Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Every piece that you identify and place in the puzzle yields an entirely different image. And that is the game. Time's Up when the picture fails to change.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
I had never heard of Stanley Ellin before I saw the Orion Crime Masterworks Collection : The Speciality of the House lodged in a corner by itself at the bookstore. I would have passed it over but for a feeling that struck me insinuating that I might be missing something altogether. The decision to purchase was fortuitous - the collection of his short stories spanning thirty years is as masterly as it can get. The Speciality of the House, in particular, is every bit as delectable as the epicurean experience it describes ...
'I fear,' said Laffler solemnly, 'that you confuse the words, gourmet and gourmand. The gourmand, through glutting himself, requires a wider and wider latitude of experience to stir his surfeited senses, but the very nature of the gourmet is simplicity.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Every competent Government officer must have a bureaucrat and lawyer within him/herself.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
On Criticism
You end up being your worst critic since nobody else bothers to.
You end up being your worst critic since nobody else bothers to.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
... we observed that, by the accounts of people who lived in times gone by, they seemed to find pleasure in their work whereas we now work so as to have a few moments of pleasure. There has to be something to this ...
~ Discussing John Keay's The Great Arc
Sunday, June 17, 2007
I found this paragraph on this page extremely articulate ...
If there were a finite language, because of the lack of recursion, that wouldn't mean that it wasn't spoken by normal humans, nor would it mean that it wasn't a very rich source of communication. But if you lived in an environment in which culture restricted the topics that you talked about, and not only just your general environmental limitations on the topics you talked about, but if there were a value in the culture that said, don't talk about topics that go beyond, say, immediate experience - in other words, don't talk about anything that you haven't seen or that hasn't been told to you by an eyewitness. This would severely limit what you could talk about. If that's the case, then that language might be finite, but it wouldn't be a poor language; it could be a very rich language. The fact that it's finite doesn't mean it's not a very rich language. And if that's the case, then you would look for evidence that this language lacked recursion.
If there were a finite language, because of the lack of recursion, that wouldn't mean that it wasn't spoken by normal humans, nor would it mean that it wasn't a very rich source of communication. But if you lived in an environment in which culture restricted the topics that you talked about, and not only just your general environmental limitations on the topics you talked about, but if there were a value in the culture that said, don't talk about topics that go beyond, say, immediate experience - in other words, don't talk about anything that you haven't seen or that hasn't been told to you by an eyewitness. This would severely limit what you could talk about. If that's the case, then that language might be finite, but it wouldn't be a poor language; it could be a very rich language. The fact that it's finite doesn't mean it's not a very rich language. And if that's the case, then you would look for evidence that this language lacked recursion.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Isn't being Just somewhat distinct from and, arguably, more valuable than being right / wrong / left?
That we would all like to see ourselves as soldiers in some or the other ideological war ( or read politics ) and yet shy away for our own lives when it actually occurs?
What was it that made that "idiot" say what he did - All is Fair in Love and War?
The choices that you make now determine what you shall be subsequently, assumedly. Does that mean that you, now, exercise control over what you shall be later? If respect be associated with elimination of control, would it be mistaken to conclude that, at this instant, you have scant respect for yourself as you may emerge to be? And that's the way it turns out too ... Doesn't it?
Friday, June 15, 2007
Tending to a lazy and distanced skepticism from Sci-Fi movies, I was, somehow, intrigued by this plot-device : You take away the desire and/or compulsion to be aggressive from an arbitrary community of a species / humans in hope of eradicating violence, you find that it loses the will to live; the animals/people withdraw from each other and let themselves die.
Isn't the pleasure mechanism wired, permanently and reinforcingly, to that which relentlessly propagates itself - life? And do we not derive pleasure from the prey of our predation? Who was it who said that Nature has organised itself "naturally" into cycles of predation?
Why the shock, horror, dismay and despair at seeing yourself as you are? We would like to see ourselves, being capable somehow of acting through what seems our own agency, to alter this law unto our singular benefit. Are we so assured that there is nothing preying on our minds?
Isn't the pleasure mechanism wired, permanently and reinforcingly, to that which relentlessly propagates itself - life? And do we not derive pleasure from the prey of our predation? Who was it who said that Nature has organised itself "naturally" into cycles of predation?
Why the shock, horror, dismay and despair at seeing yourself as you are? We would like to see ourselves, being capable somehow of acting through what seems our own agency, to alter this law unto our singular benefit. Are we so assured that there is nothing preying on our minds?
If I possess something that you desire and my consent at sharing it / giving it is sacrosanct, then who is it who wields power? Me or you? You may employ any means you have at your disposal to subvert it, of course.
I have never been able to imagine, leave alone understand, the concepts of Man vs Nature, Man against Nature, Man outside of Nature and such like. If Evolution be accepted as the Gospel Truth, then all Human Endeavour and Behaviour must necessarily stem from it. The culture that we assimilate throughout our lives is also something that must have been / is part of the evolutionary process and the fact that we as supposed free agents make individual choices has to be a facet of Natural Selection operating at a level that is, as yet, far too complex for us to comprehend intimately. Is it impossible for us to conceive of Natural Selection looking out through our eyes / senses and utilising the processing power of our brains, in a manner that is, as yet, not known and may never be.
I mean, you can't really imagine stepping outside of this Universe / Multiverse / whatever to observe and reflect upon it and yourself. Can you? Even the shifting sands of morality must kow-tow to the same rationale. No?
I mean, you can't really imagine stepping outside of this Universe / Multiverse / whatever to observe and reflect upon it and yourself. Can you? Even the shifting sands of morality must kow-tow to the same rationale. No?
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Radical feminism paints a schizophrenic picture of women. They are free and complete sexual beings, who live in a state of siege. They are empowered persons, who are terrified to open their doors at night.
And then this too. I am not surprised that I am not surprised.
Arrested
... by the resonance of these couple of lines on this page.
... by the resonance of these couple of lines on this page.
But humans have not come very far in understanding the scientific and humanistic value of applying evolutionary analysis to human behavior. This limited progress may reflect an adaptation not to understand, because evolution applied to human behavior threatens the use of ideology as a social strategy.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
If all that I am be summarised by the need to dominate / subdue / negate an Other, then I cannot deny to The Other that this is what / all I am. What you see of me is nothing but a spectrum of self-control. For You. For Me. For Us. For None. WIth varied repercussions and divergent extremities.
What, other than a masochistic instinct, makes you believe otherwise? And seek to associate with me? So as to propagate more of me? And you? So as to perpetuate what I have so far done to you?
If it be so, then all there is to It All is a sadomasochistic interplay. Isn't it?
What, other than a masochistic instinct, makes you believe otherwise? And seek to associate with me? So as to propagate more of me? And you? So as to perpetuate what I have so far done to you?
If it be so, then all there is to It All is a sadomasochistic interplay. Isn't it?
~ Note : On Being Male
... of being SchizoAffective is that you can begin to take comfort in the perception that Truth is the Ultimate Illusion. And only You can see that. And since you see It all, there is no Denial. Of Anything.
~ Playing : Deluxed : Delirium : Requiem For A Dream
One manages to rein in the flurry of dissonances and intuitions into a systematic array of textual hyperlinks. It is easy to home in on what is disturbing but difficult to lay it out in a manner that both intrigues and pleases the source. Blame it on the abdication of thought and renunciation of belief ...
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
... on Earth would I desire to contol someone else's life while my own is a daily struggle against it spiralling out of it?
Monday, June 11, 2007
All objectivity, save that which is purely mathematical, must corrode with the passage of time. Extrapolate unto the Human Condition ...
I am not sure people can hold an intelligent dialogue / debate / conversation without polarising. If I speak for a point of view or against, it does not necessarily mean that I necessarily believe in it or otherwise. Abuse seems to be the natural way out when you just cannot figure someone out - "He / She does not ( seemingly ) agree with me and therefore must be against / threatens me." Now, who does that remind you of?
Monday, June 04, 2007
I must confess to not being able to read, these days ( and for some time now ), unless I have multiple threads from multiple books, however unrelated they might be, open at the same time. I just happened to get hold of Prof VS Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain and Kenneth Grahame's The Wind in the Willows the other day. Correlate ...
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Assuming you are moving in a spacecraft rapidly accelerating towards the speed of light, what happens to your signal travelling at the speed of light, as it is received back at Earth? And what happens, should you, perchance exceed the speed of light?
Try and dissociate love for life from fear of death.
