“Words, as is well known, are the great foes of reality.”
--Joseph Conrad, Under Western Eyes
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
how strange a thing
“We have almost forgotten how strange a thing it is that so huge and powerful and intelligent an animal as a horse should allow another, and far more feeble animal, to ride upon its back.”
--Peter Gray
--Peter Gray
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Mongol Shuudan
The logo of the Russian anarcho-punk rock band Mongol Shuudan.
In Mongolian, “Mongol Shuudan” means “Mongolian Postal Service.”
Their music is inspired by the history of the anarchist forces of Nestor Makhno (the “Black Army,” which fought against both the Whites and the Reds) in the Russian Civil War.
Their name was inspired by a postage stamp.
In Mongolian, “Mongol Shuudan” means “Mongolian Postal Service.”
Their music is inspired by the history of the anarchist forces of Nestor Makhno (the “Black Army,” which fought against both the Whites and the Reds) in the Russian Civil War.
Their name was inspired by a postage stamp.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
EXCO, the Experimental College of the Twin Cities
EXCO, "made up of two chapters, the first chapter based out of Macalester College (EXCO-Mac) that began in 2006 and a second one based out of the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities (EXCO-UMN) that began in 2007," offers free classes in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota.
List of classes:
http://www.excotc.org/?q=og
List of classes:
http://www.excotc.org/?q=og
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Unhair
Here's a literary post at Cracked:
10 Words and Phrases You Won't Believe Shakespeare Invented
“Shakespeare invented more words than most people even know. Seriously, there's at least 1,500 different words and phrases that don't appear anywhere prior to the Bard of Avon putting them on paper. When he got stuck trying to think up a word, the man just made his own....
“wormhole
Where We'd Be Without It:
Well, for one, we wouldn't have a handy phrase to describe what worms create when they burrow through moist earth. Also, we wouldn't be able to FLY FUCKING STARSHIPS THROUGH SPACE AND TIME.
Why It's Un-Fucking-Believable:
Mainly because it's from the goddamned future. When you invent a word that describes technology so far beyond your own time's that it makes the neutron bomb look like a guy clapping really hard, you can take the rest of the day off. The Starfleet Federation, producers of Sliders and future population of Tau Ceti IV Alpha Base thank you, William Shakespeare....
“household words
Where We'd Be Without It:
Unable to describe the entries in this list.
Why It's Un-Fucking-Believable:
Because so few people have the foresight to invent words to describe their own legacy. In fact, other than this phrase, we can only think of one person who invented a word that perfectly captures the sum of their impact on the planet. And even then, not everyone counts 'strategery' as a word.”
Also:
9 Words That Don't Mean What You Think
“irregardless
People think it means:
Regardless.
Actually means:
Not a damned thing.”
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Friday, February 08, 2008
nestled in the modern mind
"Greek thinkers in the classical period, though they set no bounds to the daring of their thought, and though their wild speculations could easily lead to thoroughgoing scepticism, were yet too healthy-minded to entertain seriously either the problem of the existence of the 'outside' world or its specialized version, the reality of other persons. It was Descartes, the 'father of modern philosophy', who neatly chopped the whole human person into a knowing subject and a known object, that sired the rogue twins.
"Doubt for Descartes was a methodological stance, but the thought that all of the world around us could conceivably be a delusion or a dream, which Descartes introduced simply as a thought experiment, nestled in the modern mind, so that there is hardly any major philosopher during the past four centuries who has not had to grapple with it."
--D.R. Khashaba, "Subjectivism and Solipsism"
"Doubt for Descartes was a methodological stance, but the thought that all of the world around us could conceivably be a delusion or a dream, which Descartes introduced simply as a thought experiment, nestled in the modern mind, so that there is hardly any major philosopher during the past four centuries who has not had to grapple with it."
--D.R. Khashaba, "Subjectivism and Solipsism"
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Mongolian competitors in historic electronic gaming event
“...19-year-old Lkhagvasuren Byambasuren aims to win glory... at the Second Asian Indoor Games (http://www.maigoc2007.com/), an international multi-event sporting competition that includes hockey, swimming and cycling.
“Byambasuren aims to win gold... through the popular video game ‘FIFA 2007.’ That's because this year, for the first time, the Games will include an ‘electronic sports’ category....
“His ambition will surprise nobody who's been to Game Arena, an Internet cafe in Mongolia's frigid capital city Ulaanbaatar. This is where the nation's best video game players tend to congregate. Among them are Mongolia's two other representatives for the Games: 18-year-old Ganzorig Batbold, who will compete in the car-racing game ‘Need for Speed: Most Wanted,’ and 23-year-old Bilguun Chimedregzen, who aims for glory at ‘NBA Live 07.’ All three emerged victorious in national competitions held to find the best players.
“This dream team will face formidable competition, though. Tsogt Sharavrentsen, the overseas manager of Mongolia's national e-sports program, is most concerned about competition from China and South Korea. Those players, he says, receive better training and are well-supported by both sponsors and their governments.
“‘In Mongolia it's very difficult because nobody understands e-sports,’ he says. ‘They think it's like a game.’
“The Olympic Council of Asia couldn't disagree more. A few years ago at a board meeting in Kuwait, it decided video games were serious enough to include in the event....
“Of course, video game contests are not uncommon -- especially in Asia. Channel-surf in Seoul, for example, and you'll likely stumble upon video game action, complete with breathless commentators, on-screen maneuvering and close-ups of players' intent faces.
“But it's rare for video games to be included as part of a multi-sport event -- Chau says it's the first time, as far as he knows -- and to be recognized by a sports governing body as weighty as the OCA. The council, recognized by the International Olympic Committee, includes the National Olympic Committees of 40-plus nations (http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/noc/index_assoc_noc_fede_uk.asp?id_assoc=7).
“So far, nine nations have signed up for the e-sports event. Others include India, Iran and Kyrgyzstan. (The Games are held October 26 to November 3.)
“The OCA decided that the video games chosen should be versions of real sports. This criteria -- and a marketing tie-up -- led to the choices being ‘FIFA 07,’ ‘NBA Live 07’ and ‘Need for Speed: Most Wanted.’ All the titles are from California-based game publisher Electronic Arts. The company's marketing muscle was a factor in the decision, Chau says, as was the popularity of the games themselves.
“More important, he says, is what the event means for video games. ‘This is a very important moment. We are witnessing the development of e-sports. Its development has reached a different level than being merely a game to play with.’”
--CNN.com, 2007 August 28
sometimes seem to
"I sometimes seem to myself to wander around the world merely accumulating material for future nostalgias."
--Vikram Seth, From Heaven Lake: Travels Through Sinkiang and Tibet, 1983
--Vikram Seth, From Heaven Lake: Travels Through Sinkiang and Tibet, 1983
Monday, February 04, 2008
The Story of the Weeping Camel
"so i was wondering if you've seen the film weeping camel and what you might have thought about it. i'm taking another filmmaking class and we're discussing it tomorrow. -lisa"
I saw "Weeping Camel" in Portland, Oregon, in 2004, as I was on my way back to Mongolia. The audience was stunned; the reaction was very positive. I know the film was popular in the politically liberal-minded markets of Europe and the coasts of the States. In Mongolia, it was a huge flop. I read one opinion (I think it was by the filmmaker) that posited that the fact that the film was a documentary turned off Mongolians, because they have ideas about documentaries, held over from Soviet times, as silly propagandizing films portraying the glory of the worker.
But I think "Camel" is just not that interesting to Mongolians. There's not much of a story to it. Many of the film's scenes are simply scenes from regular countryside life. One of the most shocking, humorous, incredible scenes for the Portland audience was when a five-year-old boy runs outside the ger and crawls up onto the back of a huge camel and then whips the camel until it stands up and then he rides away on it. But for a Mongolian, that scene has no novelty and can elicit no reaction; it's just another boring scene in which nothing really happens.
To think about it, would you want to watch a film of some average ol' Americans in Ohio or somewhere, just following them around in their ordinary routine, working and cooking and showering and whatever? Can you think of anything more boring? Anyway, "Weeping Camel" flopped in Mongolia.
I was uncertain about the people portrayed in "Camel." The film's style was of a documentary, but it seemed to me that the people were acting out predetermined roles, or perhaps they were self-conscious about having a camera on them.
I think of "Camel" as an example of a concept that I had read about in "Anthropology of Tourism" seminar: the commodification of culture--specifically, the commodification of so-called "indigenous" culture to be marketed to wealthy, liberal foreigners.
The only Mongolians I know who have seen "Camel" are ones who work in the tourism industry. Many tourists have come to Mongolia stating that their interest was piqued by that movie, so some Mongolians have viewed the movie just out of curiosity. In the main, "Weeping Camel" was ignored in Mongolia, and would be almost entirely unknown if the filmmaker had not received some international recognition through awards, which did make the papers in Ulaanbaatar.
So what do Mongolians watch? Melodramatic South Korean television serials and films. There are Mongolians making films for the Mongolian market, more of them, it seems, with each passing year. Many of these popular films seem to be set in Ulaanbaatar and are crime/gunfight/kick-'em-in-the-face flicks, which in the States might be described with the adjectives "cheesy" and "bad."
I read that the filmmaker's follow-up movie, "The Cave of the Yellow Dog," was very slightly more popular than "Weeping Camel" in Mongolia, perhaps because there was a stronger story to it. I haven't seen that film. In fact, I don't know anyone who has.
I saw "Weeping Camel" in Portland, Oregon, in 2004, as I was on my way back to Mongolia. The audience was stunned; the reaction was very positive. I know the film was popular in the politically liberal-minded markets of Europe and the coasts of the States. In Mongolia, it was a huge flop. I read one opinion (I think it was by the filmmaker) that posited that the fact that the film was a documentary turned off Mongolians, because they have ideas about documentaries, held over from Soviet times, as silly propagandizing films portraying the glory of the worker.
But I think "Camel" is just not that interesting to Mongolians. There's not much of a story to it. Many of the film's scenes are simply scenes from regular countryside life. One of the most shocking, humorous, incredible scenes for the Portland audience was when a five-year-old boy runs outside the ger and crawls up onto the back of a huge camel and then whips the camel until it stands up and then he rides away on it. But for a Mongolian, that scene has no novelty and can elicit no reaction; it's just another boring scene in which nothing really happens.
To think about it, would you want to watch a film of some average ol' Americans in Ohio or somewhere, just following them around in their ordinary routine, working and cooking and showering and whatever? Can you think of anything more boring? Anyway, "Weeping Camel" flopped in Mongolia.
I was uncertain about the people portrayed in "Camel." The film's style was of a documentary, but it seemed to me that the people were acting out predetermined roles, or perhaps they were self-conscious about having a camera on them.
I think of "Camel" as an example of a concept that I had read about in "Anthropology of Tourism" seminar: the commodification of culture--specifically, the commodification of so-called "indigenous" culture to be marketed to wealthy, liberal foreigners.
The only Mongolians I know who have seen "Camel" are ones who work in the tourism industry. Many tourists have come to Mongolia stating that their interest was piqued by that movie, so some Mongolians have viewed the movie just out of curiosity. In the main, "Weeping Camel" was ignored in Mongolia, and would be almost entirely unknown if the filmmaker had not received some international recognition through awards, which did make the papers in Ulaanbaatar.
So what do Mongolians watch? Melodramatic South Korean television serials and films. There are Mongolians making films for the Mongolian market, more of them, it seems, with each passing year. Many of these popular films seem to be set in Ulaanbaatar and are crime/gunfight/kick-'em-in-the-face flicks, which in the States might be described with the adjectives "cheesy" and "bad."
I read that the filmmaker's follow-up movie, "The Cave of the Yellow Dog," was very slightly more popular than "Weeping Camel" in Mongolia, perhaps because there was a stronger story to it. I haven't seen that film. In fact, I don't know anyone who has.
Friday, February 01, 2008
meaner than I want to
“You can go head and have the baby,” I say. “I give him my name.”
I say it meaner than I want to. She just look up at me and don’t say nothing. Then she say, “He ain’t yours.”
I say, “I know he ain’t mine. But don’t nobody else have to know. Even the baby. He don’t even never have to know.”
--Gayl Jones, “White Rat,” 1971
I say it meaner than I want to. She just look up at me and don’t say nothing. Then she say, “He ain’t yours.”
I say, “I know he ain’t mine. But don’t nobody else have to know. Even the baby. He don’t even never have to know.”
--Gayl Jones, “White Rat,” 1971
Thursday, January 31, 2008
The Appeal to Authority
Suppose that you suddenly meet God. You are whisked away from your saddle on your horse or from your seat at your desk where you were reading your books or painting your watercolors or plotting your revenge or doing your whatever, and (let’s imagine a traditional Christian scenario, familiar to many Westerners and, thanks to Hollywood film and television, familiar to many non-Westerners) you are now standing in a vast white cloudy space before an enormous ivory throne upon which giant male God lounges regally and erectly, wearing a long gleaming white robe and long white hair and a long white beard with white mustaches. (God is barefoot. We don’t care what skin pigmentation God has. If you prefer, say that his is the same as yours.)
God proceeds to tell you, without moving his lips, in his booming voice that seems to echo right inside your head, the true nature of existence. He tells you that you live in a physical universe with matter and minds and everything is as you perceive it to be. Do you then have certain knowledge that your senses perceive true reality? What if God tells you that the universe you perceive is an electronic simulation, that in fact your consciousness is the only consciousness that exists and that he himself is but a representative manifestation of the simulator? Do you then know for certain that you are the only consciousness in existence, that all other seemingly conscious entities are unthinking sprites? What if God tells you that you are bleeding to death in a bathtub, and that in the last instant of your life, you have imagined a whole alternate life for yourself, with years and years of imagined events and imagined people, a life that led to you riding on horseback before being whisked away to meet him, and that you are even now only imagining him? Are you then certain that your life is a dream?
Whatever the god tells you is irrelevant; all scenarios (a Boltzmann brain floating in space, a brain in a vat, an immaterial mind trapped by Descartes’ demon, an electronic mind in the virtual reality of a simulated universe, a housecat hallucinating as you starve to death in an abandoned house, a human dreaming in the instant your neck is breaking at the end of a rope, a figment of someone else’s dream, a butterfly’s dream, exactly as you currently believe yourself to be, something unthinkable) are equally uncertain, because the existence of the god himself is uncertain, even when confronted with sensory and extra-sensory perceptions of the god-creature. The entirety of what is knowable by your consciousness is that your consciousness exists in this present moment.
For an answer to the question of what is the nature of existence, there can be no appeal to authority, because the existence of any authority (any god, any oracle, any wise man, any philosopher, any theorist, any scientist, any prophet, any truth-possessor, any writer, any demon) is and can only be uncertain. The nature of existence, whatever it may be, is unknowable. This is acatalepsy, or knowledgelessness. This is the inescapable state of any consciousness:
God proceeds to tell you, without moving his lips, in his booming voice that seems to echo right inside your head, the true nature of existence. He tells you that you live in a physical universe with matter and minds and everything is as you perceive it to be. Do you then have certain knowledge that your senses perceive true reality? What if God tells you that the universe you perceive is an electronic simulation, that in fact your consciousness is the only consciousness that exists and that he himself is but a representative manifestation of the simulator? Do you then know for certain that you are the only consciousness in existence, that all other seemingly conscious entities are unthinking sprites? What if God tells you that you are bleeding to death in a bathtub, and that in the last instant of your life, you have imagined a whole alternate life for yourself, with years and years of imagined events and imagined people, a life that led to you riding on horseback before being whisked away to meet him, and that you are even now only imagining him? Are you then certain that your life is a dream?
Whatever the god tells you is irrelevant; all scenarios (a Boltzmann brain floating in space, a brain in a vat, an immaterial mind trapped by Descartes’ demon, an electronic mind in the virtual reality of a simulated universe, a housecat hallucinating as you starve to death in an abandoned house, a human dreaming in the instant your neck is breaking at the end of a rope, a figment of someone else’s dream, a butterfly’s dream, exactly as you currently believe yourself to be, something unthinkable) are equally uncertain, because the existence of the god himself is uncertain, even when confronted with sensory and extra-sensory perceptions of the god-creature. The entirety of what is knowable by your consciousness is that your consciousness exists in this present moment.
For an answer to the question of what is the nature of existence, there can be no appeal to authority, because the existence of any authority (any god, any oracle, any wise man, any philosopher, any theorist, any scientist, any prophet, any truth-possessor, any writer, any demon) is and can only be uncertain. The nature of existence, whatever it may be, is unknowable. This is acatalepsy, or knowledgelessness. This is the inescapable state of any consciousness:
Boltzmann Brain, the Baataristic Crisis, Skepticism, and the Bundle Theory
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?em&ex=1200546000&en=3d0d451cc8672382&ei=5087%0A
This recent New York Times article and the cosmological debate it recounts touch upon humanity’s coming philosophical crises, the Baataristic Crisis, though I believe that the crises is less likely to be brought about by theoretical advances in cosmology than by the development of virtual reality that is indistinguishable from presently perceived reality.
If the writer was a brain floating in space and believing that it was a human named Dennis Overbye on earth, the floating brain’s thoughts would be identical to the thoughts of a human named Dennis Overbye on earth. How can any distinguishing be made between the two? None can be made. The writer believes that he is a human on earth (as he appears to himself to be), but there is no evidence to support this belief. It is possible that the writer is a brain floating in space. . . but that is not the point that I wish to make; that point was made by the cosmologists. The point that I wish to make is that the writer does not and cannot know whether he is a brain floating in space. Any insistence that he is a human on earth is only that: an unsubstantiated insistence, and a dismissal or incomprehension of the intractable problem of epistemological certainty. In exactly the same way, any insistence that he is a brain floating in space would be only that: an unsubstantiated insistence and dismissal or incomprehension of the problem of certainty. The facts that differing configurations of reality are theoretically possible, and that certain knowledge of any configuration of reality is impossible, form the foundations of Skepticism.
On the first page of the article, the writer uses the word “skepticism,” but in only a casual way, meaning “resistance to existential or philosophical challenge.” The philosophical school of Skepticism might identify the cosmologists’ theoretical scenarios as challenges to perceived reality. Creating and considering such challenges, as thought experiments and theoretical possibilities, fall under the classic purview of Skepticism.
The phrase “the cosmic equivalent of an egg unscrambling” may be implying that this is an absurd event, when rather, in fact, “eggs unscramble” regularly at microscopic levels. There is no arrow of time at microscopic levels, because microscopic elements arrange and re-arrange themselves constantly into repeating patterns. At microscopic levels, time moving forward and time moving backward are indistinguishable: the T-symmetry is symmetrical. Boltzmann correctly described a universe of infinite temporal existence: such a universe would exhibit time symmetry -- that is, eggs would regularly unscramble, just as they do at microscopic levels.
“If some atoms in another universe stick together briefly to look, talk and think exactly like you, is it really you?” As human technology advances, such challenges to personal identity accumulate, and humanity is led closer to Buddha’s No-Self view, which can also be called the Bundle Theory of Personhood. If (as rational and scientific thinkers are inclined to believe, because it de-necessitates traditional, non-rational notions of supernatural, divine, or spiritual essences) consciousnesses arise from particular configurations of physical matter, then the Bundle Theory has logical appeal. If any specific configuration of matter can be duplicated, and if “you” are a result of the configuration of matter that is your brain, then “you” can be duplicated. Would the duplicate be “really you”? It would be identical to you. So which one is “really you”? The Bundle Theory explains that there is no “you.” There is a bundle of thoughts and emotions that appear to be you, but there is nothing unique about this “you,” nothing about this “you” that cannot be duplicated. Further, as Derek Parfit has reported of neuro-psychological observations, it appears that “you” can be dismantled into your component pieces (component perceptions, component memories, component thoughts). If “you” can be dismantled, then where did “you” go? The Bundle Theory explains that “you” were never there in the first place. (Incidental to this discussion, if and how consciousness might arise from physical matter are concerns that become more relevant as human technology moves toward the creation of non-organic brains. David Chalmers has written in this area.)
The writer and the final interviewee quoted in the article seem to be using “reincarnation” with a sort of spiritual understanding, as if a future duplication of the arrangement of physical matter that once accounted for your consciousness would create a consciousness possessing some kind of supernatural connection to your previous self: here they seem to be betraying a belief in a unique “soul” or “spirit.” Rationally, there is no need for a spiritual or supernatural connection between any two consciousnesses arising from identical configurations of matter. The Bundle Theory, again, accounts for this by logically denying any connection between your current consciousness and any other consciousness, including your consciousness of ten years ago, a year ago, a thousand years ago, a multitude of universes ago, a moment ago, tomorrow, twenty years from now, a moment from now, or a multitude of universes from now.
The final sentence of the text in the graphic is flawed: if existence is a Boltzmann brain, then there is no “we” or “our past” -- if existence is a Boltzmann brain, then this universe is a perception/creation of only one consciousness. . .
This recent New York Times article and the cosmological debate it recounts touch upon humanity’s coming philosophical crises, the Baataristic Crisis, though I believe that the crises is less likely to be brought about by theoretical advances in cosmology than by the development of virtual reality that is indistinguishable from presently perceived reality.
If the writer was a brain floating in space and believing that it was a human named Dennis Overbye on earth, the floating brain’s thoughts would be identical to the thoughts of a human named Dennis Overbye on earth. How can any distinguishing be made between the two? None can be made. The writer believes that he is a human on earth (as he appears to himself to be), but there is no evidence to support this belief. It is possible that the writer is a brain floating in space. . . but that is not the point that I wish to make; that point was made by the cosmologists. The point that I wish to make is that the writer does not and cannot know whether he is a brain floating in space. Any insistence that he is a human on earth is only that: an unsubstantiated insistence, and a dismissal or incomprehension of the intractable problem of epistemological certainty. In exactly the same way, any insistence that he is a brain floating in space would be only that: an unsubstantiated insistence and dismissal or incomprehension of the problem of certainty. The facts that differing configurations of reality are theoretically possible, and that certain knowledge of any configuration of reality is impossible, form the foundations of Skepticism.
On the first page of the article, the writer uses the word “skepticism,” but in only a casual way, meaning “resistance to existential or philosophical challenge.” The philosophical school of Skepticism might identify the cosmologists’ theoretical scenarios as challenges to perceived reality. Creating and considering such challenges, as thought experiments and theoretical possibilities, fall under the classic purview of Skepticism.
The phrase “the cosmic equivalent of an egg unscrambling” may be implying that this is an absurd event, when rather, in fact, “eggs unscramble” regularly at microscopic levels. There is no arrow of time at microscopic levels, because microscopic elements arrange and re-arrange themselves constantly into repeating patterns. At microscopic levels, time moving forward and time moving backward are indistinguishable: the T-symmetry is symmetrical. Boltzmann correctly described a universe of infinite temporal existence: such a universe would exhibit time symmetry -- that is, eggs would regularly unscramble, just as they do at microscopic levels.
“If some atoms in another universe stick together briefly to look, talk and think exactly like you, is it really you?” As human technology advances, such challenges to personal identity accumulate, and humanity is led closer to Buddha’s No-Self view, which can also be called the Bundle Theory of Personhood. If (as rational and scientific thinkers are inclined to believe, because it de-necessitates traditional, non-rational notions of supernatural, divine, or spiritual essences) consciousnesses arise from particular configurations of physical matter, then the Bundle Theory has logical appeal. If any specific configuration of matter can be duplicated, and if “you” are a result of the configuration of matter that is your brain, then “you” can be duplicated. Would the duplicate be “really you”? It would be identical to you. So which one is “really you”? The Bundle Theory explains that there is no “you.” There is a bundle of thoughts and emotions that appear to be you, but there is nothing unique about this “you,” nothing about this “you” that cannot be duplicated. Further, as Derek Parfit has reported of neuro-psychological observations, it appears that “you” can be dismantled into your component pieces (component perceptions, component memories, component thoughts). If “you” can be dismantled, then where did “you” go? The Bundle Theory explains that “you” were never there in the first place. (Incidental to this discussion, if and how consciousness might arise from physical matter are concerns that become more relevant as human technology moves toward the creation of non-organic brains. David Chalmers has written in this area.)
The writer and the final interviewee quoted in the article seem to be using “reincarnation” with a sort of spiritual understanding, as if a future duplication of the arrangement of physical matter that once accounted for your consciousness would create a consciousness possessing some kind of supernatural connection to your previous self: here they seem to be betraying a belief in a unique “soul” or “spirit.” Rationally, there is no need for a spiritual or supernatural connection between any two consciousnesses arising from identical configurations of matter. The Bundle Theory, again, accounts for this by logically denying any connection between your current consciousness and any other consciousness, including your consciousness of ten years ago, a year ago, a thousand years ago, a multitude of universes ago, a moment ago, tomorrow, twenty years from now, a moment from now, or a multitude of universes from now.
The final sentence of the text in the graphic is flawed: if existence is a Boltzmann brain, then there is no “we” or “our past” -- if existence is a Boltzmann brain, then this universe is a perception/creation of only one consciousness. . .
To coin a useful word; to expand the scope of thought
pointlessness
hopelessness
fearlessness
restlessness
lifelessness
“Point,” “hope,” “fear,” “rest,” and “life”—none tangible things, all abstract ideas, “life” the most abstract of all, for its attributes cannot be identified except in the absence of those attributes.
“Knowledge”—also intangible, abstract. But has a writer coined a word if every reader, upon first encountering the freshly minted word, knows exactly what it means? Or, rather, is immediate comprehension a test of the value of a new word? If “knowledgelessness” is truly a new word, then dictionaries can begin listing it, and cite The Steppe (2007) as its first usage in print. But I feel that “knowledgelessness” is not much of a new word, for the fact that its construction (from an abstract noun joined to two suffixes in a standard grammatical manner) is routine and readily understood. (Homologs continue floating into my mind as I write this: mercilessness, recklessness, listlessness, worthlessness, facelessness, joylessness...)
“Acatalepsy” or “acatalepsia” might have sufficed in place of “knowledgelessness,” but those words carry connotations of formal and ancient philosophy, whereas “knowledgelessness” is serenely and attractively accessible to a casual reader. Further, and more importantly, “knowledgelessness” is more precise in its meaning than those old Greek words, and its meaning must be precise for its juxtaposition with “unknowability” to correlate properly with the mantra of Baatar/Baatarism: “I do not know, and I cannot know.”
(The entire preceding argument applies equally to “unknowability,” which, as a partner to “knowledgelessness,” also first appears in the aguulga of The Steppe, with likewise flowing homologs: unaccountability, uncontrollability, incontestability, inconceivability, indomitability, indemonstrability, incommutability, irresistibility, irreconcilability...)
More interesting to me than “knowledgelessness” or “unknowability” as new words introduced into English by The Steppe are the loan words from Mongolian, for instance “aguulga,” a loan word with particular value because it is used to mean not merely the “table of contents” of a book, but the “subject matter” of a book: what the book is about, what matters of life and thought the book deals with.
Most significant to the English language, and to philosophical thought in general, is The Steppe’s introduction/coining of “ukhaan,” which can be used a simple synonym for “consciousness,” but also (and these usages are beyond the word’s original usage) “the lone consciousness of certain existence,” as well as “the seemingly material universe composed of immaterial thoughts that exists within the consciousness,” and which is, in fact, “the only knowable universe.”
hopelessness
fearlessness
restlessness
lifelessness
“Point,” “hope,” “fear,” “rest,” and “life”—none tangible things, all abstract ideas, “life” the most abstract of all, for its attributes cannot be identified except in the absence of those attributes.
“Knowledge”—also intangible, abstract. But has a writer coined a word if every reader, upon first encountering the freshly minted word, knows exactly what it means? Or, rather, is immediate comprehension a test of the value of a new word? If “knowledgelessness” is truly a new word, then dictionaries can begin listing it, and cite The Steppe (2007) as its first usage in print. But I feel that “knowledgelessness” is not much of a new word, for the fact that its construction (from an abstract noun joined to two suffixes in a standard grammatical manner) is routine and readily understood. (Homologs continue floating into my mind as I write this: mercilessness, recklessness, listlessness, worthlessness, facelessness, joylessness...)
“Acatalepsy” or “acatalepsia” might have sufficed in place of “knowledgelessness,” but those words carry connotations of formal and ancient philosophy, whereas “knowledgelessness” is serenely and attractively accessible to a casual reader. Further, and more importantly, “knowledgelessness” is more precise in its meaning than those old Greek words, and its meaning must be precise for its juxtaposition with “unknowability” to correlate properly with the mantra of Baatar/Baatarism: “I do not know, and I cannot know.”
(The entire preceding argument applies equally to “unknowability,” which, as a partner to “knowledgelessness,” also first appears in the aguulga of The Steppe, with likewise flowing homologs: unaccountability, uncontrollability, incontestability, inconceivability, indomitability, indemonstrability, incommutability, irresistibility, irreconcilability...)
More interesting to me than “knowledgelessness” or “unknowability” as new words introduced into English by The Steppe are the loan words from Mongolian, for instance “aguulga,” a loan word with particular value because it is used to mean not merely the “table of contents” of a book, but the “subject matter” of a book: what the book is about, what matters of life and thought the book deals with.
Most significant to the English language, and to philosophical thought in general, is The Steppe’s introduction/coining of “ukhaan,” which can be used a simple synonym for “consciousness,” but also (and these usages are beyond the word’s original usage) “the lone consciousness of certain existence,” as well as “the seemingly material universe composed of immaterial thoughts that exists within the consciousness,” and which is, in fact, “the only knowable universe.”
impossibility of answers to any question whatsoever
"One of Melville's favorite devices is to argue a point effectively in one chapter, undercut it with an equally effective and opposite argument in the next, then to present other arguments at various points between. A related technique is his use of traditional systems for ordering knowledge - ostensibly to clarify, present information, or advance an argument - but actually as a means of demonstrating the limitations of the system and, by extension, the impossibility of mere earthly beings coming up with categorical answers to any question whatsoever. Ishmael's ability to exist within this limitation makes possible his salvation. Ahab's inability to do so destroys him."
—Who2 Biography: Herman Melville
—Who2 Biography: Herman Melville
great solitude
“A foolish thought: why do I think it? Is it that I live so lonesome, and know nothing?”
—Herman Melville, “The Piazza,” 1856
—Herman Melville, “The Piazza,” 1856
Monday, January 28, 2008
.jpg)
Friday, January 25, 2008
Happy Burns Night: Where is Scotland?
The discussion page of Wikipedia’s article on Robert Burns:
"As per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style currency convention, I've changed the reference to '$36,000' to 'US$36,000'. If I am in error (if the purchase was made in AUS or CDN), please correct my edit. Although Euros might seem logical since Burns is Scottish, I guess the currency referred to in the article should be whatever the buyer paid in. Forgive me for being too lazy to look through the source material to find the answer myself.--Anchoress 09:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"--Euros are European. Since Burns is Scottish, pounds would seem to be more logical than euros. -- Derek Ross Talk 16:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"----Scotland is in Europe, though not yet in the Euro zone. Dollars are fine in the article. Guinnog 16:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"------Scotland is in Britain. Europe is across the North Sea. Dollars are fine in the article. -- Derek Ross Talk 18:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
"--------Scotland is in Britain. Europe is across the North Sea. And America is across the Atlantic. So why are dollars fine in the article? As it's about a British writer why would we impose an American currency? Yallery Brown 10:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
"----------Scotland isn't 'in' Britain, it is part of it - it is also part of Europe. Dollars, however, make no sense - it should either be pounds or euro's. WP:MOSNUM suggests that pounds would be the most sensible outcome. SFC9394 11:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
"You are all missing the point completely. As it stands there is an unreferenced statement 'Copies of this edition are now extremely rare, and as much as US$36,000 has been paid for one' in the article. Either this should have a reference added, or it should be removed. If there was a reference then it is simple to determine the actual currency used in the transaction and then use that. /wangi 11:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Burns#article
"As per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style currency convention, I've changed the reference to '$36,000' to 'US$36,000'. If I am in error (if the purchase was made in AUS or CDN), please correct my edit. Although Euros might seem logical since Burns is Scottish, I guess the currency referred to in the article should be whatever the buyer paid in. Forgive me for being too lazy to look through the source material to find the answer myself.--Anchoress 09:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"--Euros are European. Since Burns is Scottish, pounds would seem to be more logical than euros. -- Derek Ross Talk 16:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"----Scotland is in Europe, though not yet in the Euro zone. Dollars are fine in the article. Guinnog 16:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"------Scotland is in Britain. Europe is across the North Sea. Dollars are fine in the article. -- Derek Ross Talk 18:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
"--------Scotland is in Britain. Europe is across the North Sea. And America is across the Atlantic. So why are dollars fine in the article? As it's about a British writer why would we impose an American currency? Yallery Brown 10:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
"----------Scotland isn't 'in' Britain, it is part of it - it is also part of Europe. Dollars, however, make no sense - it should either be pounds or euro's. WP:MOSNUM suggests that pounds would be the most sensible outcome. SFC9394 11:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
"You are all missing the point completely. As it stands there is an unreferenced statement 'Copies of this edition are now extremely rare, and as much as US$36,000 has been paid for one' in the article. Either this should have a reference added, or it should be removed. If there was a reference then it is simple to determine the actual currency used in the transaction and then use that. /wangi 11:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Burns#article
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
2008 International Snow Sculpture Championships in Colorado, Breckenridge
"We were pleased to see Cool Jazz, our prize-winning work from 2007, featured on the town's poster for the 2008 event."
--Stan Wagon, Macalester College mathematics professor, Team Minnesota
http://stanwagon.com/wagon/SnowSculptureRedirect/snowsculptureindex.html
Calvinism
"Why does man create?
"Is it man's purpose on Earth to express himself, to bring form to thought, and to discover meaning in experience?
"Or is it just something to do when he's bored?"
--Bill Watterson
Before the Information Age
According to this 1940 article by the dinosaur hunter of Mongolia, Roy Chapman Andrews, the American Museum of Natural History functioned as a proto-Google, with one-third of its staff-hours allocated to answering questions from the public – 25,000 questions in 1939. (Google is presently handling thousands of queries per second, billions of queries per year.)
"Natural History, October 1940
"Museum Quiz
"By Roy Chapman Andrews
Director, The American Museum of Natural History
"A list of the questions asked the staff of the American Museum of Natural History shows that when a person is uncertain where else to get information about a subject, whether or not it pertains to natural history, he gives the question to us. We are a center for the most amazing number and kinds of inquiries, more than half of them technical, most of them serious, but some so extraordinary that we can only suspect the mentality of the people who ask them.
"At least a third of the staff members’ time is devoted to answering questions that come by letter, telephone and personal visit. We don’t mind it, for it is a part of our job as a public institution....
"'True or false' questions which come to the Museum would be grand for a radio quiz. Some of them are: 'Do bears suffer with arthritis?' (Yes.) 'Is it true that a herd of Lilliputian horses, the size of police dogs, exist in the Grand Canyon of Arizona?' (No.)"
"Natural History, October 1940
"Museum Quiz
"By Roy Chapman Andrews
Director, The American Museum of Natural History
"A list of the questions asked the staff of the American Museum of Natural History shows that when a person is uncertain where else to get information about a subject, whether or not it pertains to natural history, he gives the question to us. We are a center for the most amazing number and kinds of inquiries, more than half of them technical, most of them serious, but some so extraordinary that we can only suspect the mentality of the people who ask them.
"At least a third of the staff members’ time is devoted to answering questions that come by letter, telephone and personal visit. We don’t mind it, for it is a part of our job as a public institution....
"'True or false' questions which come to the Museum would be grand for a radio quiz. Some of them are: 'Do bears suffer with arthritis?' (Yes.) 'Is it true that a herd of Lilliputian horses, the size of police dogs, exist in the Grand Canyon of Arizona?' (No.)"
Copernicus: "Changing the course of human intellectual endeavor? Yeah, that's just a hobby of mine."
"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was the first astronomer to formulate a scientifically based heliocentric cosmology that displaced the Earth from the center of the universe. His epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), is often regarded as the starting point of modern astronomy and the defining epiphany that began the Scientific Revolution.
"Although Greek, Indian and Muslim savants had published heliocentric hypotheses centuries before Copernicus, his publication of a scientific theory of heliocentrism, demonstrating that the motions of celestial objects can be explained without putting the Earth at rest in the center of the universe, stimulated further scientific investigations, and became a landmark in the history of modern science that is known as the Copernican Revolution.
"Among the great polymaths of the Renaissance, Copernicus was a mathematician, astronomer, physician, classical scholar, translator, Catholic cleric, jurist, governor, military leader, diplomat and economist. Amid his extensive responsibilities, astronomy figured as little more than an avocation — yet it was in that field that he made his mark upon the world."
"Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was the first astronomer to formulate a scientifically based heliocentric cosmology that displaced the Earth from the center of the universe. His epochal book, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), is often regarded as the starting point of modern astronomy and the defining epiphany that began the Scientific Revolution.
"Although Greek, Indian and Muslim savants had published heliocentric hypotheses centuries before Copernicus, his publication of a scientific theory of heliocentrism, demonstrating that the motions of celestial objects can be explained without putting the Earth at rest in the center of the universe, stimulated further scientific investigations, and became a landmark in the history of modern science that is known as the Copernican Revolution.
"Among the great polymaths of the Renaissance, Copernicus was a mathematician, astronomer, physician, classical scholar, translator, Catholic cleric, jurist, governor, military leader, diplomat and economist. Amid his extensive responsibilities, astronomy figured as little more than an avocation — yet it was in that field that he made his mark upon the world."
"History of philosophy in Poland": Copernicus and others
"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The history of philosophy in Poland parallels the evolution of philosophy in Europe generally. Polish philosophy drew upon the broader currents of European philosophy, and in turn contributed to their growth. Among the most momentous Polish contributions were made in the 13th century by the Scholastic philosopher and scientist Witelo; and in the 16th century, by the Renaissance polymath Nicolaus Copernicus.
"Subsequently the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth partook in the intellectual ferment of the Enlightenment, which for the multi-ethnic Commonwealth ended not long after the partitions and political annihilation that would last for the next 123 years, until the collapse of the three partitioning empires in World War I.
"The period of Messianism, between the November 1830 and January 1863 Uprisings, reflected European Romantic and Idealist trends, as well as a Polish yearning for political resurrection. It was a period of maximalist metaphysical systems.
"The collapse of the January 1863 Uprising prompted an agonizing reappraisal of Poland's situation. Poles gave up their earlier practice of 'measuring their resources by their aspirations,' and buckled down to hard work and study. '[A] Positivist,' wrote the novelist Bolesław Prus' friend, Julian Ochorowicz, was 'anyone who bases assertions on verifiable evidence; who does not express himself categorically about doubtful things, and does not speak at all about those that are inaccessible.'
"The 20th century brought a new quickening to Polish philosophy. There was growing interest in western philosophical currents. Rigorously trained Polish philosophers made substantial contributions to specialized fields—to psychology, the history of philosophy, the theory of knowledge, and especially mathematical logic. Jan Łukasiewicz gained world fame with his concept of many-valued logic and his 'Polish notation.' Alfred Tarski's work in truth theory won him world renown.
"After World War II, for over four decades, world-class Polish philosophers and historians of philosophy such as Władysław Tatarkiewicz continued their work, often in the face of adversities occasioned by the dominance of a politically enforced official philosophy. The phenomenologist Roman Ingarden did influential work in esthetics and in a Husserl-style metaphysics; his student Karol Wojtyła acquired a unique influence on the world stage as Pope John Paul II."
"The history of philosophy in Poland parallels the evolution of philosophy in Europe generally. Polish philosophy drew upon the broader currents of European philosophy, and in turn contributed to their growth. Among the most momentous Polish contributions were made in the 13th century by the Scholastic philosopher and scientist Witelo; and in the 16th century, by the Renaissance polymath Nicolaus Copernicus.
"Subsequently the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth partook in the intellectual ferment of the Enlightenment, which for the multi-ethnic Commonwealth ended not long after the partitions and political annihilation that would last for the next 123 years, until the collapse of the three partitioning empires in World War I.
"The period of Messianism, between the November 1830 and January 1863 Uprisings, reflected European Romantic and Idealist trends, as well as a Polish yearning for political resurrection. It was a period of maximalist metaphysical systems.
"The collapse of the January 1863 Uprising prompted an agonizing reappraisal of Poland's situation. Poles gave up their earlier practice of 'measuring their resources by their aspirations,' and buckled down to hard work and study. '[A] Positivist,' wrote the novelist Bolesław Prus' friend, Julian Ochorowicz, was 'anyone who bases assertions on verifiable evidence; who does not express himself categorically about doubtful things, and does not speak at all about those that are inaccessible.'
"The 20th century brought a new quickening to Polish philosophy. There was growing interest in western philosophical currents. Rigorously trained Polish philosophers made substantial contributions to specialized fields—to psychology, the history of philosophy, the theory of knowledge, and especially mathematical logic. Jan Łukasiewicz gained world fame with his concept of many-valued logic and his 'Polish notation.' Alfred Tarski's work in truth theory won him world renown.
"After World War II, for over four decades, world-class Polish philosophers and historians of philosophy such as Władysław Tatarkiewicz continued their work, often in the face of adversities occasioned by the dominance of a politically enforced official philosophy. The phenomenologist Roman Ingarden did influential work in esthetics and in a Husserl-style metaphysics; his student Karol Wojtyła acquired a unique influence on the world stage as Pope John Paul II."
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Folklore
"The collection of the folk-lore of the different peoples of the world should not be neglected, for it is of great value. It is the entire stock of wisdom accumulated by the unlettered masses of mankind in all ages. Like language, it is the product neither of one mind nor a given number of minds, but of all the various groups which together form humanity. Like language, it is property bequeathed by anonymous ancestors or predecessors. As there is no nation, tribe, or group of persons without language, there is none without folk-lore, which in a broad sense is the fruit of the intellectual activity of men before they are modified by what is called education, and represents their religion, philosophy, and literature..."
--Jeremiah Curtin, A Journey in Southern Siberia: The Mongols, Their Religion and Their Myths, 1909
--Jeremiah Curtin, A Journey in Southern Siberia: The Mongols, Their Religion and Their Myths, 1909
Friday, January 18, 2008
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Center for Central Asian Literatures in Translation
“CCALT, the Center for Central Asian Literatures in Translation, aims to provide high-quality English translations of various forms of literature from throughout the Central Asian region. In an effort to promote the availability and understanding of what has thus far been an underrepresented region, CCALT aims to make English editions of works from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuva, Uzbekistan and Xinjiang available online.”
Franco-Mongol alliance
“From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
“Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. Historians note that in hindsight, an alliance between the Mongols and the Franks often appears a logical choice. The Mongols were already very sympathetic to Christianity as many Mongols were Nestorian Christians. The Europeans were open to the idea of assistance coming from the East, due to the longrunning legend of a mythical Prester John, an Eastern king in a magical kingdom who many believed would arrive someday to help with the fight in the Holy Land. The Mongols and the Franks also shared a common enemy in the Muslims. There were numerous exchanges of letters, gifts and emissaries between the Mongols and the Europeans as well as offers for varying types of cooperation. However, despite many attempts, there was never any successful military collaboration. Modern historians also debate whether or not such an alliance, if it had been successful, would have been effective in shifting the balance of power in the region, and/or whether or not it would have been a wise choice on the part of the Europeans. Traditionally, the Mongols tended to see outside parties as either subjects, or enemies, with little room in the middle for something such as an ally.”
“The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
“Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. Historians note that in hindsight, an alliance between the Mongols and the Franks often appears a logical choice. The Mongols were already very sympathetic to Christianity as many Mongols were Nestorian Christians. The Europeans were open to the idea of assistance coming from the East, due to the longrunning legend of a mythical Prester John, an Eastern king in a magical kingdom who many believed would arrive someday to help with the fight in the Holy Land. The Mongols and the Franks also shared a common enemy in the Muslims. There were numerous exchanges of letters, gifts and emissaries between the Mongols and the Europeans as well as offers for varying types of cooperation. However, despite many attempts, there was never any successful military collaboration. Modern historians also debate whether or not such an alliance, if it had been successful, would have been effective in shifting the balance of power in the region, and/or whether or not it would have been a wise choice on the part of the Europeans. Traditionally, the Mongols tended to see outside parties as either subjects, or enemies, with little room in the middle for something such as an ally.”
to fire it
Burn whatever cannot be burned with ordinary fire
With the fire of wisdom
--Ishdanzangwangjil, “The Sutra of Fire”
With the fire of wisdom
--Ishdanzangwangjil, “The Sutra of Fire”
mind-body interaction
“One way to deal with the problem of mind-body interaction is to claim that it is only apparent, not real. The mind and the body seem to interact with one another, but that’s because mental processes and physical processes run parallel to each other. According to parallelism, the correlation between mental and physical events is not the result of a causal interaction between the two.
“Some parallelists believe that God produces the correlation by constantly intervening in our affairs. A decision to raise one’s arm, for example, is an occasion for God to cause certain nerve cells to fire. Similarly, getting kicked in the shins is an occasion for God to create a feeling of pain in our minds. This view, known as occasionalism, solves the problem of mind-body interaction, but at the price of introducing yet another entity into the picture, namely, God. Unfortunately, the price seems to be rather high, for divine intervention is just as mysterious as mind-body interaction.”
--Theodore Schick, Jr. and Lewis Vaughn, Doing Philosophy: An Introduction through Thought Experiments, Second Edition, 2003
“Some parallelists believe that God produces the correlation by constantly intervening in our affairs. A decision to raise one’s arm, for example, is an occasion for God to cause certain nerve cells to fire. Similarly, getting kicked in the shins is an occasion for God to create a feeling of pain in our minds. This view, known as occasionalism, solves the problem of mind-body interaction, but at the price of introducing yet another entity into the picture, namely, God. Unfortunately, the price seems to be rather high, for divine intervention is just as mysterious as mind-body interaction.”
--Theodore Schick, Jr. and Lewis Vaughn, Doing Philosophy: An Introduction through Thought Experiments, Second Edition, 2003
“I start to complain that there’s no rain”
The genres under which Yahoo! Music lists the 1992 single “No Rain” by Blind Melon:
Rock
Hard Rock
Soft Rock
Mainstream Rock
Alternative Rock
Adult Alternative
Grunge
Jam Bands
Big Hits Of The '90s
1990s Alternative
Hard Rock
Soft Rock
Mainstream Rock
Alternative Rock
Adult Alternative
Grunge
Jam Bands
Big Hits Of The '90s
1990s Alternative
a synonym
An elegant synonym for "clusterfuck" and which also means "rough seas": welter.
"wel·ter
–noun
5. a confused mass; a jumble or muddle
7. a rolling, tossing, or tumbling about, as or as if by the sea, waves, or wind"
--Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
"wel·ter
–noun
5. a confused mass; a jumble or muddle
7. a rolling, tossing, or tumbling about, as or as if by the sea, waves, or wind"
--Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Sunday, January 06, 2008
from: *A Very Big White Elephant: New Voices in Mongolian Poetry*
But, at the end, one thing:
In this struggle, you will never be victorious.
You will never win. And that’s because
There’s nothing good in anything.
--D.Enkhboldbaatar, “…(emphatikos)”
In this struggle, you will never be victorious.
You will never win. And that’s because
There’s nothing good in anything.
--D.Enkhboldbaatar, “…(emphatikos)”
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Happy New Year, Yes
There is this song that I've been hearing for the last month or more, which must currently be the most popular song in Mongolia. I finally googled the only lyrics of it I could understand: "happy new year" and "might as well lay down and die." Holy batcrap, it's by ABBA, and it's from 1980. Wow, the lyrics are awesome:
No more champagne
And the fireworks are through
Here we are, me and you
Feeling lost and feeling blue
It's the end of the party
And the morning seems so grey
So unlike yesterday
Now's the time for us to say...
Happy new year
Happy new year
May we all have a vision now and then
Of a world where every neighbour is a friend
Happy new year
Happy new year
May we all have our hopes, our will to try
If we don't we might as well lay down and die
You and I
Sometimes I see
How the brave new world arrives
And I see how it thrives
In the ashes of our lives
Oh yes, man is a fool
And he thinks he'll be okay
Dragging on, feet of clay
Never knowing he's astray
Keeps on going anyway...
Seems to me now
That the dreams we had before
Are all dead, nothing more
Than confetti on the floor
It's the end of a decade
In another ten years time
Who can say what we'll find
What lies waiting down the line
In the end of '89...
Happy new year
Happy new year
May we all have a vision now and then
Of a world where every neighbour is a friend
Happy new year
Happy new year
May we all have our hopes, our will to try
If we don't we might as well lay down and die
You and I
No more champagne
And the fireworks are through
Here we are, me and you
Feeling lost and feeling blue
It's the end of the party
And the morning seems so grey
So unlike yesterday
Now's the time for us to say...
Happy new year
Happy new year
May we all have a vision now and then
Of a world where every neighbour is a friend
Happy new year
Happy new year
May we all have our hopes, our will to try
If we don't we might as well lay down and die
You and I
Sometimes I see
How the brave new world arrives
And I see how it thrives
In the ashes of our lives
Oh yes, man is a fool
And he thinks he'll be okay
Dragging on, feet of clay
Never knowing he's astray
Keeps on going anyway...
Seems to me now
That the dreams we had before
Are all dead, nothing more
Than confetti on the floor
It's the end of a decade
In another ten years time
Who can say what we'll find
What lies waiting down the line
In the end of '89...
Happy new year
Happy new year
May we all have a vision now and then
Of a world where every neighbour is a friend
Happy new year
Happy new year
May we all have our hopes, our will to try
If we don't we might as well lay down and die
You and I
Caca Sacrada
http://www.jesusismygrandpappy.com/?q=node/6
"FAQ
"Where have you posted your family tree so that we can verify your claim that you are descended from Christ?
"Nowhere. Out of respect for the privacy of my living relatives and to avoid having my home turned into a shrine, I will not make my family tree available to the public.
"So do you think you're worthy of worship since you descend by blood from the Savior of the World?
"It should be easy for anyone to imagine that certain parts of Grandpappy were 100% human, not a smidgen of the divine in them whatsoever. His toenails for example. Probably just like yours or mine. In fact, all of His waste products, if we want to get right down to it, probably had no sacred value whatsoever.
"I think your site is the best and I wonder how you got to be so awesome?
"I appreciate the sentiment, but let's consider what's really being said here. The truth is you don't really know me outside of what you can put together about me based upon the content of my website. I think we both know that this is not enough information for you to judge whether or not I am, on the whole, awesome. Now, if you like this site, then it appeals to YOUR sense of humor or makes points that YOU essentially agree with or both. So by saying it's the best and that I'm awesome, aren't you really saying that you're the best and that you're awesome? Of course, given that you find me amusing and essentially agree with everything I say, I'm inclined to agree that you are, in fact, totally awesome."
"FAQ
"Where have you posted your family tree so that we can verify your claim that you are descended from Christ?
"Nowhere. Out of respect for the privacy of my living relatives and to avoid having my home turned into a shrine, I will not make my family tree available to the public.
"So do you think you're worthy of worship since you descend by blood from the Savior of the World?
"It should be easy for anyone to imagine that certain parts of Grandpappy were 100% human, not a smidgen of the divine in them whatsoever. His toenails for example. Probably just like yours or mine. In fact, all of His waste products, if we want to get right down to it, probably had no sacred value whatsoever.
"I think your site is the best and I wonder how you got to be so awesome?
"I appreciate the sentiment, but let's consider what's really being said here. The truth is you don't really know me outside of what you can put together about me based upon the content of my website. I think we both know that this is not enough information for you to judge whether or not I am, on the whole, awesome. Now, if you like this site, then it appeals to YOUR sense of humor or makes points that YOU essentially agree with or both. So by saying it's the best and that I'm awesome, aren't you really saying that you're the best and that you're awesome? Of course, given that you find me amusing and essentially agree with everything I say, I'm inclined to agree that you are, in fact, totally awesome."
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
the smell
“The girl had taken a Ph.D. in philosophy and this left Mrs. Hopewell at a complete loss. You could say, ‘My daughter is a nurse,’ or ‘My daughter is a schoolteacher,’ or even, ‘My daughter is a chemical engineer.’ You could not say, ‘My daughter is a philosopher.’ That was something that had ended with the Greeks and Romans. All day Joy sat on her neck in a deep chair, reading. Sometimes she went for walks but she didn’t like dogs or cats or birds or flowers or nature or nice young men. She looked at nice young men as if she could smell their stupidity.”
--Flannery O’Connor, “Good Country People”
--Flannery O’Connor, “Good Country People”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
