Living with Pure O

When I was diagnosed at nineteen with obsessive compulsive disorder — specifically a form often referred to as “Pure O” — the classification was controversial. The idea that OCD could manifest primarily through intrusive thoughts rather than visible compulsions was debated. It is less controversial now, though not universally agreed upon within the mental health field.

Pure obsessional OCD centers on intrusive thoughts — unwanted, distressing mental images or ideas that conflict with one’s values. The absence of overt ritual does not mean the absence of compulsion; the rituals are internal: rumination, reassurance-seeking, mental review.

Living with intrusive thoughts is disorienting because they target what you care about most. Morality. Identity. Safety. The mind generates scenarios that feel alien and yet intensely personal. The mistake many make is assuming intrusive thoughts reflect hidden desire. They do not. They reflect anxiety attaching to significance.

Therapy reframed my relationship to thought. Not every idea requires analysis. Not every mental event is meaningful. Learning to allow thoughts without engaging them was transformative. There is humility in recognizing that the mind produces noise. Clarity emerges not from eliminating noise, but from refusing to fuse with it. Living with Pure O has made me more compassionate toward invisible struggles. Many battles occur entirely beneath the surface.

Depiction Does Not Equal Endorsement

One of the more troubling tendencies of contemporary discourse is the collapse of distinction between depiction and endorsement. We increasingly assume that to portray an idea is to promote it, that to engage a controversial thinker is to subscribe to their entire worldview. This reflex undermines both art and intellectual inquiry.

I can appreciate the narrative scale and structural ambition of Atlas Shrugged without adopting objectivism. I can admire the mythic tone, the architectural sweep of its storytelling, the clarity of its internal logic, while still rejecting significant elements of its philosophical conclusions. The ability to hold that separation is not hypocrisy; it is discernment.

Art and literature function as simulation. They allow us to inhabit perspectives safely. When I read a novel, I am not signing a loyalty pledge. I am exploring a constructed world. When I depict religious symbolism, I am not necessarily declaring doctrinal allegiance. When I examine political arguments, I am not committing to party membership.

The inability to tolerate exposure to opposing ideas reveals fragility. If a worldview is so unstable that encountering an alternative threatens collapse, then the worldview lacks depth. Intellectual strength lies in engagement without absorption. It lies in testing ideas rigorously rather than avoiding them entirely.

There is also a broader creative implication. Artists must be free to explore uncomfortable themes without fear of misinterpretation. If every portrayal is assumed to be advocacy, artistic range shrinks dramatically. Complex characters become impossible. Moral ambiguity disappears. Narrative tension flattens into propaganda.

Nuance requires trust — trust that audiences can distinguish exploration from endorsement, and trust that creators are capable of examining perspectives critically. The erosion of that trust has led to cultural defensiveness, where individuals preemptively distance themselves from any potentially controversial material.

But exposure to diverse philosophies has historically been one of the primary engines of intellectual development. Reading thinkers one disagrees with sharpens reasoning. It clarifies one’s own values. It strengthens conviction through challenge rather than insulation. The mature position is not avoidance but analysis. To engage does not mean to adopt. To depict does not mean to endorse. These distinctions preserve the integrity of both art and discourse.

If we lose the ability to explore ideas without fear of contamination, we will reduce culture to ideological echo chambers. And echo chambers produce certainty — but not wisdom.

The Discipline of the Body: Non-Competitive Bodybuilding as Artistic Practice

My relationship to bodybuilding has never been about competition. I have no interest in stage lights, spray tans, or trophies. What draws me to it is far quieter and far more personal. It is a discipline that parallels my artistic life in ways that are difficult to explain to anyone who views training as merely physical. For me, it is sculptural study, psychological conditioning, and philosophical rehearsal all at once.

At the most obvious level, bodybuilding sharpens my understanding of anatomy. As someone who works across painting, photography, cinematography, and lighting, I am constantly studying the human form. But studying anatomy from books or classical drawings is different from feeling how a muscle contracts, how tension distributes across the spine, how deltoids articulate under load, or how fatigue subtly alters posture. Training forces a lived intimacy with structure. It deepens my sensitivity to how light will wrap around a torso, how shadow pools beneath a ribcage, how proportion shifts the entire emotional tone of a figure. The gym becomes a laboratory for observing form from the inside out.

Yet the more profound value of bodybuilding is psychological. Muscle cannot be rushed. It responds only to consistency, recovery, and patience. It exposes delusion quickly. If you skip work, the mirror reflects it. If you overestimate effort, the body corrects your narrative. It is a brutally honest feedback system. That honesty mirrors the creative process. You cannot shortcut mastery. You cannot fake cohesion. You cannot rely on bursts of inspiration while neglecting daily discipline. Training conditions me to respect process over performance.

Because I am not preparing for competition, I am freed from comparison. There is no scoreboard. No external standard beyond symmetry and intention. The practice becomes internal. It becomes aesthetic inquiry rather than social validation. In that sense, bodybuilding functions much like painting in solitude. It is an ongoing dialogue between aspiration and reality. It is incremental refinement. It is an act of authorship over one’s own development.

There is also something meditative about structured strain. Repetition under resistance demands presence. It quiets mental noise. It sharpens focus. And in that state, I often find clarity that carries back into my studio work. The willingness to endure discomfort in the gym translates directly to creative risk-taking. Both require faith in long arcs of growth that are invisible day to day but undeniable over years.

Ultimately, non-competitive bodybuilding reinforces a principle that governs my entire life: freedom is built on discipline. The aesthetic result is secondary. What matters is the structure beneath it — the quiet commitment to incremental progress, the refusal to chase shortcuts, the understanding that transformation, whether physical or artistic, is earned slowly and deliberately. The body becomes less an object of display and more a medium through which discipline is practiced. And discipline, more than talent, is what sustains a creative life.

Strength and Softness

View fullsize

Photo Credit: Orlando Vivas

There is a misconception that strength requires hardness — emotional distance, stoicism, impermeability. In physical culture especially, toughness is often equated with silence and restraint. But strength and softness are not opposites. They are complements.

In training, rigidity leads to injury. A muscle that cannot lengthen tears. A joint that cannot adapt deteriorates. True strength includes flexibility. It includes responsiveness. Emotionally, the same principle applies.

To feel deeply is not weakness. It is sensitivity — the capacity to register nuance. The challenge is not eliminating softness, but stabilizing it within structure. I have spent much of my life cultivating independence. Self-sufficiency can resemble invulnerability. It feels controlled. Predictable. But over time, impermeability becomes isolation.

There is courage in allowing oneself to be affected. To care openly. To express uncertainty without collapsing into it. This tension is particularly present in masculine spaces. Physical strength is visible. Emotional depth is less so. Yet the men I respect most — whether artists, athletes, or thinkers — exhibit both.

Consider classical representations of heroes: powerful in form yet expressive in gesture. Even in sculpture, the greatest works balance tension and vulnerability. The body may be carved in marble, but the face often reveals interior life. Strength without softness becomes brittle. Softness without strength becomes unstable. The integration of both produces resilience.

Resilience is not the absence of fracture; it is the ability to recover. It requires internal elasticity. It requires acknowledging impact without disintegrating. For me, the pursuit of strength — in the gym or in thought — is no longer about dominance. It is about capacity. The capacity to endure stress, to hold complexity, to remain grounded while open. Softness does not negate discipline. It humanizes it. To build a powerful body while suppressing emotional awareness is incomplete development. To cultivate sensitivity without structure is equally incomplete.

Integration is the aim. Strength should expand possibility, not narrow it. And softness, properly anchored, expands connection.