Coping with depression after divorce….

Of you’re going through or recovering from a divorce, the fact is you’re going to deal with depression at some point. Even if you’re getting out of a rather miserable, abusive marriage (as I did), you’ll still mourn the good times. Your brain has a nasty tendency of, after getting out of a bad relationship, to suddenly only remember the good times. But, however your marriage was, depression after a divorce can be crippling (speaking from personal experience).

I developed some steps, though, of coping with your depression. These have worked really well for me, at least:
1.) Stand up, and take two big steps. A near constant of any severe depression is that your butt develops a powerful magnetic attraction to a certain recliner, couch, bed, etc. As much as you’ll want to stay there, and think it’ll help, it just helps to keep you depressed. So, standing up and taking two big steps (to get out of range of its magnetic pull) is the first key step. This simple step has helped me tremendously.
2.) Get dressed. Staying in your pj’s all day seems to have a psychological effect of making you be more relaxed and lethargic. Getting dressed makes your brain realize your day is starting and you have stuff to do.
3.) Set smaller goals. Before all this, I was a whirling dervish of productivity. I was addicted to it, and tried to get as much done in a day as possible, and then, the next day, try to get even more done than that. But, when depression sets in, there’s a wall there. You know what I’m talking about. No matter how hard you try, you just CAN’T get the same amount done. So, set smaller goals, and reward yourself for those. Start with just one thing. Like, today you’ll take out the trash, or respond to that one email you’ve been putting off, etc. Then try two goals after you get that down, then three, until you find your limit, and stick with that while you go through your depressive stage. Then, reward yourself somehow for doing that.
4.) Stay active. Even if it’s just walking around the house, or staying on your feet, you have to get over that inertial energy hump.
5.) Find something SIMPLE you can do around the house or work to emotionally revive/refresh you. If the only thing that does that is something that takes a huge amount of time, effort, and money, like bungee jumping, mountain biking, or hitting the clubs all night long, find something else. You may not be able to get yourself to do those things anyway on account of the depression.

All in all, those help you get started. There are other things to do like get counseling, Prozac or something similar, etc, but those are beyond the scope of what I’m writing about.

Looking for SWF, must love sci-fi…..

So I’ve been spending a lot of time trying to think up a general identity or theme to my blog. Thus far it’s been philosophical in nature, but that won’t lend itself to the frequency of posting I would like for it to have, so I need something more. It is called “Letters from Aspergia” for a reason, namely that, as someone with Aspergers, it’s my communique to society about my observations of its own nature.
Since, also, I’m picking up the pieces from my divorce and my life falling apart, I’ve decided to also have this blog be about my journey of recovery from all of that.
I suspect the latter will be more popular than the former. It’s been my observation that society does not appreciate commentary on itself. When I make observations, people tend to take exception to me doing so. Why is confusing to me, since I consider theĀ  underlying mechanics to anything to be fascinating, and am not sure why it would be considered offensive. It is my guess that people view this as me oversimplifying them, trying to saying also that they are not really in control of their actions but instead are slave to these unspoken societal rules and trends. I’m uncertain why this would be the case, and consider any lack of understanding or insult the result of intellectual shortsightedness on their part. I’ve noticed this also corresponds with peoples’ dislike for being labeled, which also confuses me. If your behavior and personality correspond to a particular cultural subgroup, then it is that way because of the choice one makes to follow that. And, if you conform to that label, then it applies whether or not you like it and, if you don’t, then it’s your own fault for limiting your behavior and personality so much to the limits of that label.

So I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what I want in a woman since my first attempt at love and marital bliss came crashing down like the Hindenburg. I’ve decided a woman who likes and can discuss sci-fi at length would embody a lot of the characteristics I’m looking for. We’d have a strong common interest, they’d be a geek/nerd, and dumb people rarely take much interest in sci-fi. At least it’s a starting point.

The depression has stalemated. There are set stages to grief, and I’ve been stuck in depression. I find I want to sleep a lot. I must admit that part took me for a bit of a loop. I’ve struggled with depression a lot in my life, though now as much as now.

The problem of Truth

I’ve noticed a lot of very heated feelings with regards to various aspects of the infamous science vs religion debate/issue/soapbox. I first noticed it while following the Creation/Evolution debate, then in the Intelligent Design/naturalistic evolution debate, then further in the rise of what’s called the “New Atheism”. At the core of this debate is the concept of truth. Both sides claim to know the truth, either in part or in whole, and defend the idea of their view being propagated in schools or other educational settings. One thing that has always struck me is the level of emotional fervor not just on the side of religion but also on that of science. As time has gone by, in fact, I have seen little if any difference between the two sides except in the content of their message. I see the same level of emotion, dedication, outrage, insistence on being the only exclusive truth, and even the archetypal roles of saints, evangelists, preachers, and heretics exist with little or no difference on both sides. But we ultimately always arrive back at the issue of truth.

At the core of the debate is the concept that truth is good. Not just good as in it’s nice to have, like a subjective preference, but that is an objective, moral good. Truth is good, and whatever else is evil. Not only that, but the act of spreading and convincing others of a viewpoint that is not truth is morally evil. Some may try to deny this, but their emotional fervor belies a different idea. If knowing and spreading the truth were not considered an objective truth by them, in my opinion, there would be no problem. If they really believed it was a subjective moral good, though they would greatly prefer their truth be taught, they would have no grounds on which to insist it be.

So, then, if we have both sides believing their side is objectively true, and that the acceptance and spread of this truth is objectively good, we have a problem for the side of atheists. This stance is perfectly understandable for the side of religion, and is something they fully embrace and preach. But if you have something that is objectively true, then you have an objective morality, which is a non-material, abstract thing. Though it is not necessarily true that all atheists disavow the existence of abstract, non-material things, it poses a severe problem for their worldview. It is well known and widely accepted within the field of philosophy that if there is an objective moral law, then there is an objective moral law giver. More is available on that here: , but I also have some of my own reasons for this as well (though I doubt they’re original). The level of specificity of moral laws indicate a pre-awareness of humanity and the human condition. In other words, for the moral law “Don’t commit murder”, there had to be the information that sentient beings would exist, be such that they were likely, at some point, to commit murder, and that a law had to be established to declare this morally wrong and establish a moral duty to not murder. The best explanation of this is an intelligent being capable of establishing moral laws and holding sentient beings within this universe accountable to them. Hence, we arrive at God.

This is what gets me especially when I hear about debates over legislation brought regarding what should be taught in science classes in schools. Atheist and science groups become enraged when this issue rears its head, and launch a crusade to squelch it. They become inflamed because they are worried that students will be lied to, won’t be taught the truth, and this is morally bad.