I’m a bastard. Not the born out of wedlock type, the other type. You know what I’m talking about. But lately I’ve forgotten that. I’ve been acting like it’s all gonna be OK. Well fuck, we all know that’s a big fucking lie. (side note to people who say ‘if you have to swear then you’ve already lost’…if, in your opinion, a series of phonetics in the form of an adjective automatically devalues a statement then you’ve got MUCH bigger issues to deal with. You fuck)
Anywho, it’s not gonna be OK. The world is so insurmountably fucked at this point that nothing is going to make it better. We’re surround by selfish and greedy on the top and the dregs are the stupid & inept. The stupid & inept breed at such astounding rates, that I foresee a future filled with mouth breathers stacked like cordwood in our urban areas. I myself refuse to breed, I WILL not be so irresponsible as to bring another human life into this cess-pit we call home. (sorry to you breeders out there, but why would you want to bring a child that you will love into such a world?).
So I got pissed off at some dumb cunt the other night, psicron was there beside me when this happened. We were talking about some inconsequential thing (face it EVERYTHING we talk about is inconsequential) and there was some dumb bitch standing beside us. Some how man love came up, and the whore pipes in ‘two boys together is the most disgusting thing there is’ or some such I responded that asphalt was disgusting, she said yes asphalt was disgusting but man on man was the most disgusting thing there is. Fucking piss me off. Now you can tell just from looking at this bitch that she’d been plowed up the ass more than once. So she’s the last one to pass judgment for getting a dick there. So I told her I didn’t like her and left. But it's these ignorant prejudices that fucking piss me off, people blithely judging others choices, choices THAT DON’T AFFECT ANYONE ELSE!!! Fucking shut the fuck up if you are the sort who holds these sorts of pre-conceived notions of ‘right’ & ‘wrong’ as a god given mandate, and put down your fucking bacon cheese burger heathen!
Ah well, I got side tracked
Fuck it
-De
January 31, 2005
January 24, 2005
blargh
training at work means no posts this week, aside from the statement: World of Warcraft is ADD?ICTIVE.
January 20, 2005
Caffeine.....withdrawal
it’s a little known fact, but caffeine didn’t exist before the early 1500’s. in fact many of the plants we have today didn’t exist then. you see back in those days in it was a virtual garden of eden in the ‘new world’. the only thing people here ate was maize & badgers. but then came the europeans. when the europeans saw this ‘new world’ they decided that it had to go, but first they were going to strip-mine the entire western hemisphere, just to make sure they got all the gold. now this made our leafy neighbors worried (well, as worried as non-sentient life can be). so they started furiously creating new chemical compounds in an olympic effort of darwinism. some of our chlorophyll filled friends went the route of making themselves desired, for example oranges & cantaloupe. due to their campaign of good taste we get along famously. they grow peacefully in our selective breeding programs & we in turn voraciously consume their young.
but not all vegative matter has taken such altruistic paths, some have much more sinister plans for sustained survival. Their nefarious fibrous scientists producing addictive chemicals to enslave the human race, nicotine & caffeine are two prime examples of these dark intents. at one point in time tobacco & the ‘caffeine consortium’ were allies, tobacco would control the northern hemisphere while south of the equator would belong to the ‘caffeine consortium’, however in recent time the caffeine producing plants have decided that all of humanity & the earth should be their domain. using their media juggernaut, the ‘caffeine consortium’ has waged a smear campaign against tobacco. if nothing is done to stop this, tobacco may soon become extinct. and when you couple this with the rate of discovery & implementation of the dark caffeinated plans the entire human race will become enslaved zombies by the year 2137. in fact global warming is part of the ‘caffeine consortiums’ plans to colonize the entire planet & extend the growing season!
but not all vegative matter has taken such altruistic paths, some have much more sinister plans for sustained survival. Their nefarious fibrous scientists producing addictive chemicals to enslave the human race, nicotine & caffeine are two prime examples of these dark intents. at one point in time tobacco & the ‘caffeine consortium’ were allies, tobacco would control the northern hemisphere while south of the equator would belong to the ‘caffeine consortium’, however in recent time the caffeine producing plants have decided that all of humanity & the earth should be their domain. using their media juggernaut, the ‘caffeine consortium’ has waged a smear campaign against tobacco. if nothing is done to stop this, tobacco may soon become extinct. and when you couple this with the rate of discovery & implementation of the dark caffeinated plans the entire human race will become enslaved zombies by the year 2137. in fact global warming is part of the ‘caffeine consortiums’ plans to colonize the entire planet & extend the growing season!
January 19, 2005
a-rambling we-a-go
What does it mean to be human?
Well it means you have genetic coding of homo-sapien-sapien. I think I’m going to refer to us as gay-think-think’s from now on. But anyway many people feel that this does not properly describe us due to our cognitive abilities. So I shall refer to this as the ‘human condition’.
So what does it mean to be part of the human condition?
This is a much more complicated issue. So I’ll start with the self, the part of the human condition, which exists solely within our heads. (now for this I assume that the universe does not need me to exist) We as humans interact with our environment. Through this we gain experience. Now a good starting point is birth, is there a self at birth? If no we are a clean slate (I’m considering the formulative time in the womb negligible), if yes well….. I’m not going to go there it’s too freaky and I don’t really believe in determinism. So we start off with a clean slate so each & every experience at the beginning is forming the self, since there is no self at this point, the self is being made entirely from outside influences being internalized. There is no filter of self to reject excepting through instinctive responses (these are not responses of self but genetic responses (pain=cry)). So the beginning we are learning how to experience the world, how to use our senses. The next phase would be learning how to interact with our world. As we get older our neural pathways become more ‘rigid’ so at some point the self is making a majority of the choices & decisions. The older people get the harder for them to change ideologically it becomes.
Anywho, on with the self. So we start with no self and the self starts off using only outside influences to build, until enough of a base has been formed and self-awareness occurs. The statement ‘I think there for I am’ cannot be applied to an infant but only at some later point in development do we become self-aware. We believe this to be unique in humans. So I will put this as part of the human condition: A: self-aware. (I’m ignoring possibilities of extra-terrestrial intelligence with self-awareness) infants are not part of the human condition. I do not know what age self-awareness starts.
More to come…
Well it means you have genetic coding of homo-sapien-sapien. I think I’m going to refer to us as gay-think-think’s from now on. But anyway many people feel that this does not properly describe us due to our cognitive abilities. So I shall refer to this as the ‘human condition’.
So what does it mean to be part of the human condition?
This is a much more complicated issue. So I’ll start with the self, the part of the human condition, which exists solely within our heads. (now for this I assume that the universe does not need me to exist) We as humans interact with our environment. Through this we gain experience. Now a good starting point is birth, is there a self at birth? If no we are a clean slate (I’m considering the formulative time in the womb negligible), if yes well….. I’m not going to go there it’s too freaky and I don’t really believe in determinism. So we start off with a clean slate so each & every experience at the beginning is forming the self, since there is no self at this point, the self is being made entirely from outside influences being internalized. There is no filter of self to reject excepting through instinctive responses (these are not responses of self but genetic responses (pain=cry)). So the beginning we are learning how to experience the world, how to use our senses. The next phase would be learning how to interact with our world. As we get older our neural pathways become more ‘rigid’ so at some point the self is making a majority of the choices & decisions. The older people get the harder for them to change ideologically it becomes.
Anywho, on with the self. So we start with no self and the self starts off using only outside influences to build, until enough of a base has been formed and self-awareness occurs. The statement ‘I think there for I am’ cannot be applied to an infant but only at some later point in development do we become self-aware. We believe this to be unique in humans. So I will put this as part of the human condition: A: self-aware. (I’m ignoring possibilities of extra-terrestrial intelligence with self-awareness) infants are not part of the human condition. I do not know what age self-awareness starts.
More to come…
January 18, 2005
Whats in a name?
…well, everything. Something which has been a constant irritant with me is the mutability of language. I say ‘rose’ and I mean ‘wild rose’, I say ‘rose’ you hear ‘red rose’. We seem to constantly under the impression that we all speak the same language, however, every time the subject matter gets heavier than the weather, the first stumbling block is definition. Everyone is convinced that their own definitions are the proper ones. When frequently people are not using words properly, because for many intangible ideas, there are no words. We all just apply the words that we personally, from our understanding, feel are most appropriate. But other people have felt that different words are more appropriate for the same concept. This leads to much confusion in discussions.
And many words have multiple definitions, often with slight, yet impacting differences. So a simple sentence about abstract issues quickly become confused, due to alternate definitions. The REALLY annoys me. Every new person whom you have discussions of a ‘deeper’ nature with, the beginnings are primarily getting used to differing definition sets. We need more words with substance. We have plenty of adjectives though.
Here’s an example
I think therefore I am
I: The self; the ego.
I’ll go the self
So: the self thinks there for the self is
Think:
1:To have or formulate in the mind.
2:To reason about or reflect on; ponder
3:To decide by reasoning, reflection, or pondering.
4:To judge or regard; look upon
5:To believe; suppose
6:To expect; hope
7:To intend
8:To call to mind; remember
9:To visualize; imagine
10:To devise or evolve; invent
11:To bring into a given condition by mental preoccupation
12:To concentrate one's thoughts on
I’ll choose 7 as my definition of think
The self intends therefore the self is.
Is: Third person singular present indicative of be
Be:
1:To exist in actuality; have life or reality
2:To occupy a specified position
3:To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed, untouched, or unmolested
4:To take place; occur
5:To go or come
6:To equal in identity
7:To have a specified significance
8:To belong to a specified class or group
9:To have or show a specified quality or characteristic
10:To seem to consist or be made of
11:To belong
I’ll take 11
The self intends therefore the self belongs.
Hence, ‘I think therefore I am’ means: ‘I do things so I’ll fit in’.
Now I know I specifically chose definitions that were not intended by the sentence, but if you don’t know which definition someone is using for a word it is easy to misinterpret what someone means.
Ah well
-De
And many words have multiple definitions, often with slight, yet impacting differences. So a simple sentence about abstract issues quickly become confused, due to alternate definitions. The REALLY annoys me. Every new person whom you have discussions of a ‘deeper’ nature with, the beginnings are primarily getting used to differing definition sets. We need more words with substance. We have plenty of adjectives though.
Here’s an example
I think therefore I am
I: The self; the ego.
I’ll go the self
So: the self thinks there for the self is
Think:
1:To have or formulate in the mind.
2:To reason about or reflect on; ponder
3:To decide by reasoning, reflection, or pondering.
4:To judge or regard; look upon
5:To believe; suppose
6:To expect; hope
7:To intend
8:To call to mind; remember
9:To visualize; imagine
10:To devise or evolve; invent
11:To bring into a given condition by mental preoccupation
12:To concentrate one's thoughts on
I’ll choose 7 as my definition of think
The self intends therefore the self is.
Is: Third person singular present indicative of be
Be:
1:To exist in actuality; have life or reality
2:To occupy a specified position
3:To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed, untouched, or unmolested
4:To take place; occur
5:To go or come
6:To equal in identity
7:To have a specified significance
8:To belong to a specified class or group
9:To have or show a specified quality or characteristic
10:To seem to consist or be made of
11:To belong
I’ll take 11
The self intends therefore the self belongs.
Hence, ‘I think therefore I am’ means: ‘I do things so I’ll fit in’.
Now I know I specifically chose definitions that were not intended by the sentence, but if you don’t know which definition someone is using for a word it is easy to misinterpret what someone means.
Ah well
-De
January 13, 2005
disjointed ramblings
i’m tired, so very tired.
not in the ‘i need more sleep’ fashion, but in the ‘i want to change the world, but i don’t know what to do’ tired. after over a decade of beating my head against the wall of societal injustice & intolerance, i’m ready to throw in the towel.
to go for status quo.
to stop caring.
to give up.
i’ve been reading some other blogs of decent minded individuals, and they have such wonderful ideas. ideas that should work, could work.
but then i’ll look at the comments and see another decent minded individuals response: ‘yes, well, your idea is quaint, but here is what will REALLY work’, and then put an idea forth that could work, should work.
but they are all crap.
why?
because people suck.
the greatest ideas throughout history have all been destroyed or perverted because of this one over-riding factor.
it’s why we can’t say ‘hey, why don’t we pick one of these great ideas and go with it’ instead we say ‘yes, but my idea is better’. FUCK YOU. any idea that has a hope of making the world better should be tried, and even if it fails, at least we tried.
i’m sick of pseudo-intellectuals pissing all over ideas because part of the idea falls into one of their narrowly defined definations of philosophical ideology. ‘oh no, that won’t work that’s just MARXISM!’ as if every word marx ever said has to be wrong.
any new idea at this point in human social evolution EVERY idea must take bits & pieces from other thinkers throughout history.
people seem to forget: every governmental form works ideally in it’s ideal state.
So therefore to make a more perfect government we should not look at the initial idea, the initial idea if decently thought out will work ideally in it’s ideal state. Therefore we must look at any potential ways that human ‘nature’ will tear down this governmental style. Our own American fore-fathers tried unsuccessfully to do this. But hey, we can learn much from their errors.
There has been much shoutings about small communities within communities. This essentially is a concept of forming small tribes, based upon common ideals. The keeping someone within the tribe or ejecting someone from the tribe is a communal decision.
Now some potential failing points of this idea.
First: gaining membership. It feels kinda foolish, though it is not.
Second: decisions: unanimous vote or majority vote?
Third: rules for ‘membership’ yes? no? maybe?
Ah well
A little jumpy today
-De
not in the ‘i need more sleep’ fashion, but in the ‘i want to change the world, but i don’t know what to do’ tired. after over a decade of beating my head against the wall of societal injustice & intolerance, i’m ready to throw in the towel.
to go for status quo.
to stop caring.
to give up.
i’ve been reading some other blogs of decent minded individuals, and they have such wonderful ideas. ideas that should work, could work.
but then i’ll look at the comments and see another decent minded individuals response: ‘yes, well, your idea is quaint, but here is what will REALLY work’, and then put an idea forth that could work, should work.
but they are all crap.
why?
because people suck.
the greatest ideas throughout history have all been destroyed or perverted because of this one over-riding factor.
it’s why we can’t say ‘hey, why don’t we pick one of these great ideas and go with it’ instead we say ‘yes, but my idea is better’. FUCK YOU. any idea that has a hope of making the world better should be tried, and even if it fails, at least we tried.
i’m sick of pseudo-intellectuals pissing all over ideas because part of the idea falls into one of their narrowly defined definations of philosophical ideology. ‘oh no, that won’t work that’s just MARXISM!’ as if every word marx ever said has to be wrong.
any new idea at this point in human social evolution EVERY idea must take bits & pieces from other thinkers throughout history.
people seem to forget: every governmental form works ideally in it’s ideal state.
So therefore to make a more perfect government we should not look at the initial idea, the initial idea if decently thought out will work ideally in it’s ideal state. Therefore we must look at any potential ways that human ‘nature’ will tear down this governmental style. Our own American fore-fathers tried unsuccessfully to do this. But hey, we can learn much from their errors.
There has been much shoutings about small communities within communities. This essentially is a concept of forming small tribes, based upon common ideals. The keeping someone within the tribe or ejecting someone from the tribe is a communal decision.
Now some potential failing points of this idea.
First: gaining membership. It feels kinda foolish, though it is not.
Second: decisions: unanimous vote or majority vote?
Third: rules for ‘membership’ yes? no? maybe?
Ah well
A little jumpy today
-De
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)