You'd be surprised how hard it is to think of words to put together, a la Butthole Surfers, that aren't closely related. I guess part of it is that you need simple but striking words (Rembrandt Pussy Horse, Locust Abortion Technician) that work syntactically but not too obviously, but also our brains are wired to put words together that make sense, that we use often, idioms and the like. There's a new thought: there is a connection between relational thinking and idiomatic language. Not clear what sort of connection. Of course, Orwell was wrong, but there remains a certain intuitive appeal to his railing against idiom that goes beyond a modernist obsession with originality.
Closed eyes, empty lips, paranoia, empty bliss. Animated colors trace outlines of cold grey. Time of presentation exceeds time of occurance. Time slows, movement backgrounded, color emerges. Details never there read signifiers in darkness. Attached to meaning betraying lived experience in favor of shallow epiphany. Slip out in damp night, wet, decomposing leaves underfoot. Long shadows appear at approach of car, engine quiet, tires loud. Look away, look away. Headlights corrupt. Half shell of retina performing its own symphony in E flat. Somewhere a psychadelic connection draws truths out of falsehoods out of nothingness, darkness. Even blackness clashes.
Okay I decided that wasn't long enough. Also I have to wait for the video to load. Only a few days until school. I feel good about that. More worried about summer. Job market unlikely to be inviting, but I have to work again sometime or I'll run out of money. On the other hand I don't spend a whole lot and I still have some left. Enough for this year and the next? Maybe, at this rate, provided I don't spend much this summer. But of course there's not usually a neutral option usually you're either working and (hopefully) making money or not working and if you're going to be doing anything at all you're spending money, possibly a whole lot.
So this is going to be a short-paragraph post. Not stupid short though, as seems to be the fad on the internet. I guess I understand the style, but it's not pretentious enough for me. Also I don't want to diverge too much from the way I write papers, since that's part of the point of the blog. How much do I hold back / should I hold back? I've already slipped in a few personal things but I'm hesitant to say anything that would hurt someone who might possibly come across it. (This is, after all, under my own name. I am not a pseudonymous black trumpeter.) Or make someone dislike me. I mean, the pretentious stuff isn't anything anyone who knows me at all isn't prepared for, but there are personal things that even I'm uncomfortable live. Though I might be getting through that, with Bataille's help.
Video loading again. I guess I like paragraphs of equal lengths. That makes sense, I suppose. I saw Koyanisqaatsi and I realized that that is the kind of film that I wanted to do when I was interested in film, freshman year of high school. I didn't want to deal with actors or writing, I wanted just to shoot and edit. I guess another option would have been to get other people to do the rest for me, but that minimizes my role and control too much. I wanted the freedom to make a shot go on and on... too long, until finally, cyclically, it makes sense again. I wanted to watch, voyeuristically in the most innocent sense, just to observe, on film, the process of interaction between camera and scene, environment, life and death. Undeniably an affinity with photography, but there's something about motion that really makes it something more to me. It's about timing, I think. You can't control the time of presentation in a photo. You can't create rhythm. But I don't know how much this type of filmmaking lends itself to low budgets. Certainly some of it doesn't, like the aforementioned film. Needs fancy cameras and helicopters. But I think there is some possibility with a handheld cinema verite style, but more arty and stylized. I would just need to develop the style more, understand how to control handheld shots and manipulate natural lighting more.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Like a God
Short bit on morality. Even if a consistent and sufficient moral system is possible, only a few actually believe in it and fewer act according to it. (This includes religious systems, which must always be filled in by theology.) People act on what feels right and wrong. This partly irrational conscience, which probably must be evolved, is the only real morality that exists, irrespective of ultimate ends, absolute Right and Wrong. It's not really worth arguing about whether this is good or bad because it comes down to a simple descriptive fact that this is what exists. That's not all there is to it; there is obviously still place for reason, systems, etc., but they are secondary to this biological judgment. The question of what kind of system we should believe in is therefore not entirely irrelevant but it is not what I am interested in here. I think that some work is pointing towards a system that is more in line with feeling, cf. John Rawls. It's not clear to me whether this accord is inherently a good thing. But moral behavior is in small acts as much as large ones and we need these feelings to act morally. I need these feelings. I have some of them, most of them, thank God, but sometimes I worry that I don't have all of them, not as strongly as I should. I don't feel loneliness or appreciation as other people seem to, even my experience of affection and loss are sometimes stunted. It bothers me, and means that I don't act as I think I should, hence much of my guilt-complex. That one I have. I got the guilt one down. No atrocities for me. But I guess that's the point, I mean, ethical behavior isn't just about these life and death decisions. Conscience is more than guilt. To act in a way that affirms your self and others requires a conscience that includes all of these motivating feelings that most people share. That's why moral subjectivity isn't necessarily moral relativism. I still think morality is normative. Subjective, but normative, with reference to the normative subject instilled by society. That's how I know that I'm lacking some feelings. And I don't know how to find them.
She was thirteen, experimenting with witchcraft and lesbianism.
She was thirteen, experimenting with witchcraft and lesbianism.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Sad-Happy/Happy-Sad
I think there's a Tim Buckley album.
It's interesting to me that one of the primary classifications of narratives is based, epistemologically, not on any actual content of the work but in the reaction of the viewer. That is, there is no objective way to differentiate tragedy from comedy or tragicomedy. I'm not trying to be controversial here, it's just a side effect of the use of objective or subjective that one of your the possible meanings will inevitably be controversial. To clarify, I'm not saying that we cannot reliably distinguish these categories; I'm merely pointing out that the source of these distinctions cannot be contained within the text (or other medium) itself. It might be tempting to go ad absurdum on me and say that the argument isn't significant because everything is a matter of the interpreter. But I think that it's pretty clear that we can distinguish many things about a narrative without recourse to the interpreter/subject. For example, parataxis/hypotaxis, prose/verse, epic/lyric, even narratological and subject matter distinctions (this last is true only to a certain extent) are largely contained within the text. An opposite argument would be that it is possible to objectively define tragedy/comedy; I grant that this is to some extent true: if a whole bunch of people die at the end it's probably a tragedy, if they get married... But the point is that this investigation is secondary, and ultimately insufficient. The derivation of tragedy/comedy is in the subject, which should be self-evident; furthermore, it's perfectly reasonable to imagine a black comedy which ends with a bunch of deaths; in fact I'm sure there's a few of these kicking around already. With this established, what is notable about this tragedy/comedy distinction is that we usually treat the distinction as objective, given, a priori, etc., and the fact that it is entirely subjective does not disrupt this treatment. This possibility emerges because of the huge degree of shared experience and convention within art. Even if a comedy makes us feel sad (maybe it reminds us of a dead lover), we can still recognize it as a comedy by reference to a conventional self, that normative subject that society instills. (This must be connected to the superego).
She blushed, then reached down and picked up the tears that had fallen from his lips. "I think you dropped these," she whispered past his cheek.
It's interesting to me that one of the primary classifications of narratives is based, epistemologically, not on any actual content of the work but in the reaction of the viewer. That is, there is no objective way to differentiate tragedy from comedy or tragicomedy. I'm not trying to be controversial here, it's just a side effect of the use of objective or subjective that one of your the possible meanings will inevitably be controversial. To clarify, I'm not saying that we cannot reliably distinguish these categories; I'm merely pointing out that the source of these distinctions cannot be contained within the text (or other medium) itself. It might be tempting to go ad absurdum on me and say that the argument isn't significant because everything is a matter of the interpreter. But I think that it's pretty clear that we can distinguish many things about a narrative without recourse to the interpreter/subject. For example, parataxis/hypotaxis, prose/verse, epic/lyric, even narratological and subject matter distinctions (this last is true only to a certain extent) are largely contained within the text. An opposite argument would be that it is possible to objectively define tragedy/comedy; I grant that this is to some extent true: if a whole bunch of people die at the end it's probably a tragedy, if they get married... But the point is that this investigation is secondary, and ultimately insufficient. The derivation of tragedy/comedy is in the subject, which should be self-evident; furthermore, it's perfectly reasonable to imagine a black comedy which ends with a bunch of deaths; in fact I'm sure there's a few of these kicking around already. With this established, what is notable about this tragedy/comedy distinction is that we usually treat the distinction as objective, given, a priori, etc., and the fact that it is entirely subjective does not disrupt this treatment. This possibility emerges because of the huge degree of shared experience and convention within art. Even if a comedy makes us feel sad (maybe it reminds us of a dead lover), we can still recognize it as a comedy by reference to a conventional self, that normative subject that society instills. (This must be connected to the superego).
She blushed, then reached down and picked up the tears that had fallen from his lips. "I think you dropped these," she whispered past his cheek.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Open Windows, Closed Drapes
The wind blows in, made manifest in muslin, an aether.
Certain relationships between analogy, interpretation and form, complicated by different existing levels, embeddings, derivatives. Formalism may be understood as separate from interpretation, depending on the use of formalism. Probably though in all the uses there is some sort of relationship between the two. I'm coming to think that interpretation can fundamentally be reduced to analogy. The idea of analogy is in essence the idea of reference, but abstracted to a higher level. Roughly, here are a few of the main levels. The literal consists of the signified and signifier: the reference and the word. (Only true for proper names; I will ignore complex referents and sense distinction for now). The metaphorical, at its most basic level, consists of a signifier, here at its most basic I will consider the word, which refers to a non-conventional reference by an association through similarity of the two referents. Metonymy acts the same in a slightly different fashion. For now I will skip the level of the sentence because it eludes me. At the level of the narrative is the analogy. Firstly, literal:metaphorical :: literal:analogical, left side being the sign and right being the narrative. Analogy defers the meaning from a conventional to a non-conventional referent, just as metaphor does, but on the level of the narrative. For conventional form, a narrative can be said to 'mean' if it fulfills the demands of conventional form (a tautology I will skip over because I haven't yet explored the nature of conventional form) in either a literal or analogical fashion. Hence if it does not fit the demands literally, the interpreter will immediately look to the analogical. Now, comprehensiveness is the issue. It often transpires that no single analogy will fit a whole narrative, but there are analogies or metaphors that fit signs or narrative pieces of the work. Here, though not entirely satisfied, the interpreter who is forced to search for analogical meaning becomes sated by these analogical fragments, these many meanings of a narrative. This, of course, breaks down the narrative as a whole, but establishes a successful mode of interpretation.
An electric fan blows white sand across the table. The grain is coarse and traps fellow grains within. Womblike, the antechamber of an afterlife, this cessation of eternal motion becomes, by lack of other reference, entirely fulfilling.
Certain relationships between analogy, interpretation and form, complicated by different existing levels, embeddings, derivatives. Formalism may be understood as separate from interpretation, depending on the use of formalism. Probably though in all the uses there is some sort of relationship between the two. I'm coming to think that interpretation can fundamentally be reduced to analogy. The idea of analogy is in essence the idea of reference, but abstracted to a higher level. Roughly, here are a few of the main levels. The literal consists of the signified and signifier: the reference and the word. (Only true for proper names; I will ignore complex referents and sense distinction for now). The metaphorical, at its most basic level, consists of a signifier, here at its most basic I will consider the word, which refers to a non-conventional reference by an association through similarity of the two referents. Metonymy acts the same in a slightly different fashion. For now I will skip the level of the sentence because it eludes me. At the level of the narrative is the analogy. Firstly, literal:metaphorical :: literal:analogical, left side being the sign and right being the narrative. Analogy defers the meaning from a conventional to a non-conventional referent, just as metaphor does, but on the level of the narrative. For conventional form, a narrative can be said to 'mean' if it fulfills the demands of conventional form (a tautology I will skip over because I haven't yet explored the nature of conventional form) in either a literal or analogical fashion. Hence if it does not fit the demands literally, the interpreter will immediately look to the analogical. Now, comprehensiveness is the issue. It often transpires that no single analogy will fit a whole narrative, but there are analogies or metaphors that fit signs or narrative pieces of the work. Here, though not entirely satisfied, the interpreter who is forced to search for analogical meaning becomes sated by these analogical fragments, these many meanings of a narrative. This, of course, breaks down the narrative as a whole, but establishes a successful mode of interpretation.
An electric fan blows white sand across the table. The grain is coarse and traps fellow grains within. Womblike, the antechamber of an afterlife, this cessation of eternal motion becomes, by lack of other reference, entirely fulfilling.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Saturday
Forgot the after-dinner thing. Movie instead. Not a big deal. Tomorrow not, either, probably. Not home until later. Try Monday. On to parataxis. Well, no. I'd like to get past writing about writing; at least, writing about what I'm writing now. Feeling somewhat thoughtless. Perhaps I will just stream until there exists something coherent. Indeed it seems inevitable. Tired, not thinking too straight. Took an antihistamine and melatonin, so may not last long. On the other hand it's rarely easy for me to sleep. We'll see. This state I am in, of semi-somnolence and intoxication, may be to some degree—what's that word that is mind over matter, what is it it's a word it's a word it's a... come on... it's there is this word maybe starts with a p maybe an s come on come on in a minute I'll stop writing and think let's get it, ok I looked it up—psychosomatic. In any case, I can break out of it fairly easily, but not sure I want to—I did just then and then again, but maybe I shouldn't. We'll try doing it the sleepy way for awhile and see what happens tomorrow. That is, I'll look at what I've written, tomorrow. I put a comma there to avoid attachment ambiguity. Also, I may not look at this tomorrow, I don't know if I've actually re-read any of my entries since the first one. Maybe the second. Maybe I did. I don't remember.
New topic but I'll still be in sleepy-state. I think the sleepiest state must be one of the northernmost states. Maybe Montana. It should be a state where people work short hours and eat a lot and there is not a lot of sunlight. They are depressed and then they eat to try to take away the pain. This is my idea of a sleepy state. I don't know what this says about me that I associate sleepiness with obesity and depression. Okay I guess I do it's not so hard to guess but I'm real tired right now and I wasn't really thinking about it. I guess I could do more experiments in free association. Try another concept. Ah fuck now I'm aware of it and it's not as much fun. Move on.
I'm tired of mixed drinks I should get some beer or hard cider. I think that would be good. Gravity's Rainbow is good but there are so many ideas I think if I wrote a book it would have lots of ideas like this but I think I would be more transparent because as much as I defend the opacity of writers and philosophers to be honest I don't really want to write like that. Or maybe I can't write like that. I mean, I'm sure I could, but it ultimately wouldn't come naturally to me. Or it would turn out more transparent than I intended. Which Is quite odd, to think about it. I might be the only person who worries that their writing is too clear. I shouldn't worry about that, all the teachers would say, but then they simultaneously assign lots and lots of opaque material so I think there must be something in it. Perhaps I'm just too young to write like that. I have to wait until I'm older or until I have some other excuse and then I'll be able to write like that and people will be okay with it.
New topic but I'll still be in sleepy-state. I think the sleepiest state must be one of the northernmost states. Maybe Montana. It should be a state where people work short hours and eat a lot and there is not a lot of sunlight. They are depressed and then they eat to try to take away the pain. This is my idea of a sleepy state. I don't know what this says about me that I associate sleepiness with obesity and depression. Okay I guess I do it's not so hard to guess but I'm real tired right now and I wasn't really thinking about it. I guess I could do more experiments in free association. Try another concept. Ah fuck now I'm aware of it and it's not as much fun. Move on.
I'm tired of mixed drinks I should get some beer or hard cider. I think that would be good. Gravity's Rainbow is good but there are so many ideas I think if I wrote a book it would have lots of ideas like this but I think I would be more transparent because as much as I defend the opacity of writers and philosophers to be honest I don't really want to write like that. Or maybe I can't write like that. I mean, I'm sure I could, but it ultimately wouldn't come naturally to me. Or it would turn out more transparent than I intended. Which Is quite odd, to think about it. I might be the only person who worries that their writing is too clear. I shouldn't worry about that, all the teachers would say, but then they simultaneously assign lots and lots of opaque material so I think there must be something in it. Perhaps I'm just too young to write like that. I have to wait until I'm older or until I have some other excuse and then I'll be able to write like that and people will be okay with it.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Habitus
So I guess this is from Aristotle. Relevance is to reinforce idea that point of this blog is habitus. Not worth doing at all if I only do it on occasion. So. I'll give myself Christmas off but this needs to be habitual. Probably not a good idea to do it in the morning, wouldn't happen. Before bed is also probably a bad idea. This is a fundamental problem I have. Seems that most habitual things seem to occur before or after sleep which is the time they are least likely to get done. Anyway, I think that I'll tentatively say that after dinner is a good time for this because there's usual a short period during which I am not busy and am not ready to do homework. Alternatively, I could do after class, but this might vary too much. Dinner is more regular. So I'll start with that. The other idea is back up, for now. Anyway, I can start the after dinner thing tomorrow, rather than waiting for classes. Any kind of habit is going to have some problems because of the big change going back to school but I still think it's worth starting now.
Perhaps as this becomes habitual I may be able to achieve some level of transparency. That is a hope. I guess that's one of the points of this. Primary impetus is to write and be comfortable writing. But I think that part of that is being able to write my thoughts transparently, which means I have to ignore the medium to some extent. Of course, a lot of times my thoughts themselves are all meta and not transparent, but anyway. I think I'm pretty bad at ethical habitus in general. Main obstacles include sleep and shyness. There is also a certain idea of will which I have some trouble with. I think—here is a thought that has been loitering but I've only just realized: there is a certain fundamental connection between existentialism and conservative rhetoric. Specifically this notion of 'personal responsibility'. It should be pretty obvious what I'm talking about. Both philosophies depend on a certain idea of a willful, acting, and free subject and disregard psychological and societal restrictions. I guess both emphasize the primacy of the subject. I guess this all ties in nicely with Adam Curtis and Century of the Self, even though it is opposed to Freud. Hmm... Freud was also concerned with a certain primacy of the subject, but a very different kind of subject. Freud's subject is fundamentally divided and conflicted, incapable of singular decisions. That is, Freud's subject is not a singularity, a monad. In contrast I think for Sartre and neoliberals, like for Descartes, there is a certain identifiable and singular subject who may be called upon for responsibility for action and choice.
There. That was more transparent. In one sense. In another it was totally opaque, but that's beside the point. Maybe I'll return to academic language at some point. For now I've moved away from it, but I still keep the issue in mind. But anyway, that was good, I think. It didn't hurt, though when I got stuck I had to move on or it might have hurt. But it's a step. If I can continue to get transparent paragraphs without pain perhaps I'll eventually be able to move on to lengthy and coherent discussions painlessly. That's a big next step, but I'll take it gradually.
Perhaps as this becomes habitual I may be able to achieve some level of transparency. That is a hope. I guess that's one of the points of this. Primary impetus is to write and be comfortable writing. But I think that part of that is being able to write my thoughts transparently, which means I have to ignore the medium to some extent. Of course, a lot of times my thoughts themselves are all meta and not transparent, but anyway. I think I'm pretty bad at ethical habitus in general. Main obstacles include sleep and shyness. There is also a certain idea of will which I have some trouble with. I think—here is a thought that has been loitering but I've only just realized: there is a certain fundamental connection between existentialism and conservative rhetoric. Specifically this notion of 'personal responsibility'. It should be pretty obvious what I'm talking about. Both philosophies depend on a certain idea of a willful, acting, and free subject and disregard psychological and societal restrictions. I guess both emphasize the primacy of the subject. I guess this all ties in nicely with Adam Curtis and Century of the Self, even though it is opposed to Freud. Hmm... Freud was also concerned with a certain primacy of the subject, but a very different kind of subject. Freud's subject is fundamentally divided and conflicted, incapable of singular decisions. That is, Freud's subject is not a singularity, a monad. In contrast I think for Sartre and neoliberals, like for Descartes, there is a certain identifiable and singular subject who may be called upon for responsibility for action and choice.
There. That was more transparent. In one sense. In another it was totally opaque, but that's beside the point. Maybe I'll return to academic language at some point. For now I've moved away from it, but I still keep the issue in mind. But anyway, that was good, I think. It didn't hurt, though when I got stuck I had to move on or it might have hurt. But it's a step. If I can continue to get transparent paragraphs without pain perhaps I'll eventually be able to move on to lengthy and coherent discussions painlessly. That's a big next step, but I'll take it gradually.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Failure Will be a Continual Theme
I think maybe blame can be assigned half and half to forgetting and ignoring. Not to say it is statistical in any way, but these two mechanisms are both crucially to blame and I think it's less important to get into exactities than to split it evenly so that the clear point is that both are important. So. Something I've been thinking about is whether to acknowledge a primary naratee in this text. That is, use of second person outside of universal constructions. Crucial point is that the naratee is already there; question is whether to acknowledge. Some issues of consequence: this acknowledgment would follow in idiom of songs, perhaps would open up similar creative spaces. Second, should anyone read the blog, which event I am unsure of its likelihood, acknowledgment of primary naratee would invite identification with reader. Might be problematic, maybe not. Could perhaps open up space for discourse, which might drive better writings. Perhaps not. Also, how much characterisation would I create for this naratee, and what would it be. Unsure if the naratee would remain constant. Would make sense that this would be so, but maybe I'd have two or three, like Shakespeare's sonnets, or maybe it would change every time. Could even have a name: such as Diane. Think tape recorders. My uncertainty in this matter is very very evident I don't care to count how many times I've written perhaps or maybe. Haven't yet come to a decision I think I'll just take it as it goes and if I feel like directly addressing a naratee I will. I don't see a particularly urgent reason to prohibit this possibility.
Now considering whether to make this an extra long entry to in some part make up for failure over the past days. Don't care that much, but maybe it will happen. Here is another recurring theme: not making binding decisions. Or even decisions at all; I think even if I made them they wouldn't be binding though. Television might be a problem but I think it's better than playing games. Here is my one argument: I can reference television and people might get it, but the experience of playing a game is necessarily unique and individual, at least to some extent. Besides there is a long tradition of television references which is slightly less despised than making reference to games. On the other hand I'm sure that games are more stimulating but fuck that I get enough from my classes. If I get Alzheimer's someone can kick me. Maybe that can be you. (See here is where the non-decision gets made). Wondering if I'll ever two things, one reconnect with people from highschool (answer: probably only if they contact me), two be able to think about high school without pain (answer: I don't know). I think everything will fade except maybe Rachel. Maybe her too. Hope so.
Now thinking about friendship, relationship, and statistics. For example how much benefit is gained by casting a wide net. Essentially comes down to the relative importance of two categories: prior experience/inherent qualities (undefinable) vs. shared experience. There must be some importance to both. Wondering whether relative importance of either category varies from person to person. Expect it does. No particular evidence, but maybe if I think harder. Well, yes, some people certainly put greater importance on certain preexisting qualities like religion/politics/morality etc., but question remains whether this is really important to these people or whether they would be better off if they did not discriminate. This is perhaps not legitimate because it is in some sense not external to their experience of friendship; assumes that there is some distinction between legitimate and illegitimate judgments. Ultimately comes down to happiness and so-called illegitimate categories may have just as much impact on that. So back to the first question of nets. It is possible, maybe probable that for some it is better to cast a wide net and put in less effort to each relationship, but it is not at all clear that the people who do so are those that benefit. Secondly, casting wide net and putting time into relationships not exclusive given differences in overall sociality. Perhaps clearest aspect is that this distinction still makes shy people at a disadvantage because of proclivities to aloneness. Ultimately justification for aloneness I don't think will ever work. I need to find people and I don't think the question of wide vs. narrow is ultimately terribly imprortant for my life because the important thing is simply to increase overall sociality, whether in wide or narrow focus. Sociality must however be in some way meaningful, so if wide must still make real connections, as in not just like high school.
Interesting final note is that these questions about subjects and determiners I brought up in my first couple posts have continued to shape the way I write this. Would lead one to believe that bringing up naratee in this post will increase usage of that. As a tentative hypothesis it seems that I don't need to make decisions; rather I must merely bring up questions and my practice will eventual answer in the affirmative given that the question is asking the saliency of some aspect in my control. Hmm. Perhaps this paradigm may be expanded elsewhere in my life or even applicable to others. May be somewhat profound or of some importance. Something to continue thinking about.
Now considering whether to make this an extra long entry to in some part make up for failure over the past days. Don't care that much, but maybe it will happen. Here is another recurring theme: not making binding decisions. Or even decisions at all; I think even if I made them they wouldn't be binding though. Television might be a problem but I think it's better than playing games. Here is my one argument: I can reference television and people might get it, but the experience of playing a game is necessarily unique and individual, at least to some extent. Besides there is a long tradition of television references which is slightly less despised than making reference to games. On the other hand I'm sure that games are more stimulating but fuck that I get enough from my classes. If I get Alzheimer's someone can kick me. Maybe that can be you. (See here is where the non-decision gets made). Wondering if I'll ever two things, one reconnect with people from highschool (answer: probably only if they contact me), two be able to think about high school without pain (answer: I don't know). I think everything will fade except maybe Rachel. Maybe her too. Hope so.
Now thinking about friendship, relationship, and statistics. For example how much benefit is gained by casting a wide net. Essentially comes down to the relative importance of two categories: prior experience/inherent qualities (undefinable) vs. shared experience. There must be some importance to both. Wondering whether relative importance of either category varies from person to person. Expect it does. No particular evidence, but maybe if I think harder. Well, yes, some people certainly put greater importance on certain preexisting qualities like religion/politics/morality etc., but question remains whether this is really important to these people or whether they would be better off if they did not discriminate. This is perhaps not legitimate because it is in some sense not external to their experience of friendship; assumes that there is some distinction between legitimate and illegitimate judgments. Ultimately comes down to happiness and so-called illegitimate categories may have just as much impact on that. So back to the first question of nets. It is possible, maybe probable that for some it is better to cast a wide net and put in less effort to each relationship, but it is not at all clear that the people who do so are those that benefit. Secondly, casting wide net and putting time into relationships not exclusive given differences in overall sociality. Perhaps clearest aspect is that this distinction still makes shy people at a disadvantage because of proclivities to aloneness. Ultimately justification for aloneness I don't think will ever work. I need to find people and I don't think the question of wide vs. narrow is ultimately terribly imprortant for my life because the important thing is simply to increase overall sociality, whether in wide or narrow focus. Sociality must however be in some way meaningful, so if wide must still make real connections, as in not just like high school.
Interesting final note is that these questions about subjects and determiners I brought up in my first couple posts have continued to shape the way I write this. Would lead one to believe that bringing up naratee in this post will increase usage of that. As a tentative hypothesis it seems that I don't need to make decisions; rather I must merely bring up questions and my practice will eventual answer in the affirmative given that the question is asking the saliency of some aspect in my control. Hmm. Perhaps this paradigm may be expanded elsewhere in my life or even applicable to others. May be somewhat profound or of some importance. Something to continue thinking about.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Continuing
Is perhaps an issue. Thinking without thoughts at the moment. They are fleeting, gaseous, and faintly malignant. The problem is perhaps with a connection between conscious and unconscious processes. The problem here is I can't keep talking about language about this but I'm so used to writing about it and I guess I kind of know how to say things about it but that's not the point. Though I suppose that is the point of all this. Watched drama/scary film after much comedy. I forgot about that in terms of feeling different. I just wanted to watch because I thought it would be more exciting but then I got kind of emotionally involved. I almost wrote kind've right there. Hypercorrection of course. There goes again. The point is writing without writing about writing I don't think I can do it. I don't know how anybody can. I guess I'm always thinking about thinking, reading about reading, playing music about music, doing life about life; it's a step remove that maybe maybe that's what's removed in me. The lack of transparency in my endeavors. The transparency that is, of course, an illusion. Language misrecognizes the real and all that Vishnupad. But in terms of lived experience, I think not only is the medium necessary I think the illusion of transparency is necessary in order to actually live. I mean it's problematic: actually live when it's illusory, but I guess it makes people happy and aren't I a god damned utilitarian? I don't know about that I haven't thought about it for a while. I don't know how much a consistent moral framework matters to me anymore. Maybe if I study more with Ernie I'll pick it up again.
Here: try no subjects. Is a good idea, no? No. Is no, in answer. Takes clarity away, sounds foreign. Here, again. Like said yesterday. Of something fundamental. Forget. Is hard to continue. Wondering why, sounds Russian? Shouldn't also be like Spanish? Doesn't sound that way in my head. Noticing that often times use structure with expletives from EPP. Enough.
No predicates? That would be problematic. No more. I said I would stop. About this. This about this. Don't know. Did I say that? Write that? Think that? Don't remember. I remember more that this is exactly like yesterday. I think I will soon find out how cyclical I really am. No really, I didn't think it could be but I am more than I thought I was. Which is a lot. I thought I moved on the next night. I mean, I knew cycles in bed cycles and cycles etc. and all but I thought, I thought next night, next night I moved on. About some things. I guess I knew some things I didn't move on. But this, I thought I would've moved on. I didn't recognize that I hadn't. Brings up some problems. I'm all in figure eights.
Remember: idea is writing. Writing. Not writing about writing, I mean, I didn't say not writing about writing in the start, so that's secondary. Still split on writing about writing. Probably inevitable. Point is. Oh shit. I remembered. Not entirely cyclical. Similar but distinct. Makes some difference, I guess. Point is, writing. Stopping? Not sure. What am I replicating, removing, resculpting, unblocking. Maybe, maybe, start off not stopping, stream, river, etc. but over time we can be flexible and maybe move on to that thing everyone else does. The transparency thing. Two transparency things. One two me from language, other from language to others. Okay. Not important. Other topics: music, film, art generally, life (this is diary problem), people, philosophy (okay that's kind of already part of), maybe more like other ideas not language. There are other ideas. Pop culture like ideas. Something people might actually talk about. Oh yeah. Animals. Dolphins with hands, etc. Danger: might end up too much wikipedia. Other options, little like last night, writing aesthetically, something consistent, not transparent, but somehow viable. Lack of transparency maybe virtue in certain circumstances. Other options. Actual topics about school and things, like things in classes and about classes I want to learn and such. Maybe like Momus just write about things he saw recently like websites and stuff. Dunno.
Here: try no subjects. Is a good idea, no? No. Is no, in answer. Takes clarity away, sounds foreign. Here, again. Like said yesterday. Of something fundamental. Forget. Is hard to continue. Wondering why, sounds Russian? Shouldn't also be like Spanish? Doesn't sound that way in my head. Noticing that often times use structure with expletives from EPP. Enough.
No predicates? That would be problematic. No more. I said I would stop. About this. This about this. Don't know. Did I say that? Write that? Think that? Don't remember. I remember more that this is exactly like yesterday. I think I will soon find out how cyclical I really am. No really, I didn't think it could be but I am more than I thought I was. Which is a lot. I thought I moved on the next night. I mean, I knew cycles in bed cycles and cycles etc. and all but I thought, I thought next night, next night I moved on. About some things. I guess I knew some things I didn't move on. But this, I thought I would've moved on. I didn't recognize that I hadn't. Brings up some problems. I'm all in figure eights.
Remember: idea is writing. Writing. Not writing about writing, I mean, I didn't say not writing about writing in the start, so that's secondary. Still split on writing about writing. Probably inevitable. Point is. Oh shit. I remembered. Not entirely cyclical. Similar but distinct. Makes some difference, I guess. Point is, writing. Stopping? Not sure. What am I replicating, removing, resculpting, unblocking. Maybe, maybe, start off not stopping, stream, river, etc. but over time we can be flexible and maybe move on to that thing everyone else does. The transparency thing. Two transparency things. One two me from language, other from language to others. Okay. Not important. Other topics: music, film, art generally, life (this is diary problem), people, philosophy (okay that's kind of already part of), maybe more like other ideas not language. There are other ideas. Pop culture like ideas. Something people might actually talk about. Oh yeah. Animals. Dolphins with hands, etc. Danger: might end up too much wikipedia. Other options, little like last night, writing aesthetically, something consistent, not transparent, but somehow viable. Lack of transparency maybe virtue in certain circumstances. Other options. Actual topics about school and things, like things in classes and about classes I want to learn and such. Maybe like Momus just write about things he saw recently like websites and stuff. Dunno.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Answers to half of life's questions
So I lied. I did. Just to myself. I care a little bit now but don't know why. I always lie to myself. It's the only way I ever get anything done. So now the old impasse: do I care, is this profound, etc., or can I just convince myself of anything? Authenticity rears again. New topic. The idea is partial sentences. Sometimes. Often predicates but not always. Sometimes subjects. Mostly, the partial is not a grammatical substrate. That is, not. The point is the between the lines, if the phrase means anything. That there is something that is missing between the lines I guess is the point, which makes more sense than the other thing because honestly there's nothing between the lines. Have you looked? There's nothing there. Maybe that's where we go when we die. Between the lines. Do you see anyone you know?
No. Because there's nothing there. Of course, that's the point. The point is that maybe, maybe I can convince myself anything is profound. The point is that the point is that it doesn't matter in some places. In my head, late at night, maybe sometimes it matters. Sometimes. But I can't just go to sleep. Go to sleep. Because it doesn't work like that. I don't know how. It just, just, just, isn't my academy. Here. Here is a reference that isn't just in my head. Two reasons this is important. One of which—the reasons—isn't in important. In other words, it is important for two reasons: one unimportant reason and one reason that hasn't made up its mind as to whether it is important or not. So. Will I mention the reasons. Will I use T to C movement in non-questions. Is it not a question, what does it mean if it isn't a question, etc. etc.
New topic. Have I covered sentences yet? Of course. They're always sentences. Let's move past sentences. Perhaps I could write like a speech. Like a speech act. Like just a few words at a time. Is that poetry? Not anymore I guess. Is there any trace of it anymore? I don't know let's do a study. With statistics. What's this? Oh yeah, parataxis. Everyone does it now. Parataxis. Para-fuckin-taxis. See that's tmesis though. They are compatible people don't know. Yes they do. People know it. Everybody who uses tmesis uses parataxis. I'm breaking my deleting rule, but not super bad. I mean, it's kinda balls anyway. Point is. Point is. Point is when can we leave out determiners. Like when we're doing kid talk or accents or something but like, sometimes it's okay anyway like when we're being like a speech act. Hey look at me everybody I'm a speech act. I have fluctuating air pressure in your ears. Middle ears. Maybe, maybe sometime I'll do hypotaxis. It'll be harder. Not the right crowd. Not the right format. Not the right mind. On the other hand, parataxis with commas is a whole nother thing. See there. Tmesis. People don't even notice because there's spaces but spaces are just spaces right. Spaces look. Spaces look. They're just between the lines the lines. They're the things between the words there's nothing there! That's where we go when we die! When we don't know what is profound that is the only conclusion it is. It is that we're dead. What is. It is. It is. It is. It is.
No. Because there's nothing there. Of course, that's the point. The point is that maybe, maybe I can convince myself anything is profound. The point is that the point is that it doesn't matter in some places. In my head, late at night, maybe sometimes it matters. Sometimes. But I can't just go to sleep. Go to sleep. Because it doesn't work like that. I don't know how. It just, just, just, isn't my academy. Here. Here is a reference that isn't just in my head. Two reasons this is important. One of which—the reasons—isn't in important. In other words, it is important for two reasons: one unimportant reason and one reason that hasn't made up its mind as to whether it is important or not. So. Will I mention the reasons. Will I use T to C movement in non-questions. Is it not a question, what does it mean if it isn't a question, etc. etc.
New topic. Have I covered sentences yet? Of course. They're always sentences. Let's move past sentences. Perhaps I could write like a speech. Like a speech act. Like just a few words at a time. Is that poetry? Not anymore I guess. Is there any trace of it anymore? I don't know let's do a study. With statistics. What's this? Oh yeah, parataxis. Everyone does it now. Parataxis. Para-fuckin-taxis. See that's tmesis though. They are compatible people don't know. Yes they do. People know it. Everybody who uses tmesis uses parataxis. I'm breaking my deleting rule, but not super bad. I mean, it's kinda balls anyway. Point is. Point is. Point is when can we leave out determiners. Like when we're doing kid talk or accents or something but like, sometimes it's okay anyway like when we're being like a speech act. Hey look at me everybody I'm a speech act. I have fluctuating air pressure in your ears. Middle ears. Maybe, maybe sometime I'll do hypotaxis. It'll be harder. Not the right crowd. Not the right format. Not the right mind. On the other hand, parataxis with commas is a whole nother thing. See there. Tmesis. People don't even notice because there's spaces but spaces are just spaces right. Spaces look. Spaces look. They're just between the lines the lines. They're the things between the words there's nothing there! That's where we go when we die! When we don't know what is profound that is the only conclusion it is. It is that we're dead. What is. It is. It is. It is. It is.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)