But there is again a contradiction and it's a part of the same contradiction. Not concealing certain things can hurt creativity. And I like creativity/art... Such things I think are essential. Much like ultimately believing in infinite existence is essential. That also is basically believing a lie.
So again, there is the search for truth and being perfectly logically, being honest with others in practicing the golden rule; such things as I want, contradicted by the understanding it is essential to not be totally logically as we can't actually truly handle absolute truth and thus we must believe the lies within creativity/art and thus sometimes concealing the truth is for the best.
So again, this is a contradiction I haven't found a way to unravel. And so I appear a hypocrite and I contradict myself.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
The Civilized Man versus the Violent Monkey
"Civilized" as in openminded, compassionate and honest.
'Openminded' as in seeking truth, wanting to hear the truth from others, can take an opinion different from their own and honestly consider if perhaps it is more correct than their own.
'Compassionate' as in a person who practices the golden rule, who is respectful of others, who cares for the welfare of others, wants them to be happy, is not indifferent to them.
'Honest' not just in the sense of not lying. People have incredibly strange notions about what it means to be honest. Actual honesty means not withholding any relevant information. Actual honesty means being direct with people.
The Violent Monkey is closeminded, owned primarily by hate although able to pretend instead to the societally acceptable position of indifference and of course utterly dishonest because considering the first two, he/she has no choice.
When you are indirect with someone, when you withhold truths from them, (and not because you think you, yourself, have done anything wrong) you are treating them like they are a violent monkey. You are treating them like they might be dangerous and they must be tiptoed around. Every bit of truth unconcealed is potentially dangerous.
I think once you started down this road with someone, it's maybe not possible to ever gradually reach a point where you understand that you can instead be direct and honest and open with them. You're instead stuck in falsity. You're also being insulting as hell and keeping things meaningless.
But if instead you are direct and honest with someone from the start in this antisociety, they'll most likely think you're nuts. And/or of course, they may be a violent little monkey most likely. And so in response to your directness, they'll respond with some combination of hate/indifference. They can honestly respond with hate. But as that's not acceptable in this antisociety, they'll more likely respond with indifference (simply not respond) and/or some combination of dishonesty (withholding mostly.)
And even worse, even if you think them "civilized", you still may be afraid to be direct with them because you're afraid your directness will be misinterpreted as some kind of aggressiveness. In response to you trying to treat them as if they're civlized you're just scaring them.
Thus you can't win.
What can be done?
You can be direct and honest. And then try to not mind as you get treated with indifference and hate by 99% of people for your trouble. But still, what about all those who you're just scaring? I suppose attempt to take extreme pains to make yourself clear...
Or just give it up and learn to enjoy solitude.
As to 99% just giving back hate or indifference, an additional problem is my memory isn't all that great. How could it be with regards to remembering that sort of thing? Having a bad memory about that sort of thing is a Good thing.... I think.........????
But the bad memory makes it harder to be sure exactly when I am getting exactly that (hate/indifference), makes it hard to differentiate...
Reminds me though of the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Yet, one must forget such negatives. But then because they are forgotten, one then endlessly repeats them. But of course with the understanding that that is exactly what is going on, still the desire is to go forth as a glutton for punishment knowing they will be endlessly repeated.
But solitude awaits eventually, most likely.
...and there is on top of it all me feeling that my idealistic goals are way too vague and ultimately meaningless and crackpot anyway. And thinking I ought to not subject others to such things. I'm wrong. Tradition is right and I should get back in line and shut up.
But clearly tradition is wrong.
Or is it? Perhaps this is the best we can possibly manage considering what we really are.
'Openminded' as in seeking truth, wanting to hear the truth from others, can take an opinion different from their own and honestly consider if perhaps it is more correct than their own.
'Compassionate' as in a person who practices the golden rule, who is respectful of others, who cares for the welfare of others, wants them to be happy, is not indifferent to them.
'Honest' not just in the sense of not lying. People have incredibly strange notions about what it means to be honest. Actual honesty means not withholding any relevant information. Actual honesty means being direct with people.
The Violent Monkey is closeminded, owned primarily by hate although able to pretend instead to the societally acceptable position of indifference and of course utterly dishonest because considering the first two, he/she has no choice.
When you are indirect with someone, when you withhold truths from them, (and not because you think you, yourself, have done anything wrong) you are treating them like they are a violent monkey. You are treating them like they might be dangerous and they must be tiptoed around. Every bit of truth unconcealed is potentially dangerous.
I think once you started down this road with someone, it's maybe not possible to ever gradually reach a point where you understand that you can instead be direct and honest and open with them. You're instead stuck in falsity. You're also being insulting as hell and keeping things meaningless.
But if instead you are direct and honest with someone from the start in this antisociety, they'll most likely think you're nuts. And/or of course, they may be a violent little monkey most likely. And so in response to your directness, they'll respond with some combination of hate/indifference. They can honestly respond with hate. But as that's not acceptable in this antisociety, they'll more likely respond with indifference (simply not respond) and/or some combination of dishonesty (withholding mostly.)
And even worse, even if you think them "civilized", you still may be afraid to be direct with them because you're afraid your directness will be misinterpreted as some kind of aggressiveness. In response to you trying to treat them as if they're civlized you're just scaring them.
Thus you can't win.
What can be done?
You can be direct and honest. And then try to not mind as you get treated with indifference and hate by 99% of people for your trouble. But still, what about all those who you're just scaring? I suppose attempt to take extreme pains to make yourself clear...
Or just give it up and learn to enjoy solitude.
As to 99% just giving back hate or indifference, an additional problem is my memory isn't all that great. How could it be with regards to remembering that sort of thing? Having a bad memory about that sort of thing is a Good thing.... I think.........????
But the bad memory makes it harder to be sure exactly when I am getting exactly that (hate/indifference), makes it hard to differentiate...
Reminds me though of the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Yet, one must forget such negatives. But then because they are forgotten, one then endlessly repeats them. But of course with the understanding that that is exactly what is going on, still the desire is to go forth as a glutton for punishment knowing they will be endlessly repeated.
But solitude awaits eventually, most likely.
...and there is on top of it all me feeling that my idealistic goals are way too vague and ultimately meaningless and crackpot anyway. And thinking I ought to not subject others to such things. I'm wrong. Tradition is right and I should get back in line and shut up.
But clearly tradition is wrong.
Or is it? Perhaps this is the best we can possibly manage considering what we really are.
I wish I had saved the thread link. It was many months back; a discussion board about writing. Someone asked some questions, etc about writing. The first reply flatly stated that there were already a lot of books discussing how to write. (Without even referencing any of said books.) Then followed a 30 response derail of insipid shlock that was literally primarily about the weather. This, on a discussion board about writing.
Thread after thread the same stupidity.
Other discussion boards about writing: more or less the same.
Discussion boards in general: the same; except insipid shlock is doing pretty well really as opposed to people being rude and insulting to one another, which without serious moderation is what always happens.
Personally I think reading some other person's book about how they write isn't going to be all that useful really unless your goal is to write just like them. And if you want to write just like them, why bother in the first place? Just that bored? Trying to impress someone? Trying to escape?
Valid reasons I guess. (Except for wanting to impress...) And reading such books surely can be useful to learn a thing or two anyway.
I'm not satisfied with anyone's writing.
As to discussion boards it's the lowest common denominator. Discussions it seems over the long term end up dragged down to the LCD. Only takes a few idiots who post way too much. And most boards either have that or nothing at all.
Thread after thread the same stupidity.
Other discussion boards about writing: more or less the same.
Discussion boards in general: the same; except insipid shlock is doing pretty well really as opposed to people being rude and insulting to one another, which without serious moderation is what always happens.
Personally I think reading some other person's book about how they write isn't going to be all that useful really unless your goal is to write just like them. And if you want to write just like them, why bother in the first place? Just that bored? Trying to impress someone? Trying to escape?
Valid reasons I guess. (Except for wanting to impress...) And reading such books surely can be useful to learn a thing or two anyway.
I'm not satisfied with anyone's writing.
As to discussion boards it's the lowest common denominator. Discussions it seems over the long term end up dragged down to the LCD. Only takes a few idiots who post way too much. And most boards either have that or nothing at all.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Interesting, or at least soothing... Combining the unreal with the "real" to make it "soothing". It's not enough to be interesting...
---
Ritual. What of it?
"This complex system was understood in its entirety only by Sourdust - the technicalities demanding the devotion of a lifetime, though the sacred spirit of tradition implied by the daily manifestations was understood by all."
Gormenghast
I suppose there's something about ritual which is soothing. But what?
Knowing it's "right", without having to bother actually thinking about it. How nice to shrug off responsibility and instead defer to some unknown other.
Anything else?
---
Short flim clip of people/person's who think they're talking to someone, realize they aren't, and then decide to continue with just pretending someone is listening.
---
Avoid saying who's doing the talking as much as you can without giving the reader extra work. (And of course unnecessarily saying who said what is also extra work for the reader to skim over.)
---
Ritual. What of it?
"This complex system was understood in its entirety only by Sourdust - the technicalities demanding the devotion of a lifetime, though the sacred spirit of tradition implied by the daily manifestations was understood by all."
Gormenghast
I suppose there's something about ritual which is soothing. But what?
Knowing it's "right", without having to bother actually thinking about it. How nice to shrug off responsibility and instead defer to some unknown other.
Anything else?
---
Short flim clip of people/person's who think they're talking to someone, realize they aren't, and then decide to continue with just pretending someone is listening.
---
Avoid saying who's doing the talking as much as you can without giving the reader extra work. (And of course unnecessarily saying who said what is also extra work for the reader to skim over.)
Several cups of tea
In our modern industrialized antisociety, it is considered actually pretty damm well fine to be indifferent, but it's not OK to feel hate. I think this needs to change.
That isn't to say it needs to be reversed. That isn't to say that hate is some good thing. Hate is wrong in all it's manifestations, from annoyance up to rage. But hate is at least always an attempt to right a wrong. Hate is always an attempt at what the person perceives as justice. The real fundamental problem is indifference.
The level of disconnection between people (and also animals), the incredible degree of indifference is just too much. I understand when you're surrounded by millions of people that it's impossible to treat everyone like they ideally should be treated. But instead we've decided to treat virtually everyone like they don't exist.
Man is a tribal creature. This means endless ugly things which we ought to recognize. It also means that we are supposed to have more meaningful connections than the majority of people currently have living in industrialized society. But the connections have been cut and indifference reigns supreme.
I met a guy living in a small religious commune in New Mexico. He told me one day their "leader" lined the men up on one side and the women up opposite and said, "whoever is across from you is who you'll marry."
This may sound horrible in a way. But it is also beautiful. Because if you had only people who were openminded, nonindifferent (compassionate), and honest with one another it would indeed work. Any two such people ought to be able to get along well enough to have a pretty good marriage.
In comparison today it is perfectly OK to just endlessly blow people off. There is no need to work with people. When someone is different from us, instead of examining the differences and learning from one another we simply never speak to them again. We go from person to person looking for someone identical. Those who aren't identical are discarded.
And, we haven't just evolved into aggressive, warring people. We've evolved into work proles. Which is to say, people who spend so much time working that they generally would have to really enjoy working, working, working... (which is to say they have nothing else in them that needs fulfilled) to an extent that most of them no longer even know what to do with free time. And those who don't, don't prosper/don't reproduce as much (evolution.) And so what do the work proles do with free time? Drink beer and watch Nascar?
You're allowed to fuck one person. That's your spouse. You can drink beer and have light meaningless conversations here and there. And that's it. What else do people nowadays do with their free time? Not much. And you cannot have numerous meaningful close connections with people. You cannot reach out to people. Too many people. And who knows who's a predator anyway?
Friday, December 26, 2008
Flowers for Algernon
Such a thing how he looks back and remembers his dumber self. Primarily in terms of realizing how badly he was treated but in the way others can identify with, in terms of feeling like he was such an idiot. I feel the same certainly at times. The feeling was in me so strongly yesterday late in the evening as if I had managed to peek into a broader point of view. Perhaps I wasn't able to hold on to it today. I've awoken back at my default perhaps.
It's one thing though to literally have been retarded and have had some sci fi operation that makes you intelligent (he knows he really was dumb in his past). When I look on the past and think what an idiot I've been. Often I'm not sure if it was really the case. Examples of my idiocy aren't so clear cut. And perhaps I'm not remembering all the relevant information which would explain my behavior... I was a braver idealist back then for one. Perhaps I was more able to hold onto essential knowledge and base my decisions based on it better than I can today. I've often thought that I'm just getting dumber (in some ways) as I get older.
It may be that I get dumb enough that I overcome some of the nihilism in me, which stops me from bothering to do some things...
As he gets smarter he starts questioning authority, not sleeping as well, realizing what an idiot he once was, in general becoming a lot less happy with the world, he criticizes a movie/art realizing the corruption/LCD consideration, etc....
Finally the ink blots, as he gets smarter he can see things in them. Is this generally true of becoming more "intelligent." I guess we can then make more associations. Zizek being an extreme example for instance.
I'm dismissive of my associating. Newest song, 'No thank you', I bothered to associate it to a hallicination from youth to better remember that event. But feels dishonest in that I only made that connection after writing it. If I tried to write a song with that in mind to begin with it would be so frustrating and difficult. In general these associations that Charlie does are like creativity, being symbolic... And a pile of shaving cream mostly, really. But a sign also of intelligence? I guess...
Of course Charlie is fired. This isn't just some random plot happening. This is symbolic of how the real world is. And how bad Charlie feels about being fired and doesn't want to lose his job can be seen the same.
He already has seen that they're all awful. That they were making fun of him, treating him like absolute shit. And that this is really no place for him.
Basically he knows they're no good. He mostly keeps it to himself but he knows it. And they know he's "smart" now. And thus the enemy. He is a person who will judge them as lacking. He is a person that causes them to not feel good about themselves. And he in return is actually disgusted by them, although he does his best to hide it.... And yet, yet, he's so hurt that they reject him.
---
(Partially Untrue)
But, he tries so, to like them despite their faults. Because they're all like that. Thus he has no choice but to try or just be totally alone. If they don't try to like him despite feeling inadequate and stupid around him, they still have plenty of other friends who's company they actually enjoy. So, they don't try so very much at all.
Such is life.
---
Then he develops his own version of imaginary eyes I guess. In the book that is. This at least is perhaps simply a plot gimmick to somehow draw an ambitious story to a close.
Charlie is so concerned about impressing his mother.
I don't have that concern in me. Haven't since very young. To what extent do people normally keep that concern? Is there something wrong with me that I couldn't care less about impressing my mother? No. Nothing wrong at all. It's a good thing.
And I don't dislike her at all. I like the good qualities she has and dislike the bad qualities. Perfectly logical. Not touched by an ounce of emotion. Which is why it would seem freakish to some. And she doesn't care for it. I strongly feel it's the right way to be.
Anyway there is something very wrong about doing things just to impress others.
Have a feeling of such stupidity this evening. In part because I've recognized something very stupid I was thinking. But also in part in reading this book. Watching him as his intelligence exploded and then imploded and thus looking a bit closer at myself and my own considerable shortcomings.
It's one thing though to literally have been retarded and have had some sci fi operation that makes you intelligent (he knows he really was dumb in his past). When I look on the past and think what an idiot I've been. Often I'm not sure if it was really the case. Examples of my idiocy aren't so clear cut. And perhaps I'm not remembering all the relevant information which would explain my behavior... I was a braver idealist back then for one. Perhaps I was more able to hold onto essential knowledge and base my decisions based on it better than I can today. I've often thought that I'm just getting dumber (in some ways) as I get older.
It may be that I get dumb enough that I overcome some of the nihilism in me, which stops me from bothering to do some things...
As he gets smarter he starts questioning authority, not sleeping as well, realizing what an idiot he once was, in general becoming a lot less happy with the world, he criticizes a movie/art realizing the corruption/LCD consideration, etc....
Finally the ink blots, as he gets smarter he can see things in them. Is this generally true of becoming more "intelligent." I guess we can then make more associations. Zizek being an extreme example for instance.
I'm dismissive of my associating. Newest song, 'No thank you', I bothered to associate it to a hallicination from youth to better remember that event. But feels dishonest in that I only made that connection after writing it. If I tried to write a song with that in mind to begin with it would be so frustrating and difficult. In general these associations that Charlie does are like creativity, being symbolic... And a pile of shaving cream mostly, really. But a sign also of intelligence? I guess...
Of course Charlie is fired. This isn't just some random plot happening. This is symbolic of how the real world is. And how bad Charlie feels about being fired and doesn't want to lose his job can be seen the same.
He already has seen that they're all awful. That they were making fun of him, treating him like absolute shit. And that this is really no place for him.
Basically he knows they're no good. He mostly keeps it to himself but he knows it. And they know he's "smart" now. And thus the enemy. He is a person who will judge them as lacking. He is a person that causes them to not feel good about themselves. And he in return is actually disgusted by them, although he does his best to hide it.... And yet, yet, he's so hurt that they reject him.
---
(Partially Untrue)
But, he tries so, to like them despite their faults. Because they're all like that. Thus he has no choice but to try or just be totally alone. If they don't try to like him despite feeling inadequate and stupid around him, they still have plenty of other friends who's company they actually enjoy. So, they don't try so very much at all.
Such is life.
---
Then he develops his own version of imaginary eyes I guess. In the book that is. This at least is perhaps simply a plot gimmick to somehow draw an ambitious story to a close.
Charlie is so concerned about impressing his mother.
I don't have that concern in me. Haven't since very young. To what extent do people normally keep that concern? Is there something wrong with me that I couldn't care less about impressing my mother? No. Nothing wrong at all. It's a good thing.
And I don't dislike her at all. I like the good qualities she has and dislike the bad qualities. Perfectly logical. Not touched by an ounce of emotion. Which is why it would seem freakish to some. And she doesn't care for it. I strongly feel it's the right way to be.
Anyway there is something very wrong about doing things just to impress others.
Have a feeling of such stupidity this evening. In part because I've recognized something very stupid I was thinking. But also in part in reading this book. Watching him as his intelligence exploded and then imploded and thus looking a bit closer at myself and my own considerable shortcomings.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Jack London's Martin Eden
I assumed that London was a rightwinger as his books are about rugged individualists who succeed in a world where there is nothing but winning or losing in the neverending struggle to survive. Such books were popular. Turns out London kind of hated that stuff and was a socialist. Martin Eden is the ideal rugged individualist and London tries to make him out as mistaken in how he is living. He has him commit suicide eventually. People hated this book. London went back to his Klondike Man Against the Elements stuff afterwards and people went back to loving his books.
People do love the rugged individualist who overcomes all in a harsh world. To varying extents there's Ayn Rand, Jack London, Neitzsche, and I suppose Jack Vance too.
It's not how I want to write. Perhaps books that make fun of such people?
But what else is there? Dunno. People who work as a team who don't want to "win" at all cost. Star Trek comes to mind.
Also the blacksmith as opposed to the wordsmyth. (Martin Eden) I can definitely relate to that.
People do love the rugged individualist who overcomes all in a harsh world. To varying extents there's Ayn Rand, Jack London, Neitzsche, and I suppose Jack Vance too.
It's not how I want to write. Perhaps books that make fun of such people?
But what else is there? Dunno. People who work as a team who don't want to "win" at all cost. Star Trek comes to mind.
Also the blacksmith as opposed to the wordsmyth. (Martin Eden) I can definitely relate to that.
....At the moment when I quit being aware of myself, when the conscious loses focus, when I start really falling asleep; at that moment my creativity really wakes up. Music starts playing.... Last night I went to the UK for just one second. I know it was the UK. The foilage was right. The smells were right. I'm partially colorblind and have almost no sense of smell but Here such things work like they could. I Know. Perhaps like Shirley Maclaine, haha, I know.
And here there is at least one person that I sense. That I've always sensed. I don't actually really know who. But I sense their consciousness/unconsciousness; their existence. And it is such a wonderful thing.
All for one second.
If it was an hour or a lifetime, my god, what a world that would be.
But after one second my conscious noticed what was going on and said, "Hey! Cool!" And it went away.
And then I let lose a single tear in that I had gone quite a while without this feeling. And that furthermore I think eventually it will be gone for good. That may have been the very last time for all I know... Perhaps I'm just getting old. Perhaps I'm surrounded by the wrong sorts of people. But what I know for sure; there is a "forbidden" knowledge here which I think is hurting... killing my creativity.
Very similar to my conscious looking at what I'm "thinking", to me waking back up. Very similarly the magic is dying. Maybe I shouldn't even talk of it.
And here there is at least one person that I sense. That I've always sensed. I don't actually really know who. But I sense their consciousness/unconsciousness; their existence. And it is such a wonderful thing.
All for one second.
If it was an hour or a lifetime, my god, what a world that would be.
But after one second my conscious noticed what was going on and said, "Hey! Cool!" And it went away.
And then I let lose a single tear in that I had gone quite a while without this feeling. And that furthermore I think eventually it will be gone for good. That may have been the very last time for all I know... Perhaps I'm just getting old. Perhaps I'm surrounded by the wrong sorts of people. But what I know for sure; there is a "forbidden" knowledge here which I think is hurting... killing my creativity.
Very similar to my conscious looking at what I'm "thinking", to me waking back up. Very similarly the magic is dying. Maybe I shouldn't even talk of it.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=698
The Argument in Neuropath goes something like this. Consciousness is severely limited. It is a very recent evolutionary adaptation, superimposed upon a wide array of older neural processes of which it is unaware, and which it cannot possibly grasp. We are only conscious of a very thin sliver of the external world; and even less of our internal, mental world. Most of our “experience” of the inner and outer world is a neurally-based simulation that has been evolutionarily selected for its survival value, but the actual representational accuracy of which is highly dubious. We are not conscious, and we cannot be conscious, of the actual neural processes that drive us. And indeed, nearly all our explanations and understandings of other people, of the world in which we live, and above all of ourselves are delusional, self-aggrandizing fictions. It’s not just that we misunderstand our own motivations; but that such things as “motivations” and “reasons” for how we feel and what we do actually don’t exist at all. Everything that we say, think, feel, perceive, and do is really just a consequence of deterministic physical (electro-chemical) processes in our neurons. “Every thought, every experience, every element of your consciousness is a product of various neural processes” (pp. 52-53). In particular, “free will” is an illusion. We never actually decide on any of our actions; rather, our sense of choice and decision, and the reasons and motivations that we cite for what we do, are all post-hoc rationalizations of processes that happen mechanistically, through chains of electrochemical cause-and-effect. All our rationales, and all our values, are nothing more than consolatory fictions.
The Argument in Neuropath goes something like this. Consciousness is severely limited. It is a very recent evolutionary adaptation, superimposed upon a wide array of older neural processes of which it is unaware, and which it cannot possibly grasp. We are only conscious of a very thin sliver of the external world; and even less of our internal, mental world. Most of our “experience” of the inner and outer world is a neurally-based simulation that has been evolutionarily selected for its survival value, but the actual representational accuracy of which is highly dubious. We are not conscious, and we cannot be conscious, of the actual neural processes that drive us. And indeed, nearly all our explanations and understandings of other people, of the world in which we live, and above all of ourselves are delusional, self-aggrandizing fictions. It’s not just that we misunderstand our own motivations; but that such things as “motivations” and “reasons” for how we feel and what we do actually don’t exist at all. Everything that we say, think, feel, perceive, and do is really just a consequence of deterministic physical (electro-chemical) processes in our neurons. “Every thought, every experience, every element of your consciousness is a product of various neural processes” (pp. 52-53). In particular, “free will” is an illusion. We never actually decide on any of our actions; rather, our sense of choice and decision, and the reasons and motivations that we cite for what we do, are all post-hoc rationalizations of processes that happen mechanistically, through chains of electrochemical cause-and-effect. All our rationales, and all our values, are nothing more than consolatory fictions.
Monday, December 22, 2008
diary crap
Qualities in a house
1. Strong floors (driving me nuts I can't walk around with some pep without this whole house shaking)
2. Minimum of two rooms with beds
3. Office for wife
4. Music room
5. "Nice" kitchen
6. Outdoor space that is private and will actually get used
7. Garage
8. Nice place for a pond
9. At least one decent tree
10. sunroom/porch/greenhouse would be nice
11. No lawn nazi neighbors
1. Strong floors (driving me nuts I can't walk around with some pep without this whole house shaking)
2. Minimum of two rooms with beds
3. Office for wife
4. Music room
5. "Nice" kitchen
6. Outdoor space that is private and will actually get used
7. Garage
8. Nice place for a pond
9. At least one decent tree
10. sunroom/porch/greenhouse would be nice
11. No lawn nazi neighbors
D vs S
I guess it comes back to the main reason for nervousness. Concentrating on yourself instead of finding the other interesting. Problem is usually that the other just isn't very interesting. In this case... that might be playing a role. But definitely I'm feeling like showing interest might greatly increase the chance that D will make a serious pass.
And I can't stand it when others constantly make such negative assumptions like that but here I find it very difficult to not do the same. I'm going to try to not do so... in the future. That is all. Can't stand the dishonesty otherwise stuck with. Drives me nuts. She has only voiced the sort of thing that people think all the time and don't say. (Well, they don't all think I'm "hot", definitely not. But think that in general of one another and don't say it.) Horrible of me to have this concealment in me. Horrible and unusual. Really I generally have nothing really worth concealing from virtually everyone. How pitiful then that exactly when someone is partially breaking free of the typical ugly social norms I revert to the sort of stuff myself that I'm always so critical of in others. How perfect.
Can't find old David Byrne youtube clip where he was on Letterman when young. His nervousness was just so clear and seemingly extreme. But then in general he looks like he's nervous even when he probably isn't.
Some quote by Schopenhauer, awfully elitist sounding about how for one so intelligent the best conversations are had with one's self.
Intelligent people are more nervous. Is it because of this (others just aren't very interesting)? Or just because they're doing a much better job at seeing potential dangers..? My stepfather and I see a toddler who is very outgoing and talkative with strangers and agree it's not a sign of intelligence to have so little shyness with unknown grownups. Not to mention early blooming in kids is just as potentially a bad thing as good as humans are the slowest maturing species and the smartest.
And I can't stand it when others constantly make such negative assumptions like that but here I find it very difficult to not do the same. I'm going to try to not do so... in the future. That is all. Can't stand the dishonesty otherwise stuck with. Drives me nuts. She has only voiced the sort of thing that people think all the time and don't say. (Well, they don't all think I'm "hot", definitely not. But think that in general of one another and don't say it.) Horrible of me to have this concealment in me. Horrible and unusual. Really I generally have nothing really worth concealing from virtually everyone. How pitiful then that exactly when someone is partially breaking free of the typical ugly social norms I revert to the sort of stuff myself that I'm always so critical of in others. How perfect.
Can't find old David Byrne youtube clip where he was on Letterman when young. His nervousness was just so clear and seemingly extreme. But then in general he looks like he's nervous even when he probably isn't.
Some quote by Schopenhauer, awfully elitist sounding about how for one so intelligent the best conversations are had with one's self.
Intelligent people are more nervous. Is it because of this (others just aren't very interesting)? Or just because they're doing a much better job at seeing potential dangers..? My stepfather and I see a toddler who is very outgoing and talkative with strangers and agree it's not a sign of intelligence to have so little shyness with unknown grownups. Not to mention early blooming in kids is just as potentially a bad thing as good as humans are the slowest maturing species and the smartest.
Friday, December 19, 2008
http://www.lacan.com/zizplato.htm
Freud's famous motto "what we do not remember, we are compelled to repeat" should thus be turned around: what we are unable to repeat, we are haunted with and are compelled to memorize. The way to get rid of a past trauma is not to rememorize it, but to fully REPEAT it in the Kierkegaardian sense.
http://nosubject.com/Jouissance
Lacan makes an important distinction between jouissance and plaisir (pleasure). Pleasure obeys the law of homeostasis that Freud evokes in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, whereby, through discharge, the psyche seeks the lowest possible level of tension. The pleasure principle thus functions as a limit imposed on enjoyment; it commands the subject to "enjoy as little as possible." Jouissance transgresses this law and, in that respect, it is beyond the pleasure principle.
Freud's famous motto "what we do not remember, we are compelled to repeat" should thus be turned around: what we are unable to repeat, we are haunted with and are compelled to memorize. The way to get rid of a past trauma is not to rememorize it, but to fully REPEAT it in the Kierkegaardian sense.
http://nosubject.com/Jouissance
Lacan makes an important distinction between jouissance and plaisir (pleasure). Pleasure obeys the law of homeostasis that Freud evokes in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, whereby, through discharge, the psyche seeks the lowest possible level of tension. The pleasure principle thus functions as a limit imposed on enjoyment; it commands the subject to "enjoy as little as possible." Jouissance transgresses this law and, in that respect, it is beyond the pleasure principle.
So when I was 12, 13, 14 years old I would take a tennis racket and take tiny strips of duct tape and wrap it around the racket thus making it roughly twice as heavy and greatly increasing the sweet spot and "power" of the racket. I would walk a mile or so to this usually deserted place at the nearby college where there was this huge empty piece of asphalt and a huge brick wall. And there I would hit a tennis ball against that wall as hard as I could for hours. It was kind of fun in combining vigorous exercise with very precise movements that required all sorts of calculations (I'd aim for tiny bricks in the wall) and while I did it I would think. Lots of stupid stuff I mostly thought, like being this amazing professional tennis player (I had no idea how much money it took). Like I'd have the most freakish top spin forehand in history and the ball would hit the ground and bounce up into the stands.
But also I liked to try to compose music in my head amongst other things. I would spend hours composing music in my head while to outwards appearances I was practically killing myself violently hitting this silly little ball against a wall. To the degree I took things I'm sure some people thought me not right in the head.
By the time I was 14 my "tennis career" ran into a brick wall in that I hit the ball so hard strings would only last a couple hours and so I just couldn't afford to play tennis anymore. Luckily, or unluckily I was 6'3" by then and so I switched to spending hours dunking a basketball; reaching the point where I could have held my own against NBA players by the age of 16.
Anyway this music composition was funny in that when I sat down at a piano my mind went blank. If not immediately, certainly once I had actually played a few notes, then whatever was in my mind was overpowered by the sounds that were actually playing.
So I worked at it and would spend hours just trying to improvise. I spent little time playing other people's music. I prefered to just improvise and I did get somewhat better at it. To eventually I could feel inspired to write songs most times I sat down at the piano. In the short term I had quite a few such songs I wrote that sat in my memory. I tried to somewhat regularly play them, but eventually situations changed. Almost all those songs were forgotten. And that's fine. No big deal. They weren't that impressive. Hardly Beethoven. Today I can't write them as well. I need to get another piano perhaps. Or something. Probably just need to get back into spending time doing that. Have instead tried other methods. That one really worked well enough.
It's just not quite as inspiring on a synthesizer. It's touch sensitive but still not quite the same somehow. I think it may be literally a thing of magic. In that in my mind a real piano has "magic" and therefore I'm "inspired".
But real pianos are heavy.
Anyway, so then with writing stories, when I'm up and about my day I have ideas but when actually in front of a keyboard it is still partially like when I first would sit down at the piano and my mind would suddenly just go blank. The way around that was trial and error. So then the same.
-----
I hear in books this idea of the character changing. "A journey of self discovery." Some people emphasize it as an essential element of a good story. I don't think anyone in a Jack Vance story really ever changed at all from beginning to end. And I at least loved his work. Partially for the stoicism. Partially for the escapism. It is sadly perfect stuff for unhappy relatively intelligent people in my mind. Like sucking one's thumb in a corner; escaping from the ugly world to fantasy And learning an unemotional attitude.
Do I want to write like Vance? Certainly not exactly. In some ways his books were pitiful. He only had two characters really. Plot certainly was nothing.
Like Tolkien it was about setting, but with this added stoicism and a strange way of speaking. Just some strange little tricks. A group online wanted him to be considered serious literature instead of dismissed as pulp sci fi. I'm afraid I don't think he quite makes the cut, beautiful as his overall feel was...
I think Vance had the proper "modern" way of describing a setting. The more normal way is a few pages with no action where the writer basically is saying, "bear with me through this" and just goes to such pains to describe a setting. Perhaps before TV, and maybe just in general when people had more time for books, the length to which authors described settings was more acceptable. But still even then Vance's method is better. He is the king of world building; the king of making a setting. His key is to not just stop the action and spend pages describing the world. He instead describes it within the action. Seemingly just in passing.
But there are only two characters. Nothing is symbolic. No societal critiques. No relation to the real world but for one polemic (The Grey Prince) that wasn't very good really. Excepting his picaresques, the hero is basically Spock. The bad guy is generally Dick Cheney, if you look at Dick in interviews; very cool, calm, collected. Basically wreaking havoc without any emotion. (Well there is some range within this I guess... some more fantastical villians...) If there's a woman she's not even really there. The bit players are almost all annoying little bureaucrats whom have the strange habit of talking like a thesaurus.
Stoicism in a harsh world. People who at least sound refreshingly intelligent when they speak. Fantastic worlds beyond this one that stretch to infinity.
The picaresque (such as Eyes of the Overworld): point 2 and 3 the same. But the "hero" is a rogue whom we laugh at because he isn't a stoic.
Of course most critique of Vance mostly raves about his unique use of language. I think too much is made of that. Ultimately this isn't scrabble. Ideas are conveyed and they either are interesting, at least soothe the mind, or just bore.
But also I liked to try to compose music in my head amongst other things. I would spend hours composing music in my head while to outwards appearances I was practically killing myself violently hitting this silly little ball against a wall. To the degree I took things I'm sure some people thought me not right in the head.
By the time I was 14 my "tennis career" ran into a brick wall in that I hit the ball so hard strings would only last a couple hours and so I just couldn't afford to play tennis anymore. Luckily, or unluckily I was 6'3" by then and so I switched to spending hours dunking a basketball; reaching the point where I could have held my own against NBA players by the age of 16.
Anyway this music composition was funny in that when I sat down at a piano my mind went blank. If not immediately, certainly once I had actually played a few notes, then whatever was in my mind was overpowered by the sounds that were actually playing.
So I worked at it and would spend hours just trying to improvise. I spent little time playing other people's music. I prefered to just improvise and I did get somewhat better at it. To eventually I could feel inspired to write songs most times I sat down at the piano. In the short term I had quite a few such songs I wrote that sat in my memory. I tried to somewhat regularly play them, but eventually situations changed. Almost all those songs were forgotten. And that's fine. No big deal. They weren't that impressive. Hardly Beethoven. Today I can't write them as well. I need to get another piano perhaps. Or something. Probably just need to get back into spending time doing that. Have instead tried other methods. That one really worked well enough.
It's just not quite as inspiring on a synthesizer. It's touch sensitive but still not quite the same somehow. I think it may be literally a thing of magic. In that in my mind a real piano has "magic" and therefore I'm "inspired".
But real pianos are heavy.
Anyway, so then with writing stories, when I'm up and about my day I have ideas but when actually in front of a keyboard it is still partially like when I first would sit down at the piano and my mind would suddenly just go blank. The way around that was trial and error. So then the same.
-----
I hear in books this idea of the character changing. "A journey of self discovery." Some people emphasize it as an essential element of a good story. I don't think anyone in a Jack Vance story really ever changed at all from beginning to end. And I at least loved his work. Partially for the stoicism. Partially for the escapism. It is sadly perfect stuff for unhappy relatively intelligent people in my mind. Like sucking one's thumb in a corner; escaping from the ugly world to fantasy And learning an unemotional attitude.
Do I want to write like Vance? Certainly not exactly. In some ways his books were pitiful. He only had two characters really. Plot certainly was nothing.
Like Tolkien it was about setting, but with this added stoicism and a strange way of speaking. Just some strange little tricks. A group online wanted him to be considered serious literature instead of dismissed as pulp sci fi. I'm afraid I don't think he quite makes the cut, beautiful as his overall feel was...
I think Vance had the proper "modern" way of describing a setting. The more normal way is a few pages with no action where the writer basically is saying, "bear with me through this" and just goes to such pains to describe a setting. Perhaps before TV, and maybe just in general when people had more time for books, the length to which authors described settings was more acceptable. But still even then Vance's method is better. He is the king of world building; the king of making a setting. His key is to not just stop the action and spend pages describing the world. He instead describes it within the action. Seemingly just in passing.
But there are only two characters. Nothing is symbolic. No societal critiques. No relation to the real world but for one polemic (The Grey Prince) that wasn't very good really. Excepting his picaresques, the hero is basically Spock. The bad guy is generally Dick Cheney, if you look at Dick in interviews; very cool, calm, collected. Basically wreaking havoc without any emotion. (Well there is some range within this I guess... some more fantastical villians...) If there's a woman she's not even really there. The bit players are almost all annoying little bureaucrats whom have the strange habit of talking like a thesaurus.
Stoicism in a harsh world. People who at least sound refreshingly intelligent when they speak. Fantastic worlds beyond this one that stretch to infinity.
The picaresque (such as Eyes of the Overworld): point 2 and 3 the same. But the "hero" is a rogue whom we laugh at because he isn't a stoic.
Of course most critique of Vance mostly raves about his unique use of language. I think too much is made of that. Ultimately this isn't scrabble. Ideas are conveyed and they either are interesting, at least soothe the mind, or just bore.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
"Novel, n. A short story padded"
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
----
The movie Twilight was both halfway enjoyable and one of the goofiest I've seen.
One of the neat ideas about vampires incidentally is this idea of this moral question they are faced with. To kill humans or not? This idea seems to attract people to stories like Anne Rice's or this strange childish copy. Yet, they make no association to anything happening in their real life.
Vampires are so sexy. Even the campy Fright Night. Someone in high school said they had a dream that I was a vampire. Wonderful. I didn't dress like a goth.
Violet Hunt's genius was to take the idea that supernatural activity is caused by strong emotion, and fuse the ghost story with the sentimental romance... Hunt understands that affairs of the heart... transport us to the realms of the unreasonable. Her men are desirable, elusive wraiths, with the power to make a woman "shiver over her chocolate mousse," in both passion and fear.
Bram Stoker's invention, the vampire, hadn't taken hold when Hunt wrote. Otherwise she would have written about vampires.
-----
In the streets of wherever the young man is caught by a whatever and is being killed. If only some passerby would help? But everyone is indifferent and passes by refusing to even look at him. He is starting to get in serious pain now and is franticly screaming for help. He begs and cries as the people still just pass him by.
And then finally a man comes up and helps. He sets him free from the killing trap. The young man with a tear streaked face is full of gratitude and a friendship is born? Or the mask is quickly pulled back in place, every man for himself, no display of emotions, and each on his separate way...? Or is it a female? In which case some show of emotions is allowed, they could be... sex mates? Or no! The man is married and thus any real emotional connection with any woman that is not his wife would be inappropriate.
One should try to not be a part of such a world. I did write a song even where the concealers and such are like ghosts...
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
----
The movie Twilight was both halfway enjoyable and one of the goofiest I've seen.
One of the neat ideas about vampires incidentally is this idea of this moral question they are faced with. To kill humans or not? This idea seems to attract people to stories like Anne Rice's or this strange childish copy. Yet, they make no association to anything happening in their real life.
Vampires are so sexy. Even the campy Fright Night. Someone in high school said they had a dream that I was a vampire. Wonderful. I didn't dress like a goth.
Violet Hunt's genius was to take the idea that supernatural activity is caused by strong emotion, and fuse the ghost story with the sentimental romance... Hunt understands that affairs of the heart... transport us to the realms of the unreasonable. Her men are desirable, elusive wraiths, with the power to make a woman "shiver over her chocolate mousse," in both passion and fear.
Bram Stoker's invention, the vampire, hadn't taken hold when Hunt wrote. Otherwise she would have written about vampires.
-----
In the streets of wherever the young man is caught by a whatever and is being killed. If only some passerby would help? But everyone is indifferent and passes by refusing to even look at him. He is starting to get in serious pain now and is franticly screaming for help. He begs and cries as the people still just pass him by.
And then finally a man comes up and helps. He sets him free from the killing trap. The young man with a tear streaked face is full of gratitude and a friendship is born? Or the mask is quickly pulled back in place, every man for himself, no display of emotions, and each on his separate way...? Or is it a female? In which case some show of emotions is allowed, they could be... sex mates? Or no! The man is married and thus any real emotional connection with any woman that is not his wife would be inappropriate.
One should try to not be a part of such a world. I did write a song even where the concealers and such are like ghosts...
Some people have such a strong sense of justice that when they get treated badly they end up stewing for years about it and in that way the person who wronged them manages to really ruin their life over the long term when otherwise they may not have done so.
I have a friend in the UK who is stewing about an incident she had this summer. She put it aside, more or less, for a few months but has now brought it up again. It's no wonder she brought it up again as one of the idiots was in her local paper for pretty serious animal abuse of a number of horses. Still I really worry about her in how she will stew and stew and "fixate" on these things. I don't know. To not do so would be to not have a strong sense of justice; a strong sense of morals; of right and wrong; so to dwell to some extent is the right thing to do. And certainly with this one person having been in paper now, it's understandable. But I really worry she's ruining her health going on about this. She has chronic health issues to begin with...
Many other people are doing this. There is a person in PA doing this. This person says they can't not do it. I would say one must try to believe in one's self. Don't just say, "oh well I have a mental disorder I can't help myself." Don't put yourself down!
My grandmother certainly did it. She was still stewing about things done to her 50 years previous. I remember a story about peeing the bed and being made to stand motionless in the cold until the pee froze on her. Another about a pig's ear with hair on it in her soup...
I've done it. When my scientific career was destroyed I certainly "fixated" upon the issue. And I did hurt my health. Another scientist there also was fired around the same time and he then got cancer and was dead within a year. I had a very mild case of the shingles which... So mild I ignored it but still the point was made to me as I don't normally get sick... Stewing isn't fun and it will even literally destroy your body. When these "evil" people wrong us, to the extent that we ruminate over it, they are "winning" so much more so.
So then, one can just forget. And perhaps so very very generally speaking, the dumber you are, the easier it is to forget.
Another method is to quit believing in the existence of 'evil' and thus to not feel anger.
Perhaps another way is to make it funny. Turn it to humor. This third way is more alien to me. I'd like to explore it further in the future. Is it possible to take my UK friend's account of the incident and find unexpected wrongs in it (humor) thus making it something a decent number of other people could actually stand to read?
It has been pointed out that for truly dark material, one must have humor.
So much of good, worthwhile literature, has been the result of people who clearly were dwelling to some extent on these things. I'd like to think though as opposed to it being a good thing that we just have to have these few people in "society" who are always miserable, (And maybe one out of every 500 or 50,000 or more actually accomplishes some nonlocally positive thing.) there would instead be a way to just put it on a very low simmer. Or something. I don't know.
I personally, maybe somewhat comically have flipped the saying, "Think Globally, Act Locally" on it's head. I want to ignore my own personal sufferings and find a way to reduce injustice globally... somehow! Other people need not carry it quite that far... but possibly instead of dwelling on their own probably unsolvable injustices, spend that time doing some other positive thing...
Instead of being like the windshield wiper inventor. His inventions were stolen by the automakers. There was a recent movie I guess making him out to be a hero for spending 40 years fighting them in court for stealing his invention. I think him a sorry person indeed. His life has been wasted. I had an invention stolen myself.
This isn't to say that one should just be totally passive. Not at all. Certainly my UK friend should write a complaint letter. In fact she should have just done that long ago. (In fact I've tried to help her do so...) That would be a good thing. But just write the letter. Don't spend half a year stewing and stewing about it. Don't ruin your health over it. :(
I have a friend in the UK who is stewing about an incident she had this summer. She put it aside, more or less, for a few months but has now brought it up again. It's no wonder she brought it up again as one of the idiots was in her local paper for pretty serious animal abuse of a number of horses. Still I really worry about her in how she will stew and stew and "fixate" on these things. I don't know. To not do so would be to not have a strong sense of justice; a strong sense of morals; of right and wrong; so to dwell to some extent is the right thing to do. And certainly with this one person having been in paper now, it's understandable. But I really worry she's ruining her health going on about this. She has chronic health issues to begin with...
Many other people are doing this. There is a person in PA doing this. This person says they can't not do it. I would say one must try to believe in one's self. Don't just say, "oh well I have a mental disorder I can't help myself." Don't put yourself down!
My grandmother certainly did it. She was still stewing about things done to her 50 years previous. I remember a story about peeing the bed and being made to stand motionless in the cold until the pee froze on her. Another about a pig's ear with hair on it in her soup...
I've done it. When my scientific career was destroyed I certainly "fixated" upon the issue. And I did hurt my health. Another scientist there also was fired around the same time and he then got cancer and was dead within a year. I had a very mild case of the shingles which... So mild I ignored it but still the point was made to me as I don't normally get sick... Stewing isn't fun and it will even literally destroy your body. When these "evil" people wrong us, to the extent that we ruminate over it, they are "winning" so much more so.
So then, one can just forget. And perhaps so very very generally speaking, the dumber you are, the easier it is to forget.
Another method is to quit believing in the existence of 'evil' and thus to not feel anger.
Perhaps another way is to make it funny. Turn it to humor. This third way is more alien to me. I'd like to explore it further in the future. Is it possible to take my UK friend's account of the incident and find unexpected wrongs in it (humor) thus making it something a decent number of other people could actually stand to read?
It has been pointed out that for truly dark material, one must have humor.
So much of good, worthwhile literature, has been the result of people who clearly were dwelling to some extent on these things. I'd like to think though as opposed to it being a good thing that we just have to have these few people in "society" who are always miserable, (And maybe one out of every 500 or 50,000 or more actually accomplishes some nonlocally positive thing.) there would instead be a way to just put it on a very low simmer. Or something. I don't know.
I personally, maybe somewhat comically have flipped the saying, "Think Globally, Act Locally" on it's head. I want to ignore my own personal sufferings and find a way to reduce injustice globally... somehow! Other people need not carry it quite that far... but possibly instead of dwelling on their own probably unsolvable injustices, spend that time doing some other positive thing...
Instead of being like the windshield wiper inventor. His inventions were stolen by the automakers. There was a recent movie I guess making him out to be a hero for spending 40 years fighting them in court for stealing his invention. I think him a sorry person indeed. His life has been wasted. I had an invention stolen myself.
This isn't to say that one should just be totally passive. Not at all. Certainly my UK friend should write a complaint letter. In fact she should have just done that long ago. (In fact I've tried to help her do so...) That would be a good thing. But just write the letter. Don't spend half a year stewing and stewing about it. Don't ruin your health over it. :(
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Well, the fear is gone today. Not sure though if I'm supposed to respond to someone who might have mistakenly thought the fear pertained to her or not... (edit: No. Pretty sure that's my stupid mistake to think that. Nevermind.) I just can't tell. Asking lots of questions of "strangers" is considered rude unfortunately. And furthermore I wouldn't want to constrain anyone's creativity. So I just don't know!
Beautiful posting though on your part all the same... But if it pertains to me... indirectness isn't my thing. Only mentioning it here and not by email because I don't want to pester and potentially constrain creativity... (Big shoulder shrug here...) Yes, I think of you but not quite that much! I think of lots of things.
And, I don't know about you reading this. I've mention you probably shouldn't. I mean you can if you want... But I just don't think it's a good use of time probably on your part. It's very low quality stuff. Not considerate of any real audience. The imaginary eyes I'm trying to talk to (here) if nothing else have all the time in the world and can't be hurt...
----
D is coming back to the area. D is married, like me, and has a crush on me. She hasn't made this apparent by little stuff like certain looks and flirting. She's just straight up made stuff known... in an almost downright frank manner... but not quite. So I feel stuck at a halfway point between usual dishonesty and truth; in some place well... I don't mean to seem to be referring to someone else's blog post the same as they may not really be referring to mine despite the fact that it really seems otherwise... but indeed here (with D) (I suppose with other people too...) I don't know quite what the correct boundaries are... And so D will want to hang out and I shall be uncomfortable I think. Hope to find a way around feeling uncomfortable.
She has symbolized me. I can't do the same in return because then our spouses will get really unhappy. I feel like I have to be careful to not say anything too encouraging... It's maybe an unfixable ugly situation. Would like to just be frank with her. We don't work together anymore so that's more possible now. Might want to check if her husband owns a gun first... More worried about him just getting depressed as they almost put him away once for that... (Well, more worried just in general because I am a nice person.)
----
And then there's S. She likes me like that also I'm sure. But has handled it much better. We're safely in dishonesty land.
I think S becomes a better person when I'm around and vice versa. Not the case with D. I become less of a person around D while she walks on water.
----
Trying to understand why I feel comfortable around S but not D. Thinking in terms of honesty is one way to look at it. But then... writing is the illusion of thinking you understand people; including yourself it could just be that D is very chipper and a tad vacant ultimately while S is somber and somewhat intellectual. It could be this or that or some other. But D's coming back. So I'll have more time to try to understand what in the world that strange feeling of uncomfortablness is about.
I was thinking just feeling symbolized might be the problem. It's nice to be liked, even for the wrong reasons it's still slightly nice. To the extent that I am the real me around her the symbolization jars against reality. Perhaps I can see it happening right on her face everytime it does. And find myself reflexively trying to be that vague symbol instead of who I actually am. Which is uncomfortable. Very uncomfortable. I don't even quite breath right at times when talking to her. Ridiculous.
I really want to understand what the hell that is about.
It could just be that despite a lot of outward appearances we don't really have enough in common to warrant hanging out together at all. But that doesn't warrant feeling so uncomfortable... But then maybe it just feels as if she's so different from me it's kind of scary. Which would still be ridiculous.
Beautiful posting though on your part all the same... But if it pertains to me... indirectness isn't my thing. Only mentioning it here and not by email because I don't want to pester and potentially constrain creativity... (Big shoulder shrug here...) Yes, I think of you but not quite that much! I think of lots of things.
And, I don't know about you reading this. I've mention you probably shouldn't. I mean you can if you want... But I just don't think it's a good use of time probably on your part. It's very low quality stuff. Not considerate of any real audience. The imaginary eyes I'm trying to talk to (here) if nothing else have all the time in the world and can't be hurt...
----
D is coming back to the area. D is married, like me, and has a crush on me. She hasn't made this apparent by little stuff like certain looks and flirting. She's just straight up made stuff known... in an almost downright frank manner... but not quite. So I feel stuck at a halfway point between usual dishonesty and truth; in some place well... I don't mean to seem to be referring to someone else's blog post the same as they may not really be referring to mine despite the fact that it really seems otherwise... but indeed here (with D) (I suppose with other people too...) I don't know quite what the correct boundaries are... And so D will want to hang out and I shall be uncomfortable I think. Hope to find a way around feeling uncomfortable.
She has symbolized me. I can't do the same in return because then our spouses will get really unhappy. I feel like I have to be careful to not say anything too encouraging... It's maybe an unfixable ugly situation. Would like to just be frank with her. We don't work together anymore so that's more possible now. Might want to check if her husband owns a gun first... More worried about him just getting depressed as they almost put him away once for that... (Well, more worried just in general because I am a nice person.)
----
And then there's S. She likes me like that also I'm sure. But has handled it much better. We're safely in dishonesty land.
I think S becomes a better person when I'm around and vice versa. Not the case with D. I become less of a person around D while she walks on water.
----
Trying to understand why I feel comfortable around S but not D. Thinking in terms of honesty is one way to look at it. But then... writing is the illusion of thinking you understand people; including yourself it could just be that D is very chipper and a tad vacant ultimately while S is somber and somewhat intellectual. It could be this or that or some other. But D's coming back. So I'll have more time to try to understand what in the world that strange feeling of uncomfortablness is about.
I was thinking just feeling symbolized might be the problem. It's nice to be liked, even for the wrong reasons it's still slightly nice. To the extent that I am the real me around her the symbolization jars against reality. Perhaps I can see it happening right on her face everytime it does. And find myself reflexively trying to be that vague symbol instead of who I actually am. Which is uncomfortable. Very uncomfortable. I don't even quite breath right at times when talking to her. Ridiculous.
I really want to understand what the hell that is about.
It could just be that despite a lot of outward appearances we don't really have enough in common to warrant hanging out together at all. But that doesn't warrant feeling so uncomfortable... But then maybe it just feels as if she's so different from me it's kind of scary. Which would still be ridiculous.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
A special fear is in me today.
I who was once... I hesitate to say fearless... but not afraid of knowledge anyway. Slowly there has come to be some knowledge, some pulling back of the curtain which I can't take so well.
Face to face I often see negative thoughts lurking within people. And often, usually, there's nothing that I can do. Very likely these negative thoughts are with regard to me but I can bend over backwards trying to be nice and it still often does no good. So then I pretend I don't see it. Not a lot of pretending. Just a very little as indeed the person was trying to conceal it. There's only so much I can do short of just going nuts. And anyway I shouldn't be expected to have to constantly read people's minds. Even if I'm just reading how they're going to backstab me, etc.
And I suppose some people have said it would be a horrible thing if you could do it (read minds) and I suppose in a way it would be. The thing would be then; to iron out those differences as a result of such mind reading. But you know, to keep it not so pointlessly sci fi nerdy, the short term is it drives me nuts how face to face I can see behind the bland if I want to.
Mostly I can't stand to anymore. Go ahead and think you're horrible thoughts. I want no part of it.
Online there is another similar fear of knowledge. Because here the blandness is surely gone... but it isn't replaced by people successfully ironing out their differences... Here the ugly things are endlessly revealed, but things are still not resolved... For various reasons... it's still not mind reading...
Ultimately I'm an extreme bleeding heart. An ethical vegan and so on and there's a limit to what I can stand. Probably I can stand less than average. The opposite only may appear to be the case because I push myself so much farther than normal people.
Astro, you're right. People aren't trying their best. That was panglossianism and elitism. They could do better. But then I could do better also I guess. Right this moment I could. But I've too much fear of a certain type of knowledge. I've been stomped on by it too much.
I'm going to go for a long run in the snow. Stupidify myself to the point that maybe I can stand a little more...
I who was once... I hesitate to say fearless... but not afraid of knowledge anyway. Slowly there has come to be some knowledge, some pulling back of the curtain which I can't take so well.
Face to face I often see negative thoughts lurking within people. And often, usually, there's nothing that I can do. Very likely these negative thoughts are with regard to me but I can bend over backwards trying to be nice and it still often does no good. So then I pretend I don't see it. Not a lot of pretending. Just a very little as indeed the person was trying to conceal it. There's only so much I can do short of just going nuts. And anyway I shouldn't be expected to have to constantly read people's minds. Even if I'm just reading how they're going to backstab me, etc.
And I suppose some people have said it would be a horrible thing if you could do it (read minds) and I suppose in a way it would be. The thing would be then; to iron out those differences as a result of such mind reading. But you know, to keep it not so pointlessly sci fi nerdy, the short term is it drives me nuts how face to face I can see behind the bland if I want to.
Mostly I can't stand to anymore. Go ahead and think you're horrible thoughts. I want no part of it.
Online there is another similar fear of knowledge. Because here the blandness is surely gone... but it isn't replaced by people successfully ironing out their differences... Here the ugly things are endlessly revealed, but things are still not resolved... For various reasons... it's still not mind reading...
Ultimately I'm an extreme bleeding heart. An ethical vegan and so on and there's a limit to what I can stand. Probably I can stand less than average. The opposite only may appear to be the case because I push myself so much farther than normal people.
Astro, you're right. People aren't trying their best. That was panglossianism and elitism. They could do better. But then I could do better also I guess. Right this moment I could. But I've too much fear of a certain type of knowledge. I've been stomped on by it too much.
I'm going to go for a long run in the snow. Stupidify myself to the point that maybe I can stand a little more...
Monday, December 15, 2008
You know what happens when two people talk. One of them speaks and the other breaks in: “It’s absolutely the same with me, I…..” and starts talking about himself until the first one manages to slip back in with his own “It’s absolutely the same with me, I…..”
The phrase “It’s absolutely the same with me, I…..” seems to be an approving echo, a way of continuing the other’s thought, but that is an illusion: in reality it is a brute revolt against a brutal violence, an effort to free our own ear from bondage and to occupy our enemy’s ear by force. Because all of man’s life among his kind is nothing other than a battle to seize the ear of others.
A novel is the fruit of a human illusion. The illusion of the power to understand others.
Kundera, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting
This here is such a negativity about writing novels yet in his more recent nonfiction he praises The Novel so much. I can't see though how there could be anything but some illusion going with successfully writing hundreds of pages of stuff... Even here, where very little time was put in, there most certainly was an illusion, as was mentioned many times...
The phrase “It’s absolutely the same with me, I…..” seems to be an approving echo, a way of continuing the other’s thought, but that is an illusion: in reality it is a brute revolt against a brutal violence, an effort to free our own ear from bondage and to occupy our enemy’s ear by force. Because all of man’s life among his kind is nothing other than a battle to seize the ear of others.
A novel is the fruit of a human illusion. The illusion of the power to understand others.
Kundera, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting
This here is such a negativity about writing novels yet in his more recent nonfiction he praises The Novel so much. I can't see though how there could be anything but some illusion going with successfully writing hundreds of pages of stuff... Even here, where very little time was put in, there most certainly was an illusion, as was mentioned many times...
For love is by definition an unmerited gift; being loved without meriting it is the very proof of real love.
If a woman tells you: I love you because you’re intelligent, because you’re decent, because you buy me gifts, because you don’t chase women, because you do the dishes, then you should be disappionted;
such love seems a rather self-interested business.
How much finer it is to hear: I’m crazy about you even though you’re neither intelligent nor decent, even though you’re a liar, an egotist, a bastard.
Milan Kundera, Slowness
Because such "love" is unexplainable we can then do a sort of god of the gaps: A magic of the gaps. I once wrote a love letter to a girl when I was 18 and suicidal. I told her something along the lines of my love for her being totally illogical and that was what made it so wonderful. As all that was logical was horrible.
I don't think she was impressed. LOL.
If a woman tells you: I love you because you’re intelligent, because you’re decent, because you buy me gifts, because you don’t chase women, because you do the dishes, then you should be disappionted;
such love seems a rather self-interested business.
How much finer it is to hear: I’m crazy about you even though you’re neither intelligent nor decent, even though you’re a liar, an egotist, a bastard.
Milan Kundera, Slowness
Because such "love" is unexplainable we can then do a sort of god of the gaps: A magic of the gaps. I once wrote a love letter to a girl when I was 18 and suicidal. I told her something along the lines of my love for her being totally illogical and that was what made it so wonderful. As all that was logical was horrible.
I don't think she was impressed. LOL.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
I wanna go home
Take off this uniform
And leave the show.
But I'm waiting in this cell
Because I have to know.
Have I been guilty all this time?
It is partially me no doubt. I was unhappy in kindergarten and more or less have stayed that way. I grew up unhappy plus have had some unlucky things happen such that I almost just expect something horrible to always happen. Right before I cross the finish line I'll slip and fall and fracture my skull or something. And so, very often I'm just expecting the negative and thus not enjoying what there is to enjoy. A stoic at best often; although that oversimplifies.
But still this world is utterly nuts. My own position in it, what luck/bad luck I've had matters not. This world is certifiable.
I think I've actually really held back here. Self censored myself a bit and thus sugar coated things a bit. Hilarious as that might sound. To truly face the truth of what this world is, is hard to do. I'm not the happiest person in the world to begin with... I'm pushing myself so hard. All these ugly relevations, well some of them anyway, loom and mount. In the face of simultaneously really being busy with just surviving, it sucks.
What I want to do is to rip off the fake smile and make people SEE! See in a way that I personally just barely glimpse myself now and then. The most horrifying novel ever written that makes some people want to kill me at the horrible antipanglossian thoughts I've placed in their head and other people realize that things must change. I want to take what Kundera does and magnify it tenfold minus his anti-idealist solution.
I haven't been honest enough here. Too much stiff upper lip stuff. I don't want this to look like a plea for help because dammit I still am being kind of considerate. I think unfortunately I can't compile want I really want to compile publicly. But it's been very useful all the same, and will continue I suppose.
Take off this uniform
And leave the show.
But I'm waiting in this cell
Because I have to know.
Have I been guilty all this time?
It is partially me no doubt. I was unhappy in kindergarten and more or less have stayed that way. I grew up unhappy plus have had some unlucky things happen such that I almost just expect something horrible to always happen. Right before I cross the finish line I'll slip and fall and fracture my skull or something. And so, very often I'm just expecting the negative and thus not enjoying what there is to enjoy. A stoic at best often; although that oversimplifies.
But still this world is utterly nuts. My own position in it, what luck/bad luck I've had matters not. This world is certifiable.
I think I've actually really held back here. Self censored myself a bit and thus sugar coated things a bit. Hilarious as that might sound. To truly face the truth of what this world is, is hard to do. I'm not the happiest person in the world to begin with... I'm pushing myself so hard. All these ugly relevations, well some of them anyway, loom and mount. In the face of simultaneously really being busy with just surviving, it sucks.
What I want to do is to rip off the fake smile and make people SEE! See in a way that I personally just barely glimpse myself now and then. The most horrifying novel ever written that makes some people want to kill me at the horrible antipanglossian thoughts I've placed in their head and other people realize that things must change. I want to take what Kundera does and magnify it tenfold minus his anti-idealist solution.
I haven't been honest enough here. Too much stiff upper lip stuff. I don't want this to look like a plea for help because dammit I still am being kind of considerate. I think unfortunately I can't compile want I really want to compile publicly. But it's been very useful all the same, and will continue I suppose.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/373893
Crap answer. There's a difference between a comedian and a clown.
I wonder when clowns in the sense of the painted smile and mostly hidden faces originated? I wonder how society's impression of them has changed? There was a time when saying you were scared of clowns was some kind of unusual thing. I think it's about a majority opinion now.
The clown is exactly the Fake Smile, we fear them because it's such clear dishonesty. They were good because they were pretending happiness and sometime there is no choice but that. Did we in the past need to pretend more? Or was it that in the past we really felt that happiness more? Or did a lot of people actually always fear clowns but they went along more, they pretended to pretend more; whereas now it's more acceptable and becoming old really to bother mentioning being scared of clowns?
A jester and a clown are much closer. But the jester was usually a midget? Less potentially harmful?
It is still possible to see a "clown" in the sense of being a harmless and even positive thing today. Something happened though where the traditional painted face close is way out of favor now. Maybe John Wayne Gacy was enough.
Much more goes into humor, can be tied into humor, can be tied into clowns. Jim Carrey can be called a "clown". That's not what I refer to. But I understand there is a such a thing as an innocent smile.
Crap answer. There's a difference between a comedian and a clown.
I wonder when clowns in the sense of the painted smile and mostly hidden faces originated? I wonder how society's impression of them has changed? There was a time when saying you were scared of clowns was some kind of unusual thing. I think it's about a majority opinion now.
The clown is exactly the Fake Smile, we fear them because it's such clear dishonesty. They were good because they were pretending happiness and sometime there is no choice but that. Did we in the past need to pretend more? Or was it that in the past we really felt that happiness more? Or did a lot of people actually always fear clowns but they went along more, they pretended to pretend more; whereas now it's more acceptable and becoming old really to bother mentioning being scared of clowns?
A jester and a clown are much closer. But the jester was usually a midget? Less potentially harmful?
It is still possible to see a "clown" in the sense of being a harmless and even positive thing today. Something happened though where the traditional painted face close is way out of favor now. Maybe John Wayne Gacy was enough.
Much more goes into humor, can be tied into humor, can be tied into clowns. Jim Carrey can be called a "clown". That's not what I refer to. But I understand there is a such a thing as an innocent smile.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2008/11/112308-planet-of-the-neanderthals.html
And then there is the "writing" concept of balance. You can see it here (IMO) with Byrne. Or I'm reminded of his talking song on Remain in Light about people forcing their faces to look how they want them to but making mistakes. I'm also reminded of Vance again I think in the same story about determining the next Leader of the Galaxy.
There is the idea of questioning the status quo while simultaneously seeming humble in the case of Byrne and then with Vance the idea of eitehr questioning the established way and/or being way better than everyone else while simultaneously obediently following rules and/or being humble.
Because as the person reads this, the questioning of the status quo distresses them on some level, no matter how much they personally actually like to question the status quo themselves, thus there must be a balance. With every bold step forward the amygdala..? must be soothed.
But that may not really be it at all of course. Just one definition that could have some success to remember despite it not necessarily actually being true at all. It could simply be the feeling of examining multiple points and/or showing that you do understand multiple points. So the person arrogant enough to question can still be humble for example.
And then there is the "writing" concept of balance. You can see it here (IMO) with Byrne. Or I'm reminded of his talking song on Remain in Light about people forcing their faces to look how they want them to but making mistakes. I'm also reminded of Vance again I think in the same story about determining the next Leader of the Galaxy.
There is the idea of questioning the status quo while simultaneously seeming humble in the case of Byrne and then with Vance the idea of eitehr questioning the established way and/or being way better than everyone else while simultaneously obediently following rules and/or being humble.
Because as the person reads this, the questioning of the status quo distresses them on some level, no matter how much they personally actually like to question the status quo themselves, thus there must be a balance. With every bold step forward the amygdala..? must be soothed.
But that may not really be it at all of course. Just one definition that could have some success to remember despite it not necessarily actually being true at all. It could simply be the feeling of examining multiple points and/or showing that you do understand multiple points. So the person arrogant enough to question can still be humble for example.
Morality = potential long term self interest
On the face of it for most people morality is just a set of rules/laws they follow and if done well they feel pride that they're a good person. But these rules have a basis behind them. This basis can be described as mutual self interest or potential long term self interest.
In other words morality = self interset + altruism, where altruism is really just potential long term self interest. So the thing is that people have very different ideas about what is the proper length of the long term. A "true atheist" at 20 ought to have a different idea than one at 80. People who believe in some vague afterlife ought to have a different idea than people who don't.
The issue is that people say they believe one thing and show through their actions that actually they don't. Ethical vegans who claim to be atheists are one such glaring example. There is no self interest in not killing a chicken if you think you're just going to cease to exist upon death. It would take having a hugely long term scope of potential self interest to possibly give a whoop about a stupid chicken. And that is exactly what it is taking. Vegans don't what to be in a hell because that isn't a happy place. A place where we're killing other creatures mainly just because we easily can is such a hell. They feel it's in their self interest to not live in such a place and thus they don't kill the chickens. They do their tiny part... why was it again? It's like voting. Your own personal vote doesn't matter. Partially at least pride. The made a set of moral laws based on an extremely long term self interest and now are simply feeling pride to follow it. The original moral laws though were made in terms of thinking of the extreme long term.
And some people just aren't smart enough to think in such long terms.
I think, therefore I am.
To the extent you don't think, you aren't. You don't exist. These people who don't think in such long terms exist less. They are less alive. Which brings us back to the original point somewhat. Chickens exist less. They do matter less than humans. Still unnecessary in so many ways to kill them.
If nothing else, I haven't had a cold or flu in 5 years and deep kiss my wife while it appears she might have bronchitis.
Rambing ugly post which very much goes against all of what makes a "good blog post". But gimmicks and dishonesty aside, still has more meat than any blog post I've ever read or just about anything I've ever read period.
...ok well that's not quite true. Haha. I lost the train of thought at the end... Damm. Will try, try, try again later.
In other words morality = self interset + altruism, where altruism is really just potential long term self interest. So the thing is that people have very different ideas about what is the proper length of the long term. A "true atheist" at 20 ought to have a different idea than one at 80. People who believe in some vague afterlife ought to have a different idea than people who don't.
The issue is that people say they believe one thing and show through their actions that actually they don't. Ethical vegans who claim to be atheists are one such glaring example. There is no self interest in not killing a chicken if you think you're just going to cease to exist upon death. It would take having a hugely long term scope of potential self interest to possibly give a whoop about a stupid chicken. And that is exactly what it is taking. Vegans don't what to be in a hell because that isn't a happy place. A place where we're killing other creatures mainly just because we easily can is such a hell. They feel it's in their self interest to not live in such a place and thus they don't kill the chickens. They do their tiny part... why was it again? It's like voting. Your own personal vote doesn't matter. Partially at least pride. The made a set of moral laws based on an extremely long term self interest and now are simply feeling pride to follow it. The original moral laws though were made in terms of thinking of the extreme long term.
And some people just aren't smart enough to think in such long terms.
I think, therefore I am.
To the extent you don't think, you aren't. You don't exist. These people who don't think in such long terms exist less. They are less alive. Which brings us back to the original point somewhat. Chickens exist less. They do matter less than humans. Still unnecessary in so many ways to kill them.
If nothing else, I haven't had a cold or flu in 5 years and deep kiss my wife while it appears she might have bronchitis.
Rambing ugly post which very much goes against all of what makes a "good blog post". But gimmicks and dishonesty aside, still has more meat than any blog post I've ever read or just about anything I've ever read period.
...ok well that's not quite true. Haha. I lost the train of thought at the end... Damm. Will try, try, try again later.
And so ultimately with my imaginary eyes, I'm basically talking to the gods (praying... sort of) through this blog. Here my life is not quite such futility. Because the gods do care. They're reading. Clearly they are, otherwise I wouldn't be writing....
Yes? No?
I'd never get one of those things to see how many hits I'm getting. I kind of hope I'm not getting any at all yet wouldn't want to actually find out that's true. I guess with the settings I've chosen I very well probably am not getting any hits at all. I don't know whether or not the gods show up as hits?
----
For the first time in my life I bought a pair of pants last night with a 38 inch waist. I suppose for someone as tall as me who has muscles and stuff that's not so horrible... But I feel unhappy about it. Also they have to be 'baggy' style. And carpenter style because normal leg style... geez people have such stick legs. So I'm 6'4" 245. I can still knock out a set of 20 chinups and 20 dips. Haven't even hardly been lifting weights though thanks to insomnia issues.
I watched football after buying the pants and there was a fullback who was 6'2" 245 and he looked huge. Like he was about to explode. I don't look like that at all. I guess I'm just built such that I can carry a lot of weight without hardly showing it. Big boned/large frame.
So I decided I'm going to eat pretty much just broccoli and hummus and that's it for a while plus get back into exercise. I was in such a good mood yesterday it was an easy decision.
Today, this morning, I had a fight or flight episode. Another this could ruin your life right here, right now, thing. (Too damm many of those I've had.) After surviving it I find I really want to "celebrate" to get away from that stress. And that means eating something other than broccoli. (sigh) But I guess I won't. I'll talk to "god" and have some broccoli.
----
Tons of dreams lately. Why? Normally I have lots of dreams when in a new situation, like moving or a new job. Neither is the case now. Maybe just a slight easing of stress from what I was under the last few months. I don't know. This dream was with my old boss, something about it turning out she had literally murdered the another employee of hers. And it's funny because as they ruined me, in the literal moments of them saying that's what they were going to do, ultimately I was thinking (provided A: the whole thing just wasn't a show to hide something far more sinister. B: The bosses above my boss weren't quite such psychopaths.) about the next person and the next that she'll do this to. Do her bosses understand? There I sat, while I was being destroyed and I'm worried about other people! Because that's how I am. And I realized how ridiculous I am in this way and I laughed. And what did they think when I laughed? That I was going crazy? They are the question of evil. What are they thinking? Nothing really. That's the real problem. They're just not thinking. "So find another job." No big deal. Simly not thinking. Going out of one's way to avoid thinking. "It was already dead." Simply avoiding thinking as much as possible.
Yes? No?
I'd never get one of those things to see how many hits I'm getting. I kind of hope I'm not getting any at all yet wouldn't want to actually find out that's true. I guess with the settings I've chosen I very well probably am not getting any hits at all. I don't know whether or not the gods show up as hits?
----
For the first time in my life I bought a pair of pants last night with a 38 inch waist. I suppose for someone as tall as me who has muscles and stuff that's not so horrible... But I feel unhappy about it. Also they have to be 'baggy' style. And carpenter style because normal leg style... geez people have such stick legs. So I'm 6'4" 245. I can still knock out a set of 20 chinups and 20 dips. Haven't even hardly been lifting weights though thanks to insomnia issues.
I watched football after buying the pants and there was a fullback who was 6'2" 245 and he looked huge. Like he was about to explode. I don't look like that at all. I guess I'm just built such that I can carry a lot of weight without hardly showing it. Big boned/large frame.
So I decided I'm going to eat pretty much just broccoli and hummus and that's it for a while plus get back into exercise. I was in such a good mood yesterday it was an easy decision.
Today, this morning, I had a fight or flight episode. Another this could ruin your life right here, right now, thing. (Too damm many of those I've had.) After surviving it I find I really want to "celebrate" to get away from that stress. And that means eating something other than broccoli. (sigh) But I guess I won't. I'll talk to "god" and have some broccoli.
----
Tons of dreams lately. Why? Normally I have lots of dreams when in a new situation, like moving or a new job. Neither is the case now. Maybe just a slight easing of stress from what I was under the last few months. I don't know. This dream was with my old boss, something about it turning out she had literally murdered the another employee of hers. And it's funny because as they ruined me, in the literal moments of them saying that's what they were going to do, ultimately I was thinking (provided A: the whole thing just wasn't a show to hide something far more sinister. B: The bosses above my boss weren't quite such psychopaths.) about the next person and the next that she'll do this to. Do her bosses understand? There I sat, while I was being destroyed and I'm worried about other people! Because that's how I am. And I realized how ridiculous I am in this way and I laughed. And what did they think when I laughed? That I was going crazy? They are the question of evil. What are they thinking? Nothing really. That's the real problem. They're just not thinking. "So find another job." No big deal. Simly not thinking. Going out of one's way to avoid thinking. "It was already dead." Simply avoiding thinking as much as possible.
Monday, December 8, 2008
A more positive view of one writing gimmick:
http://supervalentthought.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/hello-world/
"Think about a phrase that resonates. A supervalent thought is a thought whose meaning resides not only in its explicit phrasing, but in the atmosphere of intensity it releases that points beyond the phrase, to a domain of the unsaid. A supervalent thought produces an atmosphere in the world, makes an opening in the potential for apprehension, consciousness, and experience."
Reminds me most especially of some other blog I forgot to save which was very very short leaving much open to the reader. Although it ultimately annoyed me as it simultaneously, from being so short, seemed to be very dismissive of the anonymous people it talked about.
OTOH, not blathering on, leaving a sense of mystery, leaving room for the reader to make it pretty, to add their own symbols, to put in something to love, etc, just seems to make for better reading. Blogs and writing in general that blather on are both more honest and more... self important... painful... pedestrian... everyday ultimately and thus too real. Not good reads...
http://supervalentthought.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/hello-world/
"Think about a phrase that resonates. A supervalent thought is a thought whose meaning resides not only in its explicit phrasing, but in the atmosphere of intensity it releases that points beyond the phrase, to a domain of the unsaid. A supervalent thought produces an atmosphere in the world, makes an opening in the potential for apprehension, consciousness, and experience."
Reminds me most especially of some other blog I forgot to save which was very very short leaving much open to the reader. Although it ultimately annoyed me as it simultaneously, from being so short, seemed to be very dismissive of the anonymous people it talked about.
OTOH, not blathering on, leaving a sense of mystery, leaving room for the reader to make it pretty, to add their own symbols, to put in something to love, etc, just seems to make for better reading. Blogs and writing in general that blather on are both more honest and more... self important... painful... pedestrian... everyday ultimately and thus too real. Not good reads...
The mystery writing gimmick taken to the ridiculous:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122489468502968839.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Not using quotes to designate that which is spoken outloud.
-----
lockedupwv.com
Unfortunately all the criminal pictures aren't online. A copy of the whole thing was at work. Such beautiful people. Their stories are almost leaping off of their mug shot photos. The pedophile page was the least interesting by far. The others would be very useful for sparking writing.
----
Got a cute picture of one of my cat shelters in use. But then he didn't eat his food at all last night and isn't around today. And it looks like big dog footprints in the snow around his shelter. Or is it just the melting snow making his feet look bigger?
I enjoy worrying about this cat. Reminds me of my old (artificial) pond at my last house. Twas so beautiful. 60 colorful large fish (reproduced over three years) that I fed two or three times a day and helped pushed me to wonderful veganism. (To just lay in the swing and read Proust...) But my one partially crippled (wobbly) cat fell in and ripped the liner thus I came out one day and the water level was a foot down! With much work I fixed it but then ever after (till we moved and the person who bought it had the beautiful pond filled in) I had endless "nightmares" about leaky ponds with fish flapping around as they die on the empty bottom. But, with each dream I created a beautiful pond. 50 level ponds with waterfalls, crazy aqueducts systems, etc. Such beautiful dreams, well worth the worry.
Had a great nightmare last night which I can't remember now... Oh yes, didn't finish some crucial school assignment and was thus ruined forever and ever. Before that a vampire nightmare due to my wife's reading that new low brow vampire series.
Yesterday was crazy. Scary hour drive to work through bad snow covered roads. Running in to clock in just in time and pulled to bone marrow for 4 hours, then pulled elsewhere for another 4 hours, then finally back to normal workplace for 4 hours, then boss gives yearly job evaluation, (I hate 'The Boss' just as a matter of principle... but she's so likable and kind of sexy... and knows stuff like Klinger's hometown baseball team... and likes me) then an online quiz at home all in a nice little 17 hour day. Finished off with a nightmare about my life being ruined.
And... my eye has been twitching for the last month and is just getting worse. Just staying in a permanent twitch at times now.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122489468502968839.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Not using quotes to designate that which is spoken outloud.
-----
lockedupwv.com
Unfortunately all the criminal pictures aren't online. A copy of the whole thing was at work. Such beautiful people. Their stories are almost leaping off of their mug shot photos. The pedophile page was the least interesting by far. The others would be very useful for sparking writing.
----
Got a cute picture of one of my cat shelters in use. But then he didn't eat his food at all last night and isn't around today. And it looks like big dog footprints in the snow around his shelter. Or is it just the melting snow making his feet look bigger?
I enjoy worrying about this cat. Reminds me of my old (artificial) pond at my last house. Twas so beautiful. 60 colorful large fish (reproduced over three years) that I fed two or three times a day and helped pushed me to wonderful veganism. (To just lay in the swing and read Proust...) But my one partially crippled (wobbly) cat fell in and ripped the liner thus I came out one day and the water level was a foot down! With much work I fixed it but then ever after (till we moved and the person who bought it had the beautiful pond filled in) I had endless "nightmares" about leaky ponds with fish flapping around as they die on the empty bottom. But, with each dream I created a beautiful pond. 50 level ponds with waterfalls, crazy aqueducts systems, etc. Such beautiful dreams, well worth the worry.
Had a great nightmare last night which I can't remember now... Oh yes, didn't finish some crucial school assignment and was thus ruined forever and ever. Before that a vampire nightmare due to my wife's reading that new low brow vampire series.
Yesterday was crazy. Scary hour drive to work through bad snow covered roads. Running in to clock in just in time and pulled to bone marrow for 4 hours, then pulled elsewhere for another 4 hours, then finally back to normal workplace for 4 hours, then boss gives yearly job evaluation, (I hate 'The Boss' just as a matter of principle... but she's so likable and kind of sexy... and knows stuff like Klinger's hometown baseball team... and likes me) then an online quiz at home all in a nice little 17 hour day. Finished off with a nightmare about my life being ruined.
And... my eye has been twitching for the last month and is just getting worse. Just staying in a permanent twitch at times now.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
In plays and such, there's the protaganist and this part where a chorus sings about him. Drawing a blank concerning examples, but I recall it many times. And wondering about it. Who were these people, this chorus, where'd they come from? How bizarre.
They're the imaginary eyes. The reassurance of the imaginary eyes defeating the futility of life, the endless actions that don't matter, that are fogotten by all. They are angels watching your life.
And perhaps related to god. Being able to enjoy their place in the art. If you feel any positive feeling in them. You're "believing" in god/magic.
What are other examples where on a mostly unconscious level one is "believing" in "god/magic"? Crying... There were others but it's been a 17 hour day. (14 hour workday).
They're the imaginary eyes. The reassurance of the imaginary eyes defeating the futility of life, the endless actions that don't matter, that are fogotten by all. They are angels watching your life.
And perhaps related to god. Being able to enjoy their place in the art. If you feel any positive feeling in them. You're "believing" in god/magic.
What are other examples where on a mostly unconscious level one is "believing" in "god/magic"? Crying... There were others but it's been a 17 hour day. (14 hour workday).
Zizek concerning sitcom canned laughter:
Why this laughter? The first possible answer –that it serves to remind us when to laugh – is interesting enough, because it implies the paradox that laughter is a matter of duty and not a spontaneous feeling; but this answer is not sufficient because we do not usually laugh. The only correct answer would be that the Other – embodied in the television set – is relieving us even of our duty to laugh – is laughing instead of us. So even if, tired from a hard day’s stupid work, all evening we did nothing but gaze drowsily at the television screen, we can say afterwards that objectively, through the medium of the other, we had a really good time. (Zizek, Slavoj The Sublime Object of Ideology. p. 35 Verso, 1989)
Is canned laughter also of the fake smile or the fake laugh that people do?
----
Is justice always the goal of hate?
Yes. We only feel hate as a result of believing in evil where evil is defined as causing harm, knowing it and not caring. IOW we Only feel hate in the face of indifference. Through curing this indifference there can be justice.
Point being Zizek claming on pg 92 of Violence that hate is so much worse than indifference basically.
Hate is an attempt at justice and hate is at least correctible. Indifference not so much. But it's the acceptable thing in society. As it can't be helped so much. And indifference generally only kills indirectly.
Why this laughter? The first possible answer –that it serves to remind us when to laugh – is interesting enough, because it implies the paradox that laughter is a matter of duty and not a spontaneous feeling; but this answer is not sufficient because we do not usually laugh. The only correct answer would be that the Other – embodied in the television set – is relieving us even of our duty to laugh – is laughing instead of us. So even if, tired from a hard day’s stupid work, all evening we did nothing but gaze drowsily at the television screen, we can say afterwards that objectively, through the medium of the other, we had a really good time. (Zizek, Slavoj The Sublime Object of Ideology. p. 35 Verso, 1989)
Is canned laughter also of the fake smile or the fake laugh that people do?
----
Is justice always the goal of hate?
Yes. We only feel hate as a result of believing in evil where evil is defined as causing harm, knowing it and not caring. IOW we Only feel hate in the face of indifference. Through curing this indifference there can be justice.
Point being Zizek claming on pg 92 of Violence that hate is so much worse than indifference basically.
Hate is an attempt at justice and hate is at least correctible. Indifference not so much. But it's the acceptable thing in society. As it can't be helped so much. And indifference generally only kills indirectly.
Friday, December 5, 2008
A bit of story mainly held together by the gimmick of withholding adequate information. A person, a traveler of worlds, is walking through wilderness in the late night, it's cold, but just barely warm enough that it's raining instead of snowing. The traveler is drenched and cold. And hungry. Where is he? What is he? Make him not quite clear... He finds a sign that makes him think he is in ... a fairytale land. And then he sees a house in the wilderness. In fairytale land anyone who would live so much out in the middle of nowhere would be some nonconformist type who would by sympathetic and helpful to Him.
He goes to the house... and finds he was mistaken. He mistook the signs, this is some other place. (Kentucky? Or is that even not enough gimmicky withholding?) The people in the house are .... rednecks? But leave it just open enough that they might be goblins...? Nascar racing, deer mounted on the wall, redneck accent, racist... They are far from welcoming.
And he is far from the hero we thought...? But then the hero can kill 100 golbins and that's great. What are they? We don't quite know. We've gone overboard on this one annoying gimmick. He kills them most gruesomely. The man, his bitch and 4 children.
He is so tired and so hungry. The frig is full of corpses. Disgusting. Well if he must eat flesh it might as well be fresh.
They taste effing awful. He spits them out.
This is one of the corpse worlds. The lowest of the low. He takes out the device. Too tired to calculate. He gives it another random spin and departs; not able enough to care where he might go next.
(Hold on to the fear. Hold on to some mystery, gimmick that it is. Otherwise go ahead and take a polemical stab. Whoopee.)
Needs more fear. The "hero" is like an alien/predator creature (the phung) which is in conflict with it's tribal/primal nature. Like Drizzit but much more conflict (much more animalistic than drow). When tired he fails more often.
The humans are racist to his race (wordsymth!). He is dismissed but rarely if ever reveals how uncommon he is in trying to spocktify himself and rise above his animalistic nature. The gimmick of teasing the reader. The humans are the same but to a lesser degree. It's hopefully easy enough to see but never really pointed out. Tschai.
Mystery. Little pieces of what he is. The veganism is mentioned... But he does kill and eat them. He is so weak. But his weakness affects his mind more than his body, such is his race. The redneck tries to shoot him.
There is the constant battle in his mind. There is the discrimination he faces from the other races. His goal..?
He goes to the house... and finds he was mistaken. He mistook the signs, this is some other place. (Kentucky? Or is that even not enough gimmicky withholding?) The people in the house are .... rednecks? But leave it just open enough that they might be goblins...? Nascar racing, deer mounted on the wall, redneck accent, racist... They are far from welcoming.
And he is far from the hero we thought...? But then the hero can kill 100 golbins and that's great. What are they? We don't quite know. We've gone overboard on this one annoying gimmick. He kills them most gruesomely. The man, his bitch and 4 children.
He is so tired and so hungry. The frig is full of corpses. Disgusting. Well if he must eat flesh it might as well be fresh.
They taste effing awful. He spits them out.
This is one of the corpse worlds. The lowest of the low. He takes out the device. Too tired to calculate. He gives it another random spin and departs; not able enough to care where he might go next.
(Hold on to the fear. Hold on to some mystery, gimmick that it is. Otherwise go ahead and take a polemical stab. Whoopee.)
Needs more fear. The "hero" is like an alien/predator creature (the phung) which is in conflict with it's tribal/primal nature. Like Drizzit but much more conflict (much more animalistic than drow). When tired he fails more often.
The humans are racist to his race (wordsymth!). He is dismissed but rarely if ever reveals how uncommon he is in trying to spocktify himself and rise above his animalistic nature. The gimmick of teasing the reader. The humans are the same but to a lesser degree. It's hopefully easy enough to see but never really pointed out. Tschai.
Mystery. Little pieces of what he is. The veganism is mentioned... But he does kill and eat them. He is so weak. But his weakness affects his mind more than his body, such is his race. The redneck tries to shoot him.
There is the constant battle in his mind. There is the discrimination he faces from the other races. His goal..?
Thursday, December 4, 2008
http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_New_Harvard_Research_Investigates_the_Causes_of_Aging_30066.html
"Resveratrol works as a biological survival mechanism that switches the body’s resources from fertility to tissue maintenance by activating protein agents known in people as sirtuins. Therefore, life is prolonged since it reduces at the same time degenerative diseases of aging, such as Alzheimer’s."
It prolongs life by taking resources from fertility. Same with veganism. Vegan women hit menarche later and menopause earlier, while living longer.
Meat tells the body that the situation isn't good. You've been reduced to frequent murder to stop from starving. The world must be an ugly place and life must be generally short and brutal. So better reproduce quick to make sure the genes survive.
And so sex, the more you want it, the more you're into it, is about death. The sex crazed individual is a creature of death. The sex crazed individual is usually relatively stupid and makes up for it's stupidity with a lot more sex.
And the idea of having thoughts which trigger emotions is bizarre, logically speaking. Emotions are bizarre period. All of them. But the most bizarre of all are the sex "emotions".
And we've driven things to greater extremes by making it that which is hidden. Why? Because otherwise we're too smart to bother enough with sex???
"Resveratrol works as a biological survival mechanism that switches the body’s resources from fertility to tissue maintenance by activating protein agents known in people as sirtuins. Therefore, life is prolonged since it reduces at the same time degenerative diseases of aging, such as Alzheimer’s."
It prolongs life by taking resources from fertility. Same with veganism. Vegan women hit menarche later and menopause earlier, while living longer.
Meat tells the body that the situation isn't good. You've been reduced to frequent murder to stop from starving. The world must be an ugly place and life must be generally short and brutal. So better reproduce quick to make sure the genes survive.
And so sex, the more you want it, the more you're into it, is about death. The sex crazed individual is a creature of death. The sex crazed individual is usually relatively stupid and makes up for it's stupidity with a lot more sex.
And the idea of having thoughts which trigger emotions is bizarre, logically speaking. Emotions are bizarre period. All of them. But the most bizarre of all are the sex "emotions".
And we've driven things to greater extremes by making it that which is hidden. Why? Because otherwise we're too smart to bother enough with sex???
Instincts do exist. The amygdala. I forgot. Reinventing the wheel isn't very fun most of the time.
Changing one's mind can be such a beautiful thing. Or it can be the realization of failure. Which is just not beautiful. Well the failure isn't the realization of being wrong. It's the realization that someone might waste their time reading such utter effing crap and I'll be dammed if I can Really worry about such things to the point of doing something different. (sigh) Can just feel bad about it. Will figure it out soon. Being considerate versus figuring out a way forward with creativity.
----
Nurse Grey changes so much. Purposely vague. Fill... it with your own vague ideas...
Gimmicks. Tricks. Dishonest?
What of a book that literally was a pefect download of all information as some event really happened? Is that better or worse than purposely withholding information? Seems withholding is such an important part in multiple ways, not just with stories or art. I dislike like doing so though.
Changing one's mind can be such a beautiful thing. Or it can be the realization of failure. Which is just not beautiful. Well the failure isn't the realization of being wrong. It's the realization that someone might waste their time reading such utter effing crap and I'll be dammed if I can Really worry about such things to the point of doing something different. (sigh) Can just feel bad about it. Will figure it out soon. Being considerate versus figuring out a way forward with creativity.
----
Nurse Grey changes so much. Purposely vague. Fill... it with your own vague ideas...
Gimmicks. Tricks. Dishonest?
What of a book that literally was a pefect download of all information as some event really happened? Is that better or worse than purposely withholding information? Seems withholding is such an important part in multiple ways, not just with stories or art. I dislike like doing so though.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
"I thought of it as being similar to stoics. And also associated with Vancian characters who even while being tortured kept a relatively even keel."
Vance had one story where 5 men were put through a mind simulation, put through a number of situations to determine who would be the next ruler of the galaxy. The simulation only lasted an afternoon but seemed to take months at least in their minds. The final scenario was being tortured to get wartime information. As it ended the men came to and one man was left a gibbering fool, huddled in a corner trying to eat a leaf he had found. But one man was like a stone, even being tortured for months had had no effect on him. His scoring was seemingly perfect. He had handled every situation like Spock I suppose would have.
To his chagrin the "deciders" chose the man who had been reduced to insanity by the torture (they could fix him back up to sanity) to be the next ruler.
I don't think that Vance explained it so well. Will look it up. But the point is easily understood. To be able to withstand such torture is a sort of freakish insanity in it's own right. And to be such a man, a man who lives every moment like neverending war, is lacking in wisdom. He just might not take the galaxy in the best direction despite having good morals, etc.
To always be waiting for that death blow is no way to live. But it seems to ever be caught unexpected...
It is a sort of losing to always be waiting for it. The infinite strike that reverberates in your mind for your entire life.
Ultimately it's a game and to some extent we choose the games we wish to play. Some of us are more creative than others. But why did I choose such a game really?
One can cry or one can get angry or one can be like Spock, untouched by anything. Like steel, like stone. I thought to cry meant you lose the game. Getting angry also means losing the game. But being like a robot, always waiting to be surprised also means losing the game.
We laugh at what is unexpectedly wrong. Not bothering to expect the death blow, thus finding everything unexpected would mean laughing a lot. This too is a form of insanity. Much more clearly than being a stoic. Really anything out of the norm is "insane"; a pointless tiresome word.
Laughing more often is simply not doing as good of a job at expecting things to go wrong.
Do too good a job and you're a stoic. Too bad and you're an idiot. It is good to reject the norm in this world. Even if the norm is actually right. It's still good for a few people to go in different directions. Being different just for the sake of being different in and of itself is basically a good thing in this world.
Vance had one story where 5 men were put through a mind simulation, put through a number of situations to determine who would be the next ruler of the galaxy. The simulation only lasted an afternoon but seemed to take months at least in their minds. The final scenario was being tortured to get wartime information. As it ended the men came to and one man was left a gibbering fool, huddled in a corner trying to eat a leaf he had found. But one man was like a stone, even being tortured for months had had no effect on him. His scoring was seemingly perfect. He had handled every situation like Spock I suppose would have.
To his chagrin the "deciders" chose the man who had been reduced to insanity by the torture (they could fix him back up to sanity) to be the next ruler.
I don't think that Vance explained it so well. Will look it up. But the point is easily understood. To be able to withstand such torture is a sort of freakish insanity in it's own right. And to be such a man, a man who lives every moment like neverending war, is lacking in wisdom. He just might not take the galaxy in the best direction despite having good morals, etc.
To always be waiting for that death blow is no way to live. But it seems to ever be caught unexpected...
It is a sort of losing to always be waiting for it. The infinite strike that reverberates in your mind for your entire life.
Ultimately it's a game and to some extent we choose the games we wish to play. Some of us are more creative than others. But why did I choose such a game really?
One can cry or one can get angry or one can be like Spock, untouched by anything. Like steel, like stone. I thought to cry meant you lose the game. Getting angry also means losing the game. But being like a robot, always waiting to be surprised also means losing the game.
We laugh at what is unexpectedly wrong. Not bothering to expect the death blow, thus finding everything unexpected would mean laughing a lot. This too is a form of insanity. Much more clearly than being a stoic. Really anything out of the norm is "insane"; a pointless tiresome word.
Laughing more often is simply not doing as good of a job at expecting things to go wrong.
Do too good a job and you're a stoic. Too bad and you're an idiot. It is good to reject the norm in this world. Even if the norm is actually right. It's still good for a few people to go in different directions. Being different just for the sake of being different in and of itself is basically a good thing in this world.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Instincts
There is no such thing as instincts.
All emotions are triggered by thoughts.
The baby cries when it's hungry because it's thinking about the pain in its stomach. And thinking about pain triggers the emotion which causes crying.
I don't know why a horse tries to stand immediately upon being born. But it's not "instincts". The word is just some vague hand waving not much better than saying "godidit". It's a process of thought for the horse. Getting away from pain, perhaps trying to get back to the safer place from whence it came. Quickly realizing these leg things do certain things. Through evolution there is no reason why one can't immediately be able to do some thinking right at birth... For the baby it simply thinks of its pain, the only thing close to instinctual is that by thinking certain thoughts, certain emotions are triggered.
"1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
2. A powerful motivation or impulse.
3. An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy."
No, there is only clear thinking and haphazard vague thinking and the emotions which are triggered by each. There is no magical it does it because that's just what they do.
A pointless word at best with many ugly uses.
Salmon spawning in the river from which they were born:
Pigeons actually have compasses in their noses. So the salmon has something going on whereby it knows where to go.
But isn't sex instinctual? Sex is an emotion/hormone triggered by thoughts. The man thinks about the woman. Pleasurable endorphins or whatever result. Through trial and error he learns what will continue the pleasure he feels...
It isn't necessary to explain the salmon because human sex is nonsensical in and of itself. Logic combined with nonsensical steps. Why would such and such cause pleasure? Random beneficial mutations.
So does it matter at all to just call it instincts?
It reduces understanding a little too quick at times. Throws up a curtain at times... The real problem I guess perhaps is that people don't think thought triggers emotions/hormones/endorphins, etc, whatever? Wasn't that even what Hofstadter said?
"...85:00: "Emotion and intelligence are inseperable." I suppose I disagree.
Emotions are the side effects of certain thought processes."
From Victim of the Brain. Yes, I think you're wrong Mr. Hof, professor of AI or whatever. Emotions are the side effects of thinking, emotions are triggered by thoughts... If you see it as a big mush then we have mush words like 'instincts'. Which isn't to say I think it's not that way just to find a way to make it simpler... I don't think...
All emotions are triggered by thoughts.
The baby cries when it's hungry because it's thinking about the pain in its stomach. And thinking about pain triggers the emotion which causes crying.
I don't know why a horse tries to stand immediately upon being born. But it's not "instincts". The word is just some vague hand waving not much better than saying "godidit". It's a process of thought for the horse. Getting away from pain, perhaps trying to get back to the safer place from whence it came. Quickly realizing these leg things do certain things. Through evolution there is no reason why one can't immediately be able to do some thinking right at birth... For the baby it simply thinks of its pain, the only thing close to instinctual is that by thinking certain thoughts, certain emotions are triggered.
"1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
2. A powerful motivation or impulse.
3. An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy."
No, there is only clear thinking and haphazard vague thinking and the emotions which are triggered by each. There is no magical it does it because that's just what they do.
A pointless word at best with many ugly uses.
Salmon spawning in the river from which they were born:
Pigeons actually have compasses in their noses. So the salmon has something going on whereby it knows where to go.
But isn't sex instinctual? Sex is an emotion/hormone triggered by thoughts. The man thinks about the woman. Pleasurable endorphins or whatever result. Through trial and error he learns what will continue the pleasure he feels...
It isn't necessary to explain the salmon because human sex is nonsensical in and of itself. Logic combined with nonsensical steps. Why would such and such cause pleasure? Random beneficial mutations.
So does it matter at all to just call it instincts?
It reduces understanding a little too quick at times. Throws up a curtain at times... The real problem I guess perhaps is that people don't think thought triggers emotions/hormones/endorphins, etc, whatever? Wasn't that even what Hofstadter said?
"...85:00: "Emotion and intelligence are inseperable." I suppose I disagree.
Emotions are the side effects of certain thought processes."
From Victim of the Brain. Yes, I think you're wrong Mr. Hof, professor of AI or whatever. Emotions are the side effects of thinking, emotions are triggered by thoughts... If you see it as a big mush then we have mush words like 'instincts'. Which isn't to say I think it's not that way just to find a way to make it simpler... I don't think...
Pets. The god of the gaps. Magic = God.
Of that which we don't understand some of us say 'god did it.' Of that which we don't understand or just don't know we like to think it magic. Of that which is hidden we are free to let imagination run wild and we think about vague yet fantastic notions. (Love at first sight/infatuation.) (Clothes improving sex.) (The dark is better.)
If pets could speak well, really well express themselves, I just don't think we'd like them as much, no matter how sweet... even potentially interesting they might show themselves to be. As it is, even though they do express themselves and manage to communicate to an extent, there is an unknown element within which we put magic. That which is hidden is fascinating. My cats looks at me. There are emotions going on. But what really are they thinking at any moment? The one often looks like it's thinking 'f u'. The other that it loves me. But who totally knows what's going on within them? The unknown is magical.
We are constantly believing in and then forgetting gods/magic. Sometimes with anger, sometimes with crying, sometimes with enjoying a piece of art, especially music. Sometimes with respect to liking or finding another person attractive. Etc.
We do this without really understanding what is going on within us. We can be the most strident atheist; whom logically ridicules god/s and belief in magic while still constantly doing such things.
Of that which we don't understand some of us say 'god did it.' Of that which we don't understand or just don't know we like to think it magic. Of that which is hidden we are free to let imagination run wild and we think about vague yet fantastic notions. (Love at first sight/infatuation.) (Clothes improving sex.) (The dark is better.)
If pets could speak well, really well express themselves, I just don't think we'd like them as much, no matter how sweet... even potentially interesting they might show themselves to be. As it is, even though they do express themselves and manage to communicate to an extent, there is an unknown element within which we put magic. That which is hidden is fascinating. My cats looks at me. There are emotions going on. But what really are they thinking at any moment? The one often looks like it's thinking 'f u'. The other that it loves me. But who totally knows what's going on within them? The unknown is magical.
We are constantly believing in and then forgetting gods/magic. Sometimes with anger, sometimes with crying, sometimes with enjoying a piece of art, especially music. Sometimes with respect to liking or finding another person attractive. Etc.
We do this without really understanding what is going on within us. We can be the most strident atheist; whom logically ridicules god/s and belief in magic while still constantly doing such things.
Too mired in mere survival to consider changes that would makes us happier. We still practice the norms of tribal living, the norms which made us effective at violence. These norms were enacted through more violence of course and so now when the norms are no longer needed people aren't interested in discarding them unless they can't manage to find some happiness in this society. IOW, the people who either really do have a bit of something wrong with them or perhaps a few who are simply bored but... I think the later is a small minority.
Army people are robotified but then to make up for it they disobey some silly cultural norm, like they make up x rated ditties to sing as they march about. This is an attempt to give some balance. So the soldier doesn't feel like such a rule obeying robot.
---
We create and discard gods constantly unaware of what we're doing. We need a god to cry to. We need one to get angry at when we're angry at no one... We can best believe in magic when we're unaware we're doing it. We do it also when enjoying music...
---
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20081201/sc_livescience/cleanpeoplearelessjudgmental
Saying clean words makes a person feel clean? Eh?
---
We create and discard gods constantly unaware of what we're doing. We need a god to cry to. We need one to get angry at when we're angry at no one... We can best believe in magic when we're unaware we're doing it. We do it also when enjoying music...
---
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20081201/sc_livescience/cleanpeoplearelessjudgmental
Saying clean words makes a person feel clean? Eh?
Sunday, November 30, 2008
They told me of necrophilia, beastiality and pedophilia in their culture. How true was it? It was propaganda to dehumanize the enemy but I still think there may have been some truth to it. I mean to say such things may be more prevalent there than in other cultures. Although such things are probably even greater crimes there than here, if that's possible... Well maybe not beastiality of that they were many stories... Anecdotes from people not a part of the propaganda machine...
The extreme sexual repression did lead to the men being hypersexual. That which is hidden becomes an all consuming interest; the sight of an ankle being some huge turn on. And without any reality the imagination is free to run wild.
So what are the results of sexual repression on a society? We can't learn so much maybe based on real world examples... but sociological studies would be nice. For the real world there are other factors confusing the issue, not to mention genetics are real.
What was the point in the first place of sexual repression? There is the christian ideal of concentrating solely on the afterlife and having no interest in fun today. But I don't think that's really it so much, probably was based primarily on men owning women and making sure that other men simply wouldn't be allowed to even see them at all. Not even an ankle. I think this is what is basically still going on in the ME. With FGM in a few places to ensure further that women won't want to cheat. The men who made their women cover up and forced FGM on them perhaps were slightly more likely to spread their genes...? Or at least that kind of thinking in general led them also to other measures which did.
The same would work for men keeping covered too. To ensure a women wouldn't covet a man, thus make him cover up at least some...
So we hide how much we make. We hide what we really think. We hide our bodies...
Bad results of this repression? The marionette/isolation. Excessive preoccupation. Rape, etc? Bad matches... Seems so obvious to just look at naked tribes in the forest. But too many variables. Mostly... simply genetics.
The perfect study never to be done again:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15629096
Results locked away till 2066. Of course it's way more than 50% genetics. Short of routine beatings and/or malnutrition...
The PC thing to do is pretend we're all the same genetically and all our differences can be explained by our environment. .... There is a horrifying example of evolution which has happened in the last few hundred years which is so obvious. But we must not mention it. Keep that curtain closed!
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/pioneer.htm
"Remarkably, separated identical twins were more similar than fraternal twins raised in the same home."
Of course.
"One scientist [presumably the great Arthur Jensen] had to be accompanied by an armed guard on his own campus, as well as guarded in his own home. Another scientist was required by his university to teach his classes by closed circuit television, supposedly in order to prevent a riot breaking out in his class. Several scientists had university and other speaking engagements canceled or interrupted by gangs of students or outside toughs. … Two scientists who had speaking engagements in Australia needed 50 policemen to rescue them from a mob. At one major university a professor invaded the class of another professor, led a raucous demonstration there, and had to be removed by campus police. The son of one of Pioneer's directors agreed to succeed his father on the Pioneer board, but then withdrew when the son's wife objected, citing social ostracism and physical danger.
Other examples of the intimidation of Pioneer-funded scientists include the 1973 beating of Britain's best-known psychologist Hans J. Eysenck as he attempted to lecture at the London School of Economics. In 1990, the Dean of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, where Eysenck had been for 44 years, prohibited him from receiving any further support from the Pioneer Fund. Yet that was the same year that a survey of leading American psychologists and historians named Eysenck among the top ten most influential psychologists in the world."
Of course.
Anyway I recognize it's not very useful to try to understand the effects of cultural differences by comparing very large groups.
The extreme sexual repression did lead to the men being hypersexual. That which is hidden becomes an all consuming interest; the sight of an ankle being some huge turn on. And without any reality the imagination is free to run wild.
So what are the results of sexual repression on a society? We can't learn so much maybe based on real world examples... but sociological studies would be nice. For the real world there are other factors confusing the issue, not to mention genetics are real.
What was the point in the first place of sexual repression? There is the christian ideal of concentrating solely on the afterlife and having no interest in fun today. But I don't think that's really it so much, probably was based primarily on men owning women and making sure that other men simply wouldn't be allowed to even see them at all. Not even an ankle. I think this is what is basically still going on in the ME. With FGM in a few places to ensure further that women won't want to cheat. The men who made their women cover up and forced FGM on them perhaps were slightly more likely to spread their genes...? Or at least that kind of thinking in general led them also to other measures which did.
The same would work for men keeping covered too. To ensure a women wouldn't covet a man, thus make him cover up at least some...
So we hide how much we make. We hide what we really think. We hide our bodies...
Bad results of this repression? The marionette/isolation. Excessive preoccupation. Rape, etc? Bad matches... Seems so obvious to just look at naked tribes in the forest. But too many variables. Mostly... simply genetics.
The perfect study never to be done again:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15629096
Results locked away till 2066. Of course it's way more than 50% genetics. Short of routine beatings and/or malnutrition...
The PC thing to do is pretend we're all the same genetically and all our differences can be explained by our environment. .... There is a horrifying example of evolution which has happened in the last few hundred years which is so obvious. But we must not mention it. Keep that curtain closed!
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/pioneer.htm
"Remarkably, separated identical twins were more similar than fraternal twins raised in the same home."
Of course.
"One scientist [presumably the great Arthur Jensen] had to be accompanied by an armed guard on his own campus, as well as guarded in his own home. Another scientist was required by his university to teach his classes by closed circuit television, supposedly in order to prevent a riot breaking out in his class. Several scientists had university and other speaking engagements canceled or interrupted by gangs of students or outside toughs. … Two scientists who had speaking engagements in Australia needed 50 policemen to rescue them from a mob. At one major university a professor invaded the class of another professor, led a raucous demonstration there, and had to be removed by campus police. The son of one of Pioneer's directors agreed to succeed his father on the Pioneer board, but then withdrew when the son's wife objected, citing social ostracism and physical danger.
Other examples of the intimidation of Pioneer-funded scientists include the 1973 beating of Britain's best-known psychologist Hans J. Eysenck as he attempted to lecture at the London School of Economics. In 1990, the Dean of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, where Eysenck had been for 44 years, prohibited him from receiving any further support from the Pioneer Fund. Yet that was the same year that a survey of leading American psychologists and historians named Eysenck among the top ten most influential psychologists in the world."
Of course.
Anyway I recognize it's not very useful to try to understand the effects of cultural differences by comparing very large groups.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Power struggle/balance. Becoming a marionette. Becoming not you. Becoming incapable of being you. Forgetting what that even is...
....A different balance.... a mood balance... When one person is unhappy balancing them by being happier than you might otherwise be. And vice versa... But not everyone does it... and those who do, don't always.
There was once an unhappy person that I both "won" the power balance with and who was very unhappy. The result was me so at ease and naturally falling into a role of being so damm happy around them... trying to cheer them up and accomplishing the opposite I think. Like monkeys just... displaying dominance in some strange totally unmeant way. A smile Seems to mean such a different thing for humans... but does it really? Yes, it does. Sometimes.
Perhaps they're both just me. Too full of some kind of fear and the ultimate contrarian. Never have I thought any depressed person a "downer". Only happy people annoy me, lol.
These are all partial lies.
----
Today I went to a football game and yelled "Yeah!" at the crucial moment of a long touchdown run. Froze my ass off and was bored by the conversation. 12 hours of stupid sexual puns. But all that trifling talk and laughing, it works so much better at the end, at the moment of dropping the people off and saying goodbye. It makes sense then, seems that things have been the way they were "supposed" to have been. I suppose...
---
Discarded another song I wrote. So sick of music. Except this:
....A different balance.... a mood balance... When one person is unhappy balancing them by being happier than you might otherwise be. And vice versa... But not everyone does it... and those who do, don't always.
There was once an unhappy person that I both "won" the power balance with and who was very unhappy. The result was me so at ease and naturally falling into a role of being so damm happy around them... trying to cheer them up and accomplishing the opposite I think. Like monkeys just... displaying dominance in some strange totally unmeant way. A smile Seems to mean such a different thing for humans... but does it really? Yes, it does. Sometimes.
Perhaps they're both just me. Too full of some kind of fear and the ultimate contrarian. Never have I thought any depressed person a "downer". Only happy people annoy me, lol.
These are all partial lies.
----
Today I went to a football game and yelled "Yeah!" at the crucial moment of a long touchdown run. Froze my ass off and was bored by the conversation. 12 hours of stupid sexual puns. But all that trifling talk and laughing, it works so much better at the end, at the moment of dropping the people off and saying goodbye. It makes sense then, seems that things have been the way they were "supposed" to have been. I suppose...
---
Discarded another song I wrote. So sick of music. Except this:
Thursday, November 27, 2008
My 5 year old nephew is so silly. I try to teach him to read and he won't be bothered; more interested in being silly. I try to teach him even how to do a pushup even and it's the same. Anything that is percieved as unexpectedly wrong is seen as funny and my 5 year old nephew is constantly full of euphoria. The very act of me being serious is hilarious.
It worries me as one can't go through life like that. But really it would be a better way to live. I ought to go along with him more. So much better to look on the past and see lots of laughing...
It worries me as one can't go through life like that. But really it would be a better way to live. I ought to go along with him more. So much better to look on the past and see lots of laughing...
Rooting out the magic... I think to enjoy music it must have something that is "magical" about it. Lately I've not enjoyed music much.
When younger I'd visit/move to new places and they'd have their own unique feel to them. It seemed a thing of magic to me. I wasn't able to logically understand how they "felt". Occasionally synethesia became involved. I remember driving in the middle of the night to San Franciso when I was 18 and it had such a strong feel and I even started to smell this... calming smell. (I whom have almost no sense of normal smell.)
Fort Ord was like the president's nuclear holocaust dream in Dreamscape.
Kentucky was like that place in Stephen King's The Stand; an awful dead place.
West Virginia is slightly positive. Not so many unhappy spirits, quiet at least.
For all it's chavs etc England was overflowing with magic. I'm someone else there...
Germany is hard to make sense of... like I wasn't really there...
Many places had not much feel though...New England, Crete, Maryland, Florida, New Mexico. Many just felt slightly sleepy like Niagara/Toronto.
Is it not all a pile of shaving cream? Was there really no magic? Just really unexamined thinking, preconceptions, a very few visual cues, etc, thrown together and becoming some psuedo magic? No different than people who think they're psychics/mediums?
No amount of time in Kentucky would change it. It is an evil place. Happy people from there are to be avoided...
I'd so much like it to be all magic going on within me. I can't quite stand to find out how wrong I am. I need some belief in magic. I'm losing what little I had.
The UK was especially some "magical" place. Not for any particular logical reason. But for magical reasons. I feel I was predestined to live there. That something went horribly awry. But it's a bit of belief in magic that is leaving me now. Ultimately I saw english TV shows and they sounded smarter with their pretty accents. They were the best TV shows (Doctor Who, Monty Python). Better than anything here. So, you know, half assed thinking when 10 or so became ingrained in me somehow very deeply beyond logical thought. But then furthermore I had the sex hormones running like crazy back then (must reproduce!!!) so I attached the idea of a english woman. That became a part of the predestined feel. But it was a vague thing of course. Now I Know real live people from the UK, with beautiful accents and they're too real. They can't be a part of that predestined stupid "magical" notion. They must be sufficiently vague for it to work.
You see you have to take a human and turn them into a symbol; much like is done with "love" as Zizek so complains about... (at least I think that's part of what he's getting at). And anyway, it's an awful thing to do to anyone; this turning of people into symbols. It takes some ignoring who they really are.
But then... as so much successful reproducing is accomplished thanks to this "love" perhaps people learn to act in ways where it's hard to not turn them into a symbol...
When younger I'd visit/move to new places and they'd have their own unique feel to them. It seemed a thing of magic to me. I wasn't able to logically understand how they "felt". Occasionally synethesia became involved. I remember driving in the middle of the night to San Franciso when I was 18 and it had such a strong feel and I even started to smell this... calming smell. (I whom have almost no sense of normal smell.)
Fort Ord was like the president's nuclear holocaust dream in Dreamscape.
Kentucky was like that place in Stephen King's The Stand; an awful dead place.
West Virginia is slightly positive. Not so many unhappy spirits, quiet at least.
For all it's chavs etc England was overflowing with magic. I'm someone else there...
Germany is hard to make sense of... like I wasn't really there...
Many places had not much feel though...New England, Crete, Maryland, Florida, New Mexico. Many just felt slightly sleepy like Niagara/Toronto.
Is it not all a pile of shaving cream? Was there really no magic? Just really unexamined thinking, preconceptions, a very few visual cues, etc, thrown together and becoming some psuedo magic? No different than people who think they're psychics/mediums?
No amount of time in Kentucky would change it. It is an evil place. Happy people from there are to be avoided...
I'd so much like it to be all magic going on within me. I can't quite stand to find out how wrong I am. I need some belief in magic. I'm losing what little I had.
The UK was especially some "magical" place. Not for any particular logical reason. But for magical reasons. I feel I was predestined to live there. That something went horribly awry. But it's a bit of belief in magic that is leaving me now. Ultimately I saw english TV shows and they sounded smarter with their pretty accents. They were the best TV shows (Doctor Who, Monty Python). Better than anything here. So, you know, half assed thinking when 10 or so became ingrained in me somehow very deeply beyond logical thought. But then furthermore I had the sex hormones running like crazy back then (must reproduce!!!) so I attached the idea of a english woman. That became a part of the predestined feel. But it was a vague thing of course. Now I Know real live people from the UK, with beautiful accents and they're too real. They can't be a part of that predestined stupid "magical" notion. They must be sufficiently vague for it to work.
You see you have to take a human and turn them into a symbol; much like is done with "love" as Zizek so complains about... (at least I think that's part of what he's getting at). And anyway, it's an awful thing to do to anyone; this turning of people into symbols. It takes some ignoring who they really are.
But then... as so much successful reproducing is accomplished thanks to this "love" perhaps people learn to act in ways where it's hard to not turn them into a symbol...
Monday, November 24, 2008
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081124/ap_on_re_us/truman_syndrome#full
I wonder if this is related Kundera's Imaginary Eyes? Of course there is a very important difference. That difference being actually still knowing what reality is.
But does everyone really have imaginary eyes upon them? I don't think so. Perhaps they do and just don't realize it. Much like they cry without understanding what's going on. Or like there aren't actually any real atheists.. (sigh). I dunno. But it seems to me it's quite possible that many people don't actually have imaginary eyes upon them. Perhaps this edge of schizophrenia (where you have such bizarre things going on but yet still know what reality is) is also the essential beginnings of creativity.
----
There is a point of view. A view which attempts to encompass the entire world and in so doing finds a great lacking; finds an absence. And because of this situation; there are many actions which normally would be absurd.... dangerous, futile.... that instead are better than nothing.
But then at other times... these people aren't trying on a POV that encompasses the entire world and finds a lacking... and then so many of their actions seem absurd, dangerous, futile....
I wonder if this is related Kundera's Imaginary Eyes? Of course there is a very important difference. That difference being actually still knowing what reality is.
But does everyone really have imaginary eyes upon them? I don't think so. Perhaps they do and just don't realize it. Much like they cry without understanding what's going on. Or like there aren't actually any real atheists.. (sigh). I dunno. But it seems to me it's quite possible that many people don't actually have imaginary eyes upon them. Perhaps this edge of schizophrenia (where you have such bizarre things going on but yet still know what reality is) is also the essential beginnings of creativity.
----
There is a point of view. A view which attempts to encompass the entire world and in so doing finds a great lacking; finds an absence. And because of this situation; there are many actions which normally would be absurd.... dangerous, futile.... that instead are better than nothing.
But then at other times... these people aren't trying on a POV that encompasses the entire world and finds a lacking... and then so many of their actions seem absurd, dangerous, futile....
Saturday, November 22, 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/09/slavoj.zizek
The picture completely and perfectly does not capture whom Zizek is. The picture is a perfect lie and makes pictures pointless.
-----
I have endless little pieces of paper strewn about my house with notes on them. Most are too embarrassing to even put here on an anonymous unlinked blog.
---
(The asshole, the marionette, and the homosexual....) (Hmmm, not good terms.) First the marionette, then the homosexual, then the asshole who at least likes you and is real.
The picture completely and perfectly does not capture whom Zizek is. The picture is a perfect lie and makes pictures pointless.
-----
I have endless little pieces of paper strewn about my house with notes on them. Most are too embarrassing to even put here on an anonymous unlinked blog.
---
(The asshole, the marionette, and the homosexual....) (Hmmm, not good terms.) First the marionette, then the homosexual, then the asshole who at least likes you and is real.
Friday, November 21, 2008
"We 'feel free' because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom."
-Zizek (I think). From the movie 'Zizek!'
"I always tell the truth. Not the whole truth because one can't. To say everything is impossible. There aren't enough words. It's this impossibility which brings truth close to the "real"." -Jacques Lacan
(reminds me of my first attempt at naming my music... "Partial Truth"... as it really annoyed me how it wasn't the entire truth... Strange how that bothers me... Just want to seperate myself from the extreme posing of most people writing music... I guess... It's supposed to be facets of who you really are and it really seems that other people are usually pretending to be things they aren't. ...Or so clearly not real that there's no mistake... This of course totally my subjective opinion. My dumb subjective opinion.
I think of NIN compared to Skinny Puppy. Like many others I disliked NIN because they seemed a watered down version of Skinny Puppy which was safe for public consumption. Which is to say it was just selling out. And that... Reznor couldn't possibly like that crap music he's spent his life writing... Surely he couldn't! It's just posing! Dishonesty! Pretending to be something he's not! LOL. Of course at least in Reznor's case I think it is geniune... Not his fault his music doesn't quite do it for me or that the mass media wouldn't play Skinny Puppy.
But then soundclick has that same thing going on... music I don't like... so surely it's just "posing" (No, it isn't.) But then combined with fake writeups. "Shattered Ream burst onto the Toronto industrial scene in 2001 with their debut album blah, blah, blah combining syncopated blah, blah, blah with hard driving rythms..." (Bio actually written by the one guy who wrote the music alone with Fruit Loops...)
Plus just the very fact that it's fantasy to begin with... It's creativity. Of course it's not real...??
So in response to a feeling of dishonesty which comes from multiple sources; some real, some just arrogant personal failings, wanted to separate myself... But it ends up that the creativity is constrained because bizarrely it wants to stay honest....? Bizarre. What the hell does that even mean? I dune frikin newww.
----
LOL. Zizek is a one finger typist. The Elvis of cultural criticism. But how fast can you type?
-Zizek (I think). From the movie 'Zizek!'
"I always tell the truth. Not the whole truth because one can't. To say everything is impossible. There aren't enough words. It's this impossibility which brings truth close to the "real"." -Jacques Lacan
(reminds me of my first attempt at naming my music... "Partial Truth"... as it really annoyed me how it wasn't the entire truth... Strange how that bothers me... Just want to seperate myself from the extreme posing of most people writing music... I guess... It's supposed to be facets of who you really are and it really seems that other people are usually pretending to be things they aren't. ...Or so clearly not real that there's no mistake... This of course totally my subjective opinion. My dumb subjective opinion.
I think of NIN compared to Skinny Puppy. Like many others I disliked NIN because they seemed a watered down version of Skinny Puppy which was safe for public consumption. Which is to say it was just selling out. And that... Reznor couldn't possibly like that crap music he's spent his life writing... Surely he couldn't! It's just posing! Dishonesty! Pretending to be something he's not! LOL. Of course at least in Reznor's case I think it is geniune... Not his fault his music doesn't quite do it for me or that the mass media wouldn't play Skinny Puppy.
But then soundclick has that same thing going on... music I don't like... so surely it's just "posing" (No, it isn't.) But then combined with fake writeups. "Shattered Ream burst onto the Toronto industrial scene in 2001 with their debut album blah, blah, blah combining syncopated blah, blah, blah with hard driving rythms..." (Bio actually written by the one guy who wrote the music alone with Fruit Loops...)
Plus just the very fact that it's fantasy to begin with... It's creativity. Of course it's not real...??
So in response to a feeling of dishonesty which comes from multiple sources; some real, some just arrogant personal failings, wanted to separate myself... But it ends up that the creativity is constrained because bizarrely it wants to stay honest....? Bizarre. What the hell does that even mean? I dune frikin newww.
----
LOL. Zizek is a one finger typist. The Elvis of cultural criticism. But how fast can you type?
Thursday, November 20, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta
meta-actions? Looking at any action and reducing it to it's essential meaning. Understanding the prime motive behind it. How it was a beneficial mutation. What essential purpose it served.
Doing this and going stark raving mad. What should be relatively small events, annoying minutia(sp), to downright seemingly innocent gestures... turned into symbols. All reduced to symbols in a fight to the death. The angry artist howling in rage at windmills. Very scary.
meta-actions? Looking at any action and reducing it to it's essential meaning. Understanding the prime motive behind it. How it was a beneficial mutation. What essential purpose it served.
Doing this and going stark raving mad. What should be relatively small events, annoying minutia(sp), to downright seemingly innocent gestures... turned into symbols. All reduced to symbols in a fight to the death. The angry artist howling in rage at windmills. Very scary.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
http://thetoofarfuture.blogspot.com/2008/11/not-right-scene.html
Not so much vitality/virility although that plays a role. It was about being able to see beauty in ..just about anything. And understanding how relative it is. For a fat women you think about flesh in general. With women it's softer so with a really fat women: wonderful endless soft flesh! Why you can just about disappear into it! The ultimate orgy of the flesh for Paxton!
One can look at a female ape... and if you weren't aware what the males looked like you'd think it male. But once you've seen the males, suddenly it's properly feminine, (if the relative you keep in mind is solely the male ape) The gentle sex. Gentle and snuggly and... that's enough. The point was just being able to see beauty anywhere and as result understanding how relative it is really. Personally I have tried to reject the usual understanding of beauty, where it's relative to all other members of the species and just taking the average. The most perfectly boringly normal. I don't like that version of beauty... But beauty is about being relative to something. Better than some other thing... the most general idea is less likely to be mutated/defective, thus normal beauty is the most perfectly regular features. (Yes, it comes right back to evolution/successfullly spreading one's genes.) I think of some royal family in europe long ago where they were so inbred their elongated jaws quit working properly and they had trouble eating... Saw a picture of one of them. Probably of course the most flattering possible picture. I thought her so beautiful. To me a long jaw is beautiful. Elongated faces, almost like Easter Island statues. In Australia it seems there's something going where a few people have these freakishly long faces. At least I've seen them in movies a few times and it was always Astralians. Was fascinated by it. I have it slightly. Not freakishly.
But being able to see every person as beautiful is a nice thing. And I can just about do it. Almost. But I quit bothering with it quite a while back, for the most part...
Attached somewhat to a larger idea of being alone in a room and staring at a wall for years and being perfectly happy. Bizarre idea of mine when younger. "I'm turning myself into steel to be invincible!" (Silly Fist of the North Star anime line.) That was the idea, to be invincibly happy.
But I rejected so much of my thoughts from back then. Regarded it all as... invalid as it was not based on the thinking of a person that remotely was the common man. Which now at least, in a sense, I'm the common man. Except with the remains of that having pushed me in something of an unusual direction.
I thought of it as being similar to stoics. And also associated with Vancian characters who even while being tortured kept a relatively even keel.
Not so much vitality/virility although that plays a role. It was about being able to see beauty in ..just about anything. And understanding how relative it is. For a fat women you think about flesh in general. With women it's softer so with a really fat women: wonderful endless soft flesh! Why you can just about disappear into it! The ultimate orgy of the flesh for Paxton!
One can look at a female ape... and if you weren't aware what the males looked like you'd think it male. But once you've seen the males, suddenly it's properly feminine, (if the relative you keep in mind is solely the male ape) The gentle sex. Gentle and snuggly and... that's enough. The point was just being able to see beauty anywhere and as result understanding how relative it is really. Personally I have tried to reject the usual understanding of beauty, where it's relative to all other members of the species and just taking the average. The most perfectly boringly normal. I don't like that version of beauty... But beauty is about being relative to something. Better than some other thing... the most general idea is less likely to be mutated/defective, thus normal beauty is the most perfectly regular features. (Yes, it comes right back to evolution/successfullly spreading one's genes.) I think of some royal family in europe long ago where they were so inbred their elongated jaws quit working properly and they had trouble eating... Saw a picture of one of them. Probably of course the most flattering possible picture. I thought her so beautiful. To me a long jaw is beautiful. Elongated faces, almost like Easter Island statues. In Australia it seems there's something going where a few people have these freakishly long faces. At least I've seen them in movies a few times and it was always Astralians. Was fascinated by it. I have it slightly. Not freakishly.
But being able to see every person as beautiful is a nice thing. And I can just about do it. Almost. But I quit bothering with it quite a while back, for the most part...
Attached somewhat to a larger idea of being alone in a room and staring at a wall for years and being perfectly happy. Bizarre idea of mine when younger. "I'm turning myself into steel to be invincible!" (Silly Fist of the North Star anime line.) That was the idea, to be invincibly happy.
But I rejected so much of my thoughts from back then. Regarded it all as... invalid as it was not based on the thinking of a person that remotely was the common man. Which now at least, in a sense, I'm the common man. Except with the remains of that having pushed me in something of an unusual direction.
I thought of it as being similar to stoics. And also associated with Vancian characters who even while being tortured kept a relatively even keel.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Quickly now.... "I think with my gut." That sounds a ridiculous way of putting it. How is it that people put it to make it sound like some kind of good thing? George Bush said it. This lady at work who's scared of Obama said it. Etc. Why do people think it's a good thing?
1. It suggests magic. They think they come to correct decisions this way. Some think it even a better way of making a decision then really sitting down and thinking things through. It feels so nice to decide that it has some merit. But for it to have some merit it is suggesting some unknown force. Magic, etc.
2. It's the easy way out. A way out for stupid people.
The reality is that the only difference between "thinking with your gut"/instinctual thinking and really trying to logically think things through is that the former is thinking that is completely unexamined. Just haphazard crap thinking. That is all. There is nothing magical about it. What it is really is a nice way to make a stupid decision.
If a person says such a thing, be afraid. They of course may still be a relatively decent person, better than average. They may have somehow had it ground into them to treat others with decency. But they're still making all kinds of mistakes. Probably their life is one big mistake. And spend enough time around them, and sooner or later, don't be surprised when they screw you over.
1. It suggests magic. They think they come to correct decisions this way. Some think it even a better way of making a decision then really sitting down and thinking things through. It feels so nice to decide that it has some merit. But for it to have some merit it is suggesting some unknown force. Magic, etc.
2. It's the easy way out. A way out for stupid people.
The reality is that the only difference between "thinking with your gut"/instinctual thinking and really trying to logically think things through is that the former is thinking that is completely unexamined. Just haphazard crap thinking. That is all. There is nothing magical about it. What it is really is a nice way to make a stupid decision.
If a person says such a thing, be afraid. They of course may still be a relatively decent person, better than average. They may have somehow had it ground into them to treat others with decency. But they're still making all kinds of mistakes. Probably their life is one big mistake. And spend enough time around them, and sooner or later, don't be surprised when they screw you over.
Monday, November 17, 2008
So it would definitely be too much trouble to keep multiple journals... I think. As opposed to just writing a bunch of different stuff in a single journal. The issue is diary type stuff. I've held back from including it here mostly. I shouldn't have. Will hold back less in the future. Good to have a clue who I was etc 10 years from now. I think back to who I was ten, 20 years previous. I have unusually good reasons for wondering if I was very similar as in some ways I've changed hugely over the years.
But ultimately I always had flashes of impressive intelligence combined with flat old stupidity. I scored in the 99.85%ile on the GRE. Had a bad day and scored in the 98%ile of my nursing entrance exam. Am barely surviving actual nursing school. Questions are way too subjective.
As with the AMA where half the potentially good doctors are turned away simply to maintain artificial scarcity and keep salaries inflated. So it goes in other fields I guess. It is capitalism. There must be pain for those who do OK. And there must be some who don't make it... So we have nursing school. My younger sister is a nurse. She was the dumb one in the family. She says she could teach me what I need to know to be a nurse in a couple weeks on the job. Every test I learn the material and then only get an 80/75% because there are always a number of extremely vague questions.
Your patient has trouble swallowing. Should you tell the nurses aide to:
A. feed him small amounts
B. cut his food into bite sized pieces
It so happens that I am a nurses aide on a neurology floor. I got this extremely vague question wrong. This question has nothing to do with anything really. Just a random spinning of the wheel to ensure there are some failures.
I'm thinking of a number. Is it:
A. 3
B. 7
Trying to just keep my mouth shut as I won't be changing the way things are done here. Perhaps I'll mess up big time these last few crucial tests. Probably I won't. No point getting annoyed/angry about it.
So close to freedom now. I suppose I could just take this week off..? Just daydream through class. Doesn't matter. Lectures are taped. Next week off. Tonight will look into building some cheap cat shelters. That will be fun. I remember I used to yearly try to save a few hundred tadpoles before parents cleaned their pool up for the summer.
I'd put them in a kiddie pool and they'd turn into frogs and hop away. Always loved frogs. One year my retarded rightwing brother-in-law flipped the kiddie pool when they were still all tadpoles, thus killing them all. The pathological liar... the very bad patholgical liar whom constantly tells lies that are so obvious they are that much more insulting claimed he didn't notice the 500 tadpoles in the pool.
I'm so impressed with myself that I never beat the living crap out of him; the stuff he's done. The thing is, ultimately it'd be like fighting a marshmellow. Lucky for him. (Not an issue now; this violence. Was when younger. Lucky for him back then he's such a pitiful marshmellow it held me back, he's done far worse than the... silly tadpole thing. That's nothing.)
----
How different, how the same was I ten years previous?
More temper. More sexual. More likely to destroy a multiple choice test but I think I can pretty much ignore these nursing tests. They are not about common sense. They are a special kind of learning to conform I think. Where it's not about logical thinking. It's about almost instinctually knowing what actions will be pleasing to the authority figure. So like Airman Mantooth lies and says he didn't have money to get a haircut. Why? Because it's not about universal ideals; not about the universal ideal of honesty. It's about the ideals of The Group. About being a team; working together. Pointing out this other's person dishonesty would show that the team was really not working together at all and instead it was just every man for himself. This would anger the leader, the older man.
Reading and loving Zizek. Wow! Wonderful stuff... Very... nourishing. Anyway though perhaps he doesn't understand (or I should say doesn't give enough emphasis) how men think in terms of groups, that such is our evolution. That it's rarely really about universal ideals.
And so, smaller meals or cut into bite sized pieces? Don't think logically about how we have no idea at all what the consistency of the food is. Don't think about how we should assume a continuum from steak to yogurt. Some bell sized probabilty curve of what consistency the food might be..... TBH, I have no clue how in the world anyone would deduce the correct answer is small amounts.
If you have to cut it, it's too hard. It should be food that doesn't need cutting therefore it's small amounts? Why would someone make such assumptions? They get the orders wrong all the time at the hospital. In class they've told us repeatedly not to make assumptions.
Oh, stupid to bother thinking about. Just a retarded question. When I hear other people got 90plus percent I think they must be stupid. Or perhaps much, much better at just instinctually assimilating correctly. This isn't logic. It's not universal ideals. The world we live in today is the result of some groups defeating others through violence. Being able to think logically was helpful... but it's a special kind of logic. Where the ability to think logically doesn't get in the way of the mindless assimilating necessary for the group to work very well together. IOW to just follow whoever managed to get the power thanks to their shortcomings. (Their power hungryness). To listen to the order to go kill those other people.
It is the same. The disregarding of logic and instead mindless conforming. The reason why it works, the reason it exists in our society is because it was a beneficial trait. A trait that increased the potential to spread genes. Because it meant listening to the power hungry leader and killing the Others. This same trait (mindless assimilation) is then used for things not related to war/violence. Mundane crap including even this nursing program, in which the material is too easy so they have to put extremely subjective questions and just almost arbitrarily flunk a few people. Which ends up being perhaps a few who don't instinctually assimilate to whatever illogical type of thinking they are supposed to be applying.
But ultimately I always had flashes of impressive intelligence combined with flat old stupidity. I scored in the 99.85%ile on the GRE. Had a bad day and scored in the 98%ile of my nursing entrance exam. Am barely surviving actual nursing school. Questions are way too subjective.
As with the AMA where half the potentially good doctors are turned away simply to maintain artificial scarcity and keep salaries inflated. So it goes in other fields I guess. It is capitalism. There must be pain for those who do OK. And there must be some who don't make it... So we have nursing school. My younger sister is a nurse. She was the dumb one in the family. She says she could teach me what I need to know to be a nurse in a couple weeks on the job. Every test I learn the material and then only get an 80/75% because there are always a number of extremely vague questions.
Your patient has trouble swallowing. Should you tell the nurses aide to:
A. feed him small amounts
B. cut his food into bite sized pieces
It so happens that I am a nurses aide on a neurology floor. I got this extremely vague question wrong. This question has nothing to do with anything really. Just a random spinning of the wheel to ensure there are some failures.
I'm thinking of a number. Is it:
A. 3
B. 7
Trying to just keep my mouth shut as I won't be changing the way things are done here. Perhaps I'll mess up big time these last few crucial tests. Probably I won't. No point getting annoyed/angry about it.
So close to freedom now. I suppose I could just take this week off..? Just daydream through class. Doesn't matter. Lectures are taped. Next week off. Tonight will look into building some cheap cat shelters. That will be fun. I remember I used to yearly try to save a few hundred tadpoles before parents cleaned their pool up for the summer.
I'd put them in a kiddie pool and they'd turn into frogs and hop away. Always loved frogs. One year my retarded rightwing brother-in-law flipped the kiddie pool when they were still all tadpoles, thus killing them all. The pathological liar... the very bad patholgical liar whom constantly tells lies that are so obvious they are that much more insulting claimed he didn't notice the 500 tadpoles in the pool.
I'm so impressed with myself that I never beat the living crap out of him; the stuff he's done. The thing is, ultimately it'd be like fighting a marshmellow. Lucky for him. (Not an issue now; this violence. Was when younger. Lucky for him back then he's such a pitiful marshmellow it held me back, he's done far worse than the... silly tadpole thing. That's nothing.)
----
How different, how the same was I ten years previous?
More temper. More sexual. More likely to destroy a multiple choice test but I think I can pretty much ignore these nursing tests. They are not about common sense. They are a special kind of learning to conform I think. Where it's not about logical thinking. It's about almost instinctually knowing what actions will be pleasing to the authority figure. So like Airman Mantooth lies and says he didn't have money to get a haircut. Why? Because it's not about universal ideals; not about the universal ideal of honesty. It's about the ideals of The Group. About being a team; working together. Pointing out this other's person dishonesty would show that the team was really not working together at all and instead it was just every man for himself. This would anger the leader, the older man.
Reading and loving Zizek. Wow! Wonderful stuff... Very... nourishing. Anyway though perhaps he doesn't understand (or I should say doesn't give enough emphasis) how men think in terms of groups, that such is our evolution. That it's rarely really about universal ideals.
And so, smaller meals or cut into bite sized pieces? Don't think logically about how we have no idea at all what the consistency of the food is. Don't think about how we should assume a continuum from steak to yogurt. Some bell sized probabilty curve of what consistency the food might be..... TBH, I have no clue how in the world anyone would deduce the correct answer is small amounts.
If you have to cut it, it's too hard. It should be food that doesn't need cutting therefore it's small amounts? Why would someone make such assumptions? They get the orders wrong all the time at the hospital. In class they've told us repeatedly not to make assumptions.
Oh, stupid to bother thinking about. Just a retarded question. When I hear other people got 90plus percent I think they must be stupid. Or perhaps much, much better at just instinctually assimilating correctly. This isn't logic. It's not universal ideals. The world we live in today is the result of some groups defeating others through violence. Being able to think logically was helpful... but it's a special kind of logic. Where the ability to think logically doesn't get in the way of the mindless assimilating necessary for the group to work very well together. IOW to just follow whoever managed to get the power thanks to their shortcomings. (Their power hungryness). To listen to the order to go kill those other people.
It is the same. The disregarding of logic and instead mindless conforming. The reason why it works, the reason it exists in our society is because it was a beneficial trait. A trait that increased the potential to spread genes. Because it meant listening to the power hungry leader and killing the Others. This same trait (mindless assimilation) is then used for things not related to war/violence. Mundane crap including even this nursing program, in which the material is too easy so they have to put extremely subjective questions and just almost arbitrarily flunk a few people. Which ends up being perhaps a few who don't instinctually assimilate to whatever illogical type of thinking they are supposed to be applying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
