(Note made later: Haha sorry for my unintroduced tone.) I guess I am starting the science writing page, by starting the blog page here. For a while I had been hesitating, reluctant, from confronting the strong stigma (both positive and negative, which surrounds many of the important issues. Hesitating, because one should not want to be self-indulgent with one's own views. But I was also, as I often have been, tired of waiting. Even more than these things, there was the learned positive feedback from my biochemical/neural/endocrine metabolism, when I do things with the feeling of choice (internal locus of control) the way I think and feel I want to.
And, besides, what sense would there be to keep on waiting. . . and hesitating. . . -- first hesitate to wait -- thereafter wait, only to hesitate -- asking oneself one of many age-old questions: inaction vs. action, and cognitively blocked from doing anything else, thereby.
[[[ <--- Observing the writer, a few moments later, when viewed from a different vantage point of view (); we might say, were he the narrator: various things about his initial mood that gave him (i.e. clearly self-administered) access to the oratorical/rhetorical/poetic/scientific license (((of e.g. treating himself as the observer, as if he were exempt from being part of the system))). It's not only that this false assumption was not scientifically justifiable -- but that such an assumption nevertheless allowed him to use the thought experiment, to make such a bold move .
(Especially if he were self-righteous in this, which is to say, so rude -- as rude as we have ever seen him be, which is to say - insultingly rude) <--- And once having learned, there would be no excuse at all, for this kind of attitude. ]]]]
All of this might have been latent in my psyche for some time, gradually working things out. There were some difficult days, as well as some moments of great relief. It would be hard to pinpoint the difference between the distinct sets of conditions (conditions profile A vs B), which engender(ed) these two types of experience. . .
Anyway, there it was and I was mulling things over, in the early spring with windows open, to clear the indoor air (sometimes I spend a lot of time indoors, so therefore. . .) - which is a recent habit I have gotten into - not to have them open all the time, but at least once a day or so, open em up (after turning the heat down/off temporarily). This will give your atmosphere that you are breathing a fresher, cleaner, and more healthful air quality profile. I had been thinking of this and finally googled "should you air out your house everyday?" and found this great article by Starre Vartan (2012; McClatchy/Tribune newspapers):
When all of a sudden I understood something, which admittedly should have been obvious long ago: that the platform of theblog could be used to post about not only my own writing --- [. . .which I have been working on, and of course trying to improve various characteristics of, but in which nevertheless there are telltale signs of my literary debts, as well as my own peculiar personal affectations, so. . .] --- but the writing of others :O .() Perhaps many others. There could be excerpts from and references to other works, so that others' ideas might be posted to the blog--thus it would not only be content from a single person's perspective.
One thing I liked about the article linked above, is that although I realized, in my lifestyle, I easily might spend ~90% of my time indoors, at least for periods of time - I did not really know that many others also spend so much time inside (especially in the winter, with the windows closed, generally to conserve the heat- because it's expensive;), which is one of the findings of an area of research about %indoor air quality% that Vartan's article explains.
I liked that the article very directly and convincingly recommended that all buildings in which people are living and/or working (and/or exercising) should clear the air daily.
Apparently this does not take long, and will occur efficiently, especially if you allow a crossbreeze, or an upward current (in a multi-story building) to flow through, by opening a combination of windows.
I have been trying out this timed open-windows-air-exchange recently, and can attest it can be quite refreshing. However if you sit down too long in a cool place (without adequate warm clothing :), your body might get cold (e.g. especially your hands, if you're typing at a computer ;).
To counter-act this, I would recommend the house-air-exchange time with a little light aerobic exercise to keep yourself warmed up during the time when your house is a slightly cooler temperature. Haha maybe you feel solitude helps you to do this, or a group it's all good. Wherever/however you live, I hope you can find some space somewhere to practice some light aerobic exercise :)
Vartan's article was published by a Chicago newspaper, so they know it is cold there in the winter. Which is related to another thing I thought was good about the article, which was that it very plainly and encouragingly explains, how easy it is to air out your home or workplace, at least once a day or on most days.
Right, here endeth my discussion of clearing your indoor air.
Right, as I was saying:
Written excerpts from their work, and maybe even audio recordings of me reading excerpts from the works, could be included on the blog. (I hope this would be all right with the owners/administrators of the copyright, and would remove the content from the site in any instance where infringement were deemed to have occurred. ). This would done be done under something called something like "the fair-use measures related to copyright law" -- which as I understand (/hope is the case) state that when you're sharing excerpts of copyrighted works, there is some allowance for this practice if the use is principally educational--and crucially, not for the profit of the person sharing segments of the copyrighted work (and perhaps even multi-minute-length readings) from works whose commercial rights remain respected and safeguarded under copyright law.
Haha may have lost your interest with that legal aside, but wanted to get it out of the way at the start, thank you for your patience.
Anyway, I suppose all this may not have seemed significant to you - haha but to me, at that time?! So that this seemed liked it was (that is, it had the appearance of having been, up until that time) high stakes.
So that this now too seems to be, or at least seems to have been, in the general direction of---, pointing towards really---, taking for granted that--- there is such an orientation of course---, (, from a consciousness standpoint,)---, some sort of (albeit specific to a given domain; albeit limited in scope to one's individual striving[, from an individual standpoint] existential [not final, not all-encompassing] solution, to some particular sort of existential complex/crisis -- the therapy process being once now as it always was ~ remains the same.