Recently: Terrible headaches have eaten entire days. There was a nice recent social evening with Gustavo and Chrisamaphone and Wjl though - conversation and some hanging out that was as comfortable as I've been in a long time. Gaming at J/R's has also been good (albeit too infrequent).
Thinking about social circles and "resets" in my personal life: reason it might be good to be planted in a new environment: would force me to completely regenerate my social circle, which would force me to meet new people and possibly find romance. As of current, conflicting social needs and burden of friendships mean that I am only comfortable with a very slow rate of change in my circle of friends and acquaintences - all friendships are both a good thing and a burden, and I can't make a bunch of new friends without either having a number of friends that is a burden for me to maintain (with my rate of needing to recharge with unscheduled asocial time) or discarding old ones (which I don't like to do for many reasons, most of them obvious). This, of course, means that I don't tend to really get to know new people readily, and acquaintenceships which I would like to turn into friendships (or more) end up "filling slots" that stop me from meeting people that could become potential romantic partners or friends. Not all these slots are the same, and I am very picky with both friendships and romantic partnerships, so social inertia is difficult for me in a time when I really need more X but can't handle more Y, where X and Y have a very significant overlap. Moving would return me to full capacity of Y (at least initially), but would reset my posessed X, in all its dimensions, to zero too.
Thinking again about language we use in discussions on politics, philosophy, and values in general. I can't stop thinking about how much it irks me that people don't seperate the ideas of respect and opposition, and .. how I often fail in that regard anyhow, for reasons of catharsis. Calling ideas and belief systems one opposes "insane" or "nuts" serves a functional purpose - it helps unify one's group against it and is an exercise in catharsis (of that dislike), but I hold that we should consider use of words (and thinking) like this as being more of a fault than praiseworthy - I hold that it is more virtuous to be able to understand the ideas of other perspectives, to see their internal consistency and merit (at least, merit as evaluated largely independent of one's own direct value system - relying instead on metavalues where the direction of meta in this case points us towards values that organise our value system but in doing so assume a different character than what is in our value system, even if they are present in some form in both - "consistency" is a typical metavalue) and maintain dialogue that recognises that other perspectives make sense in themselves even if one finds them abhorrent, ugly, or similar. I fail in this sometimes too, although it's something I regard as something to struggle with. "Rationality" is an only slightly more polite (and much more obfuscating) way to spit upon other Weltanschauungen without a solid reason - it too often is redefined in popular philosophy, especially popular philosophy near universities (but hopefully distant from philosophy departments), to mean something like "those patterns of thought that are similar to mine" and nothing more. We can as easily find appeals to exclusionary "rationality" or "reason" from two sides of any issue, from belief in gods to ideas of justice.
The focus on the terms themselves is meant as transformative towards a more clear understanding of the issues involved - to be able to honestly say "I disagree with you beccause of differences in our value system, and while neither of us can say our values are better than the others in a philosophically honest way, we are going to continue to struggle with each other on some level to advance goals consistent with our values" would be wonderfully mature and honest. Given how many values people might have in life, it's important to see as well that they can coexist and have friendships or more with people who hold fairly different values, and at least give people proper respect when their metavalues (again referring to those in the direction of metavalues mentioned above) allow them to see things they like in other value systems that differ from theirs significantly.
We might further imagine a deeply nested set of layers of meta along these lines - I might say that I like value systems that strongly value consistency, kindness, integrity, unselfishness, even if their value conclusions are more divergent than their value sets/weights, and consider that another layer of meta-actual division... but this is a digression for another time.
I met a cute girl at Rocky that I'm kind of tempted to contact, although I'm not sure if I'm going to remain in Pgh, my existing crushes haven't really gone away, and I'm starting to emotionally slide downwards again. OKC suggests possibly interesting compatibilities though. Hmm.
Hopefully I can arrange gainful employment again soon.
Recently I've been thinking a lot about sleek and ethiopiean food. If headache permits, I'll at least have wonderfully fresh morning bagels at Brugger's this morning.