say that my home is better than the community of the Lord Christ, in which eleven faithful souls put up with the faithless thief Judas. Yet with great difficulty have I met persons better than those who have made progress in the monastery.
-- Letter 78, 8-9

Prayer. Thanks be to Him Who is desired before he is seen, whose presence is felt, and who is hoped for in the future.
-- Sermon 24, 1

ST. FRANCIS DE SALES:
Remember to keep in mind that all the past is nothing and that every day we should say with David, "Now I begin to love my God." To work, to exhaust oneself for God, is love. Therefore, apply everything to this love - eating, drinking, repose. Be very devoted to Saint Louis and admire his great constancy in loving.
-- Letters 334; O. XII, pp. 367-368.

G. K. CHESTERTON:
THERE are only three things in the world that women do not understand; and they are Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.
-- 'What's Wrong with the World.' Chap. 13

8/25

Gym regimen - September 2010

[New month, same me!]

1 September, 2010
Ur-Workout: 50+ mins
90kg, BMI 25

0. Warmup: Stretching

1. Bench press: 12, 10, 8 @ 50-70kg

1a. Elbows-out dumbbell tricep extension (total weight): ø

2. Pullups: 13, 14, 15 @ bodyweight

2a. Lever bench row: ø

3. Dumbbell military press (per hand): 10, 8, 6 @ 18–22kg
[Felt weak on these. Meh. Another day.]

4. Barbell curl: 10, 8, 6 @ 35–42.5kg
[Much better form. Getting stronger.]

5. Supine French press: 10, 8, 6 @ 35–42kg

6. Leg extensions: 18, 15, 12 @ 35-55kg

7. Leg curl: 18, 15, 12 @ 35-40kg

8. Standing calf raise: ø

9. Kneeling rope pulldown (20 + 10 obliques): 30, 30, 30 @ 35kg

10. Wrist curl: ø

Cooldown: ø

+++
I'm glad I felt much stronger on the bench. But I stuck to playing it safe. As I will next time. Since I'll be leading a Bible study this Friday afternoon, I'll move my Friday workout to Saturday. I've been eating lots of fish and sleeping pretty well (but not early enough!), which perhaps accounts for my slight weight gain. Or maybe that was just my lunch in the belly!

Gym regimen – August 2010

31 August 2010
30 mins

Barbell shrugs (per hand): 40, 45, 50 @ 18kg
[With feet less than shoulder width, barbell held slightly pronated, and waist bent forward about 20 degrees, shrug high for x reps.]

Variable leg raises: 40, 50, 60
[Lie supine, grip barbells or stable object over head (or press palms on floor) to keep torso secure, then raise legs as follows: together down and up for x reps; split open at top to drop and rise again for x reps; split open at bottom to rise and join at top for x reps; raise and lower alternating legs. Exhale on descent.]

Dumbbell grippers (seconds per hand): 40, 30, 20, 10 @ 20lb x 3 sets
[Stand a dumbbell upright and grip the upper hand for x seconds. Alternate hands.]

Standing oblique flex: 20, 25, 30 @ 18kg
[Hold a weight in one hand and then lean hard to the opposite side for x reps. Alternate hands for x sets.]