Erratic Pulses

The transitions we take in Scientifically enlightened representations of our selves is no laughing matter, yet I couldn’t stifle a chuckle of raw amusement when I saw the way we may be figuring out that we are just as much, if not more, slimy than insecty. Doubtless, Man steals from all the virtues in the animal kingdom; it is high time we give them a break. Besides, I’m quite tired of all this testing rodents for our humanity business. I think it sends a bad message, when over-done, just as the ever more popular machine metaphors do. Its not that they are bad in themselves, just, as anything: limiting; when we are not enough of ourselves we become parasites; when we depend on unnatural hierarchies we forget our search for objectivity, equality, utility, origin. The video games coming from slime mold equations is something I still have to see for myself (needless to say, I’m still strangely up in the air about the billiard balls inside).

That whole “people had been thinking about emergent behavior in all its diverse guises for centuries, if not millennia, but all that thinking had been consistently ignored as a unified body of work – because there was nothing unified about its body” part really got me. Aggregation. Microcosm To macrocosm. Man! I just hope that all the emergence people really do converge and coagulate a plan for progress. It could save us all. We are right on the brinks of the crumbling tectonic plates of our society, our history, and never has the storm of a wonderful zeitgeist been more desirable.



FOX: “Gutfeld: US one-ups North Korea with ‘Mother of All Bombs'”

The title alone is bad enough, though not inaccurate. It is no consolation that “one-upping” quite semantically IS what this country is about, but does one-upping really syntactically work when it killed so many people? Its about as tactful to say as this tactic was as an attack. The US actually built those tunnels back in the day (but it wouldn’t be right to say getting even either), almost like the way we built NK back in the day – and, in another way, we as a country kind of are the “mother of all bombs.” Except… that term is also pretty terrible. Bombs are a bad thing; mothers are a good thing; mothers do give birth to people who give birth to bombs, but bombs do not give birth; yes, death does somehow give birth to life eventually, but, because the “point” of a bomb is “supposedly” to stop bombs (point of war is peace)…. then saying that this particular bomb is the “mother of all bombs” is not only really super anachronistic, but also not to the “real” “supposed” “point” of any of this at all. Likewise, in summary, we’re not really one-upping North Korea unless we’re admitting that we’re like NK but WORSE because NK hasn’t been blowing up (directly and indirectly, at will) various parts of the world for 60 years, or that NK is in fact trying to do good (not even the actual people themselves, i mean they mean the government – though, yeah, the government is by no means its people), or or that yeah again we’re just lookin for war.

“North Korea looks lame, we looked persuasive, especially with President Trump’s meeting with China, which could signal a change”

“Maybe a big, fat, beautiful bomb is the laxative that will move things along.”

possibly quadruple nature

“extinction from overwhelming success.” “self-sacrifice – in childbearing, altruism is no evolutionary puzzle.” “aesthetic appreciation, fear of retribution, awe expressed as veneration, persuasiveness, and tinkering and contriving.” “no surprise that we find the most successful economic enterprises in the…”

Loved the read, and honestly had not ever realized that there was a connection from my laziness to the preservation of species and environment. So, theres not just action and inaction, theres good action and bad action and good and bad inaction;  theres the whole overly competitive kind of action, and the more immediately fruitless underperforming kind… and then theres the complimentary channeling of exertion into other activities, which can also be done well or not. Actually, when I think about it like that, the quad seems a better lens than the dual, but more than anything both ideas to devolve into a pluralistic approach of something like: everything is simultaneously action and inaction in infinite different areas, cutting up distinctions allows us some fun and that fun allows us some more life, but, despite our sick tendency towards binaries, ultimately, theres the overly right way, the underly right way, and the just right way (maybe).

Woulda liked to hear a little more about how this knowledge of morality can help us to weed out the selfishly exploitative megalomaniacs, as well as the vicious cycle that promotes them. Lately, I’ve really been pessimistic about our chances of infecting/deconstructing another host planet in time before all these socioeconomic facets/viruses succeed in deconstructing us. And, lastly, a shout-outs to the whole altruism problem giving shout-outs to the child-bearing ability, and the tantalizingly brief mention that selfish(/altruistic) genes could possibly promote other related ones.

linear life in a systems universe

Gonna have to say that most of my thinking can either: neither be placed into either category, or; must be placed into at least both. Alternatively, I just have no idea because I grow worse at distinguishing things after thinking about them intensively. Living, to me, is sometimes like eating your favorite food into the ground. Or, moreso, accidentally saying a word over and over until it sounds weird and then continuing sadistically until it becomes a quasi-meaningless conglomeration of post-proto-phonemes. Sometimes.

Anyways, when I ask myself what the hell I’ve done these days/how I’ve lived my life, I go at it two of three ways. 1. I’ll list the terrible string of events that happened to happen on that particular day (or a more eliciting recent one). 2. I’ll do a quick re-analysis of my general feelings and outlying perceptions, in order to regurgitate some semblance of a synthesis in an almost appropriate amount of time (dependent on the necessities of the situation). 3. Just say I don’t know.

The first one seems a bit more linear at first sight; the second one more systems. But is this really so? Or, does this even matter for the prompt? I’d say yes, at least for me. My observations have returned that I spend a startling amount of my day just thinking about my days. My decisions swing on a pendulum of wildly oscillating, vaguely bipolar, extremes: deepest analysis of as many variables as possible, then when I’m tired I devolve into a semi-complete-fuck-it state of mad power and addiction. Put thus, the line seems less distinct. Examples will help.

For example, I read a lot. Depending on the book and the time of day, I can either vigorously blast through it within it and it within me, or I can take utmost care to every conceptual motif by physically pacing around and going back over other chapters or even other books. Is the first more linear? It seems more holistic in some ways… and yet, it doesn’t. It’s hard to draw the line, or it’s almost as if the line just doesn’t need to be drawn here. Maybe, and I really don’t know so this is a true-maybe, but maybe, the actual thing itself is actually – no, I’m sure now, everything is a system and it’s only the interpretation that could possibly make it disingenuously linear. 

Sorry. Guess that was off-prompt. Anyway, back to what is and is not. I think I’d fall into the classes of sustainably unregenerative, and/or unsustainably regenerative, again, depending on the month or minute. When I smoke and drink I’d call it unsustainable, and linear-in-the-perceived-moment, but systematic in hindsight. However, ironically, when I read and write I’d call it sustainable, and systematic-in-the-perceived-moment… but, linear in hindsight because I’m generally doing those things out of a fear and anticipation of death, and furthermore because I’m always trying to fix my ways of fixing problems by addressing each individually. I guess that even the systematic must have a linear side to it; even if everything in this world is eternally recurring, the fact that everything also oscillates in power and expression over observable durations (memetic beginnings and ends) is generally undeniable.




still low-key confused about sex

Overall, I really enjoyed Ensler’s talk; I thought that its heart was clearly in the right place, and her experience with compassion more prominent than even her experience with the opposite (a miracle in itself). It makes me weary to critique her at all, knowing that she must have been made to consider all these qualms before. Nevertheless, I think that a fundamental misunderstanding is happening on one of our sides, though we both be on the same side, and thus we owe it to the concept itself to flesh it out.

She begins by establishing the basic, and I would say linear, feng-shui-esque binary of that which is womenly being: compassion, empathy, passion, self vulnerability, openness, intensity, association(?) relationships, intuitive… But, by doing this, claiming this set of societally established natural virtues for women, she is also propagating the same conflict she fights. Now, I hate the “over-masculinzation” of society as much if not more than the next guy, and obviously the correlating objectification of women, but is the answer really to make men more womanly and women more manly? Is the answer really to embrace females for their “inherently emotional beingness”? Just where is the emphasis when she repeats that women are emotional creatures? Does creatures imply species or gender? I don’t know, but its got me all fuddled up. But – I don’t think saying “its a girl thing,” or referring to this thing as the “remaining memory,” presumably of our species, able to “take us back” to some unknown time, is the right way to do it. In itself, I don’t think theres really anything wrong with it, but on a philosophically applicable level it may be polarizing to those who don’t really yet understand the origins of this strange/alchemically/mythically based value system.

AGAIN: Why it is about making men more manly makes them evil? And why does this in turn somehow make women more… (not good? but:) victimized? The only way for me to assimilate this contradicting confusion is to go back to the beginning of her talk when she mentions the girl cell, or what Jung would call the anima. This (semi)perceivable feminine principle of the world, its not a girl thing, this “’girl’ thing” is it; just so, the masculine principle is not to blame, nor even men, but the nature-in-general that happens to produce this all. If women are the future, and they are (and so are men), then they must teach men, but not fall into the same mistake of assigning such nigh astrological associations to biology. We must all be logical, and all be emotional, not one more than the other, or some more than the other; actually, none of us can be logical or emotional, on second thought, we all simply are, and we’re all simply gonna cut all this bullshit out of what it means to be a man/women/person, hopefully, by simply being humans.

Oh, and Porter? Sorry, man, you rocked in a heart touching way, and I liked the whole man-box thing, I guess, and the stories, but you really didn’t give too much in way of a new solution. We’ve been teaching our men to try to be gentlemen for years. Its sort of worked? According to “The Better Angels of our Nature” apparently crimes been getting better, but yeah thats no reason to regress now; I just don’t want to generalize on the whole of human history all over the globe, or even within a single city block; still,: shit.

(title) hello (week 1)


1. Well, English is obviously not the most sustainable major, ironically: we’ve killed more trees (and whatever papyrus is made out of) than anyone but the damned housing business (though even some libraries are built out of wood, I imagine, but I don’t know where the blame lies there), and even when we do use Kindls/Nooks we probably don’t throw em away properly (most of us being so clumsy we end up losing them off the deck of a boat or whatever), and lastly even the major itself has been in a steadily-wild unsustainable decline for the last few centuries (and by god if we writers aren’t so angry about it that we aren’t just going to write so bad now that we take the whole god damned world with us). Other than that, I love the concept of regenerative communities, and it is my highest goal on earth to be able to go colonize the new-new(new)-world of those untold, hushed, and evil lands like New York City, Hong Kong, whatever. Besides just The plain and simple supernuclear war to save this planet from humanity, I would like to learn more about how interstellar advancements in travel, waste disposal, resource mining, artist exclusive colonizations, etc., can help us in the future. One thing that was mentioned a couple times in class, along these lines, was part of the whole “You can’t just fix one part/symptom of the system, and then another and another, until the whole systems fixed; practically the whole system needs to be cleared,” (not sent down the rain gutter, or even recycled- totally transmuted), “But therein lies another problem, that even if one whole country were to completely somehow fix their inputs & outputs…,” (if such a thing is even a possibility what with all the globalization)…, “that country’s efforts still might not be enough, unless the whole world realizes alongside, or after.” This last part seems to contain the core questions: “Should we just go at “it” alone and hope the rest follows? or, Can we even go at it alone at all / Do we need to work as a whole world?” And lastly: “HOW?!?” Please help.

2. This ad by some Dawn soap person or whatever seems to me to be pretty misleading because, although they do donate “TO SAVE WILDLIFE,” they also test on animals. While the ratio of nature saved to nature killed has many nigh invisible factors to it (such as the actual materials used, the environmental effects of shipping, etc.), Dawn soap people obviously tend not to own up to or mention their ill-effects, and thus it goes unseen- and uncleaned. The careful eye, however, could probably tell from their efforts made to seem green, that there must be a little red, or black, somewhere that they’re trying to cover up.

3. Honestly, I did not get to finish the JSB video, but the 20 minutes I did watch make me honestly want to honestly finish it as soon as I get the honest chance, honestly. I pretty much got to the point where he’s all like, “I’m going to start talking about how 20% of the courses provide for 80% of the revenue, and 80% of the courses are only needed by 20% of the people,” or something, and, “then Im gonna talk about future approaches optionalities.” Anyways, yeah it was like an hour ago, but this whole 80-20 ratio, when it pops up, really gets my gears going; I mean, why’s everything got to be so polarized, and specialized? Is this really all that natural? My initial reaction is to blame capitalism, and my instinctive solution is to, like this guy (I think), turn towards more freedom – through organization – on the internet. If only everybody didn’t turn dumb off the second the internet turned smart on, but hey, who am I to type.