One day, I'll just shatter.
It's always the good people that have to go.
She alleges that you may have compromised his position. That is what they all say.
Don't say what you're thinking.
Beauty isn't skin deep. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it's also on the inside. With messages like this it's no wonder the beauty industry rakes it in. We're all too confused.
It was just business.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Friday, June 23, 2006
Qu'est-ce que vous aimez manger avec des amis?
I can hear music playing and it's just weird. It's playing and it's incomplete. There's a sense of a somewhat irritable and formidable bass. Let's try this.
I sure as heck know what it isn't. And it isn't this.
I totally know what is going on. I am in control. Or I should say, I have control. How can you be in an intangible concept? What is control anyway?
I sure as heck know what it isn't. And it isn't this.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Rosie the Political
| Your Political Profile: |
| Overall: 40% Conservative, 60% Liberal |
| Social Issues: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal |
| Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal |
| Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal |
| Ethics: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal |
| Defense and Crime: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal |
Here we go, Jeremy nagged me about this a while ago and I just did it - reveal anything? Let me know, oui oui? Haha xoxox
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
The Faceless Challenge
I like this blog. I can hide here. It is my hideyhole, perhaps.
Of what to blog? It is the question I am apparently never able to answer, being somewhat of a serial nonsense blogger however I find comfort in my present ability to create longwhinded texts of virtually no substance and which upon further inspection or retrospect, would produce no valuable thoughts or contribution to intelligent discussion. As such, I proceed with no caution but instead reckless abandon for human understanding, and as Hoju so adequately declares it, genius.
I often wonder of the faceless people who have brought to me things such as television, servietters, meat trays and balloon text. I like to imagine that these amazingly brilliant people thought of something entirely on their own - so that I can wonder harbour that same success and produce something wildly effective and retro that will get the blood pumping in the veins of human improvement. I wonder of the hands who first formed pastry, the mind that first conceived the thought of displacing human theory and placing it aeons behind and in front of us, allowing us to abstract our thoughts beyond the mundane and routine, the menial and definite, and instead placing us in a vacuumn of delicious uncertainty and faithlessness. Why, when one thing can be disproved, surely can another? Yet in the case of all negatives, we manage to ignore the fact that if one thing can be proved, surely all others can too. It it still amazing to me that negatives cancel out, but positives simply add up. So in this tidal wave of insecurity and certainty that there is in fact no certainty, we rolick along imagining the impossible and convincing ourselves that while things may seem impossible, Jesus walked on water and Margaret Thatcher was married, and so of course there must be some intervening force or instead large comet of luck streaking its away around our universe, the tail end occasionally catching the less believable in its orbital race to nowhere. We, because of one faceless person who first understood that abstraction was a form of living, but in unquantifiable terms to the present, correct and three-dimensional human being, believe in belief and disbelief, impossible and possible and faith in not having the slightest titch, all at once. But for that one person, we would not have that capability as an abstracting species, and as such, a species able to speculate, plan, and prepare for what we may believe upon extrapolative inspection, to occur. Does that make us unique, supreme, or cursed beyond belief - for surely to know what is coming makes the pain ten times worse? It's like when you know someone is going to hit you and you close your eyes and the spot you think will be hit hurts, or throbs, or tingles, but the assault does not come. Or when it does, you have prepared for the pain, and emit a preordained response which is - "Oh my God, I've been hit. Painpainpainpainpain."
But is this even true? But for one person, we are set apart? What if it were merely chance that this person, this man or woman, stumbled upon this? Would someone else have stumbled upon it in much the same way? Did it initially die out? Was it like the biological principle of evolution - in which mutants occurred, and depending on the usefulness of the mutation, either bred it in or out of the species. Were the men/women who dreamed up abstracticity (ah, new word time) more attractive for their ability to predict, their ability to dream and to imagine, and move towards something instead of milling around in what they already had? Or did abstracticity somehow afford them a survival skill lacked by their unendowed counterparts, perhaps the ability to simply stay under cover in times of cloud, or keep food when they knew cold weather was coming? Did these faceless people know what they were thinking would shape our species to the degree that it has today? That in all we do - abstracticity is inherent and indeed essential to conceptual understanding of things as simple as the need to brush one's teeth to prevent rot, or to attend university in preparation for a profession.
The question here, dear reader/s, is perhaps more one of belief, as strangely it appeared to be before. Was this even, in the beginning, a human trait? Or did we, as many may argue, simply assume it from our predecessors, and make it our own, capitalise on it with our additional abilities and regurgitate it as the supreme human trait? Is it not but for the thoughts of one human, but instead, for the natural progression of evolution, a predetermined path upon which we tread, insistent of our command of fate, yet doubtful of it when it all goes wrong.
I ask you - as I seem to have been doing quite a bit - to consider this: Is there ever one person who catalyses something as natural as abstract thought, language or religion? Is it our ability to thing abstractly and subsequently act on those abstractions with reasonable faith that we are correct, that makes us uniquely human and able to command over all other species in intellectual superiority? Is there really any other expression than language that could present to you an argument, such as this, that is so abstract and conceptual that even I struggle to remember where I am at? And why on earth do we have faith in things in which we have no certainty?
I put it to you, dear reader, that these are questions we cannot nearly begin to answer.
With all due respect,
Moi.
Of what to blog? It is the question I am apparently never able to answer, being somewhat of a serial nonsense blogger however I find comfort in my present ability to create longwhinded texts of virtually no substance and which upon further inspection or retrospect, would produce no valuable thoughts or contribution to intelligent discussion. As such, I proceed with no caution but instead reckless abandon for human understanding, and as Hoju so adequately declares it, genius.
I often wonder of the faceless people who have brought to me things such as television, servietters, meat trays and balloon text. I like to imagine that these amazingly brilliant people thought of something entirely on their own - so that I can wonder harbour that same success and produce something wildly effective and retro that will get the blood pumping in the veins of human improvement. I wonder of the hands who first formed pastry, the mind that first conceived the thought of displacing human theory and placing it aeons behind and in front of us, allowing us to abstract our thoughts beyond the mundane and routine, the menial and definite, and instead placing us in a vacuumn of delicious uncertainty and faithlessness. Why, when one thing can be disproved, surely can another? Yet in the case of all negatives, we manage to ignore the fact that if one thing can be proved, surely all others can too. It it still amazing to me that negatives cancel out, but positives simply add up. So in this tidal wave of insecurity and certainty that there is in fact no certainty, we rolick along imagining the impossible and convincing ourselves that while things may seem impossible, Jesus walked on water and Margaret Thatcher was married, and so of course there must be some intervening force or instead large comet of luck streaking its away around our universe, the tail end occasionally catching the less believable in its orbital race to nowhere. We, because of one faceless person who first understood that abstraction was a form of living, but in unquantifiable terms to the present, correct and three-dimensional human being, believe in belief and disbelief, impossible and possible and faith in not having the slightest titch, all at once. But for that one person, we would not have that capability as an abstracting species, and as such, a species able to speculate, plan, and prepare for what we may believe upon extrapolative inspection, to occur. Does that make us unique, supreme, or cursed beyond belief - for surely to know what is coming makes the pain ten times worse? It's like when you know someone is going to hit you and you close your eyes and the spot you think will be hit hurts, or throbs, or tingles, but the assault does not come. Or when it does, you have prepared for the pain, and emit a preordained response which is - "Oh my God, I've been hit. Painpainpainpainpain."
But is this even true? But for one person, we are set apart? What if it were merely chance that this person, this man or woman, stumbled upon this? Would someone else have stumbled upon it in much the same way? Did it initially die out? Was it like the biological principle of evolution - in which mutants occurred, and depending on the usefulness of the mutation, either bred it in or out of the species. Were the men/women who dreamed up abstracticity (ah, new word time) more attractive for their ability to predict, their ability to dream and to imagine, and move towards something instead of milling around in what they already had? Or did abstracticity somehow afford them a survival skill lacked by their unendowed counterparts, perhaps the ability to simply stay under cover in times of cloud, or keep food when they knew cold weather was coming? Did these faceless people know what they were thinking would shape our species to the degree that it has today? That in all we do - abstracticity is inherent and indeed essential to conceptual understanding of things as simple as the need to brush one's teeth to prevent rot, or to attend university in preparation for a profession.
The question here, dear reader/s, is perhaps more one of belief, as strangely it appeared to be before. Was this even, in the beginning, a human trait? Or did we, as many may argue, simply assume it from our predecessors, and make it our own, capitalise on it with our additional abilities and regurgitate it as the supreme human trait? Is it not but for the thoughts of one human, but instead, for the natural progression of evolution, a predetermined path upon which we tread, insistent of our command of fate, yet doubtful of it when it all goes wrong.
I ask you - as I seem to have been doing quite a bit - to consider this: Is there ever one person who catalyses something as natural as abstract thought, language or religion? Is it our ability to thing abstractly and subsequently act on those abstractions with reasonable faith that we are correct, that makes us uniquely human and able to command over all other species in intellectual superiority? Is there really any other expression than language that could present to you an argument, such as this, that is so abstract and conceptual that even I struggle to remember where I am at? And why on earth do we have faith in things in which we have no certainty?
I put it to you, dear reader, that these are questions we cannot nearly begin to answer.
With all due respect,
Moi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
