ayoungjovian

Imagine if human civilization on earth was a book, and you read that book. How do you think you'd feel about the country you live in?

I live in the US. Mr. Author-Deity, plz write me in as moving far, far away from the nation of my birth; in both body and mind. Thanks a billion.

Can't find a link to this song I'm listening to by Stars of the Lid. I recommend you find it if you have a way. Called Apreludes (In C Sharp Major). Download, smoke a j and turn it up. You don't have something half-decent to post over on RT less than halfway through the song, I wash my hands of you.

When I hear that deep drone around 1:55, sometimes I cry a little. sooo good


Edit:

Don't ask me if the book has a twist. Knowing about it might dampen any suprise you might get when you read it. Hell, you asking me if there's a twist in the book might've already affected how much you'll enjoy reading it. Just thinking about it might've.

I mean.. not in any kind of realistically comparable way but still..

just stfu and read the book.


That aside, I'm shipshape.

Q: What relation must one fact have to another in order to be capable of being a symbol for that other?

A: Accurate usage of the first fact as a symbol for the other.

This is more commitment than I want to give. It's obvious, to both of us, and has been, that I don't feel any kind of spark when I'm around you and you know I'm not the type of guy who plans further than a few days from today, unless the plan entails memorable events, which, without the spark of romance between us, makes your playful banter about missing me when I'm gone rather arid.

To be blunt, Kit, often times I'd rather hit a blunt than you. If that means you feel like I feel you're not doing it for me (which, I suppose you suppose, leads me to be so noncommittal), and you'd rather not feel that way about your man, do what you need to. If I were you.. If I were you, I'd abandon ship, too, so, really, it's cool.

Remember, unless you haven't understood what I'm trying to say here (and, possibly, reached some fatal conclusion as to what I've meant by all this), by this point, you should understand that I still care about you. You're an amazing person. Th.....

A few months ago I watched my best friend sing the tallest man on earth's "the gardener" to his long-time girlfriend Kathy, and as he finished singing the last chorus, he set his guitar down, got down on one knee, took a little blue box out of his pocket and asked her to marry him.

My best friend.


I'm 22, man. 22.

32..  42..  52..


PROTIP: AND I FEEL ALL THIS FUCKING NOSTALGIA BUT I KNOW I HAVENT EVEN REALLY DONE ANYTHING AT ALL AND I'M STILL REALLY YOUNG AND THEN I"M LIKE "wut."-AHHHHHHHHHHHHRRRG ?? : /

Anybody want a peanut?

Is your own vocabulary the same as the ones used by the people you interact with? How much of the meaning you intend to convey when communicating actually gets across to whoever's listening? How much is skewed by their own vocabulary's translation of your choice of words? How much is simply lost?

The holidays are always spectacular : ) Merry Christmas!

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say brentano's theory of intentionality is only part fuckness. From his writings i've developed the idea that a person can't think about nothing. Thinking directly entails that the 'thinking' going on has a content, or is about something (whether real or imaginative). Even further, it's nonsense to claim that it is or is not possible for a person to think without the 'thinking' going on being about something becuz it seems, at least conceptually, that any instance of thinking without content would be unrecognizable to person thinking it becuz there would be no content for them to recognize it by.*

Whether brentano would agree that this interpretation of the 'core' of his theory is along the lines of what he meant idk.

The reason i say this interpretation is an interpretation of the 'core' of his theory is becuz, if i've read brentano's theory accurately, it seems as if brentano thinks the idea that 'thinking is always about something' is some kind of 'fundamental quality' of thinking (a quality which he calls "intentional inexistence"), and that this 'quality' (which is the inherent content-ness in thinking)** is only attributable to thinking, and even further, that we can use this 'quality' to ontologically distinguish mental phenomena from physical phenomena. Apparently brentano's followers are divided about whether he makes any explicit ontological argument tho.. buttttt idgaf becuz brentano's discussion about 'fundamental qualities' is the fuckness i mentioned at the start of this oration:P

I've taken 3 huge shits since i got home and my burps still smell like budweiser. FML


( (footnotes) )

When people communicate the sentences they use are usually phrased conceptually rather than concretely.

For example, when Pilot X describes how his co-pilot and himself fly their plane by "keeping the plane under control", the phrase "keeping the plane under control" describes a series of events. Notice though, the only word in the phrase which directly signifies an object is "plane". The rest of the words signify concepts. For now, we can ignore the word "the" since it modifies the word "plane" and nothing else; which leaves the words "keeping", "under" and "control" respectively. Thinking about each word individually doesn't signify the intended message the pilot was trying to convey at all. There is nothing concrete--no objects--located underneath "control"; the word "control" doesn't even signify an object in the first place. Only when you think about the phrase as a whole does the meaning become clear.

If we rewrote the pilot's original phrase ("keeping the plane under control") using words which directly signified all the objects the pilot was attempting to talk about, the result would be a lengthy paragraph. It's much easier, for the pilot and for us, to talk about events using words that signify concepts. Concepts are groups of words which describe objects in relation to other objects; descriptions which commonly include words that signify other concepts. For example, the word "democracy" signifies a concept; most descriptions of "democracy" use words that signify other concepts (e.g. describing "democracy" as a "form of government" uses the words "form" and "government", both of which are words that signify concepts). Unfortunately, hearing statements which use words that signify concepts without correctly identifying the objects those words are intended to signify is misinterpreting the meaning of the statement heard.

If a person misinterprets something you've said, unless one of you notices the misinterpretation has occurred, the person will continue to assume they correctly understood what you meant.



Sharks ate my homework.

http://www.paletaworld.org/dbimages/1938_1.jpg

Hünengrab im Schnee
~1807, Caspar Friedrich


http://www.bracil.net/gallery/Wivenhoe/Constable_Wivenhoe.jpg

Wivenhoe Park
1816, John Constable


http://www.velvethowler.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/thechalkcliffsonrugen.jpg

Chalk Cliffs on Rügen
1818, Caspar Friedrich


http://www.paintinghere.com/UploadPic/John%20Constable/big/Salisbury%20Cathedral.jpg

Salisbury Cathedral
1825, John Constable


http://www.lib-art.com/imgpainting/5/1/10315-graveyard-under-snow-caspar-david-friedrich.jpg

Graveyard Under Snow
1826, Caspar Friedrich


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/2/20/20081215052507!Utro_v_sosnovom_lesu.jpg

Morning In a Pine Forest
1889, Ivan Shishkin

Beautiful revolving sphincter, oops brown painting
2003, Damien Hirst

Young Hare
1502, Albrecht Dürer 

Autumn is showing up all over these days. The sun is colder and its shine is dulling.  I've always been more of a winter than a summer.  Boondock Saints 2'll be in theaters soon.  Friends will call me and afterwards we'll talk about the bad parts and laugh about the good ones.  I've straddled the last of the footnotes.  If all goes evenly I'll be shuffling my way through agents before new year's.  I wonder where I'll be that night.  I don't mind the end of another decade.  I was twelve when the ball dropped for 2000.  A new millennium destined to play the part of the last one.  Driving to Foothill on monday will be both invigorating and sadly diminishing.  I'll get new shoes to offset the regret.  

I'm a dog in a wetsuit.

Imagine yourself talking to someone.  You're communicating something you're thinking to the person listening.  You understand what you're thinking using words you've become accustomed to using throughout your life.  All the conversations you've had and letters or papers or emails you've written garnered you into thinking the way you do now.  Each conversation you have is communicated using language and the vocabulary of each conversation's language affects which words you choose.  Over time, you use some words more and some words less, which can be thought of as you forming your own vocabulary which, though similar to the vocabularies of the people you know and the places you've been, is not exactly like any other vocabulary out there; it's your personal vocabulary.

Linguists have arbitrarily broken up words into sections called phones; each phone is described as corresponding to the different muscle contractions your mouth makes when you pronounce syllables. The brain is a neurological nightmare; a mushy maze of the neurons, neurotransmitters, axons and ion channels responsible for keeping our bodies functioning and our minds thinking.  The electricity flowing through this maze is called action potential.  Action potentials cause nerves to send signals to perform body functions (breathing, muscle contractions and such).  If one of those body functions is all the muscle contractions you make when you talk then action potentials are the cause of those contractions.  Which means the specific series of action potentials correlating to each muscle contraction (or phone) is identifiable (available technology being up to the task).  

I'm redecorating my house tomorrow