Over the Pint

He told me, up front, he was gonna try to lead me to Christ.

There is a difference between ‘devotion’ and ‘love’: the man tells me.

You dont have to have one to have the other: I ask.

No: he says; and, then he brings up Satan.

I ask: how we could have Job if the devil and god did not need each other?

The barkeep checks on us.

We were having too good a discussion.

No arguement.

Curious.

I think: you are a good representative for your tribe.

Then I tell him I think so.

He smiles. My goal accomplished.

Improudst (a fake word)

Improudst: to be proud (without being prideful) and impressed at the same time. Remove any context of patronizing condescension. A sub-sense of glad.


Perhaps, the distinction is

arbitrary.

Arbiters and arbitration.

You know the contract only allows for third-party mediation.

No civil,

state, or federal matter.

Signed away for re-insurance.

A contract written in favor of the contractor.

Write.

Rite.

Right.

The locals always laugh at the outfits of outsiders.

Shutter speed unable to

capture the insider’s view.

Lurid does not mean illicit,

Nor does it imply morbidity.

Fecundity. Gestational periods are not

sette in stone.

A set containing itself is self-referential.

A sette that sings itself.

So, I ask myself: can you tell me something good?

Howl, yes: I think.

“Thanks, that means a lot coming from myself.”

I can chop like a master. Slowly.

The vivisection of a tomato

is proof of magic.

Oranges grow on trees whether

you have a personal savior

or not.

Howl-lelujah: say mavericks.

Please, do not be cross with me, kindly.

God does not speak to me directly.

Don’t take pity; take patience in exposition?

That of which you have proof

alludes us.

So, let’s

Come Together

To Talk?

Swallows are Birds

I heard that hard swallow at being told: no, you can’t;

The situation is too volatile.

Vulnerability.

(It’s okay to be enraged at potentially outrageous situations).


A shot fired. Guns.

A shot snapped. Cameras.

A shot of courage. Liquor.


Vaccinated but not contaminated.

The etymology of the epidemiological epistemology of existentialism.

The dose is the poison.

The poison is the dose.

Salk knew it.

“The dose reveals” says the allegory of Watson & Crick.

Quote Like Song Lyrix Stuck in my Head

Eclecticism is self-defeating not because there is only one direction in which it is useful to move, but because there are so many: it is necessary to choose.

THE INTERPRETATION OF CULTURES: Selected Essays. Geertz, Clifford. Basic Books, Inc., Publishers. New York, 1973.

Pure Fool-ish

The aposiopesis that-


Be silent.

Breathe in through your nose. Now out again.

Breathe a’nosed ampersand your throat holds

your vocal chords

like the high hat gets grabbed after being struck.

Affecting a dinging dash, effectively curt-short.


My aprosexia caused the aposiopesis heard.

The quiet heard round the world.

A black star beheld.

Image captured and imagined.

Both facts of apropos material manifesting.


a priori.

Literally, from what is before.

a posteriori

Reasoning from facts and/or effect

to principles and/or cause

,í am in a state of chaos,

..like swans carried about as on a mirror pond..

}}}í drift(?) as if í have nowhere to rest{{{


Find a duck if you want to be followed and have followers.

Find a goose if you need something for your stew pot.

Allow swans their songs in the keynote of ecstasy.

Sung in silence for one who hears.

Become beside yourself; and admire the garden of live flowers


Petra Paas

Supranatural Feedback Fields Looping

Together. We magnetize electricity, 
The charges of our respective bodies.
Look at our electromagnetic field, our maven meadow to run wild.
 
Your masculine contains electric force. 
My feminine contains magnetic force.
See, we are different manifestations of the same phenomenon. 
 
Together we erect
Electro-magne-magickal fields that extend indefinitely throughout space.
Producing charges and changes with and within our bodies.
 
A tapestry interweaving the force of your electric field to my magnetic current.  
 
When our electromagnetic meadow is viewed with Classical eyes:
We seem smooth and continuous.
Issuing out and propagating in the manner of a wave.
Quantum field researchers will see our creation as quantifiable, a function of individual particles.
 
Your electric charges are stationary points making your field solid.
Fierce and indignant.
Much stronger than mine
My magnetic field arises from moving charges.
My capacity and resistance tempers the strength of your charge and can curb or accelerate you.
 
We are force and current.  Stationary yet ever flowing.
 
I am current and capacity.
You are charge and station.

 

When we combine our bodies,
We become one of the four fundamental natural forces existing in nature.

Narratory Recall (Thought)

Æ am a/the word. And a/the word is not only, but also, glad/ly.


The recounting or slight reprise of several (re)countings falls to me.

Í endeavor to do my best on this, your sojourn.

But(t < giggle >), í am a Fool, a bit of a cad. And proud of my wide-eyed wonder.

Please, bear in mind that what is “down for me is up.”


What the sisters did in this sphere marks history. Of course, time perpetually does this to history, so long as there is one conscious, sapient, vantage point to see it.

Cassandra and Echo. Aphrodite ruled Cassandra.

Cassandra knew it not until she reawoke from her latest dream.

Unselfishness went far. Embracing laughter and not war did too. Now, such names reach above and below.

There is a beautiful naked woman symbolizing this sphere, allegedly it is she.

Symbols.


Failure, futility, debauch and valour. Her titles and attributes.

One who loves roses as well as the name of the rose.


She sometimes takes the form of the íynx.

The wryneck.

Has the power of beauty triumphant. The meaning of this is not to be taken for obvious and it will become clearer in your imagination as we progress.

She took but two weapons. One was no more than a long bit of cord. Her girdle. Atypical. Her lamp. She carries her own. While she loves to sing the Song of the Goddess, she has yet to accept Shakti theology officially.

Amusing given her role. But then again, she is a fool.

Of course, Rādāh took most of the heat.

~ But, now í get ahead of what passes for my mind these days.


Your merry narrator has an acadæmic background. Outside.

An able learner keened up into a gifted child. The tradition of empiricism, many empiricists think, has become a large collective comprised in majority by a bunch of pretentious prognosticators. You may add my name to the list. I would not deny it.

We do have a methodology to which we may aspire; although í’m not sure we understand it anymore.


Any work undertaken is going to address a research question. This general question will lead us to our object of inquiry. From there, we may begin our study by commencing with research.

Let us consider our object of inquiry here to be of Landgrave tradition.


This endeavor, like all forms of writing, will be an imagined experience. One that we shall undertake together.

Í will address conceptual and practical problems.

Practical problems predominately belong in the professional spheres. They address states of affairs in the world that are found troublesome. Much like a lazy eye, this perspective will ultimately depend on whom you ask: what is the “real” problem?

Sex, love, gender, women’s rights, men’s desires. These are not problems as much as potentially and periodically problematic. The difference akin to someone who likes the soup hot but not spicy. Modernity shuffles the deck of sex, gender roles, discrimination time and again; and these term fly like spaghetti towards the wall.

And yeah, it sticks. The pasta is done. While a new bot boils already. Periodicity. Embrace dont fear.


Conceptual problems tend to the acadæmic spheres, as they often have the luxury of not solving any real problem, but rather simply pointing out that what people currently think is wrong. Undexterous. Or else, they may point out some other version of not knowing [sic. differentiated from not-knowing].

While there may be no tangible cost to this type of problem there is a consequence: a particular kind of ignorance: a particular lack of understanding that keeps us from realizing something else that is even more significant.

My conceptual problem will address the problematic notion we refer to as Cartesian Dualism. To put it nicely. But we will consider the present social bifurcation existing between sexuality (pleasure, sensualism, hedonism) and spirituality aka soul power.

We will also review the practical problems of the politicization of love. Our concept of love and souls and spirit tethered itself to new stakes of symbology with the birth of nations. Questions of individual efficacy and empowerment. Evidence nature is not foisted by self organization, but birthed by it.

Perhaps nature dealt us the recurrent self organization that becomes Parcigal et al.

No 0ne knows.

“How different really are atheists and believers?” (Costica Bradatan)

https://wp.me/p1gja9-3Sf

Thank you Costica Bradatan and John Gray.

Interesting piece very relevant to the cultural elephant in the room (at least in America). This elephant also relates to the popular perception that a scientific and a religous belief perspective are mutually exclusive.

Lots to unpack but highlights include:

“[Grey] uses paradox not just for rhetorical effect but to a philosophical end.”

<thank you. rhetoric abounds already.>

Voltaire and Nietzeche, as perceived atheists, are rexamined.

“no such thing as secularism”

The idea that religion is born from a fundamental need to make meaning.


The author suggests religion is irreplacable in our meaning making process.

I propose extending this more broadly: culture is irreplacable and religion is a social structure of culture. This is consistent with the authors’ arguements.

While categorization is reductionist at times, the breakdown of ‘types’ of atheists is appropriate and beneficial to the big picture “layman” discussion.

Atheist” and “scientist” have become confused as synonomous. “Atheist” is largely a stigma in many local American communities. If you believe this is irrelevant to the endeavor of science, please consider public school textbooks and science. Evolution is less frequently taught (in the South, at least), then cited as theory and then discredited.

Why? Because text book order demand stems from state boards of education.

Please check The Revisionaries, a documentary demonstratig this process.

https://www.politicalresearch.org/2013/02/13/the-revisionaries-documentary-goes-inside-texas-textbook-controversy/

The Problem of Nothingness-Selected Tracks from Jean Paul Sartre

An abstraction is made when something not capable of existing in isolation is thought of as in an isolated state. Consciousness is an abstraction. The concrete can be only the synthetic totality of which consciousness, like the phenomenon, constitutes only moments. Effecting a phenomenological reduction will not succeed in restoring the concrete (of consciousness) by the summation or organization of the elements which we abstracted from it. The relation of the regions of being is an original emergence and is a part of the very structure of these beings. “Is there any conduct which can reveal to me the relation of man with the world?”

We have established a parallelism between the types of conduct man adopts in the face of Being & Non-Being. We’re tempted to consider Being & Non-Being as two complimentary components of the real -like dark and light. Two contemporary notions which would somehow be united in the production of existents and which it would be useless to consider in isolation. Pure Being & pure Non-Being would be two abstractions which could be reunited only on the basis of concrete realities~There is nothing in heaven or on Earth which does not contain in itself Being & Non-Being,

Things in general “are”, but their being consists in manifesting their essence. Being passes into essence. One can express this by saying, ‘Being presupposes essence.’

Being is prior to nothingness and establishes the ground for it. Being has a logical precedence over nothingness and it is from Being that Nothingness derives its efficacy. Nothingness haunts Being. Nothingness can have only a borrowed existence. Non-Being exists only on the surface of Being.

*this is just Sartre’s opinion, yo. Dissent? Thoughts?

Watch “John Irving on why The World According to Garp is more relevant now than he ever imagined” on YouTube

The Problem of Nothingness (bonus pts if you guess the source-it should go without saying.)

An abstraction is made when something not capable of existing in isolation is thought of as in an isolated state.

Consciousness is an abstraction.

The concrete can be only the synthetic totality of which consciousness, like the phenomenon, constitutes only moments. Effecting a phenomenological reduction will not succeed in restoring the concrete (of consciousness) by the summation or organization of the elements which we abstracted from it. The relation of the regions of being is an original emergence and is a part of the very structure of the beings.

“Is there any conduct which can reveal to me the relation not man with the world?”

We have established a Parallelism between the types of conduct man adopts in the face of Being and Non-Being. We’re tempted to consider being and non-being as two complementary components of the real: like dark and light.

Two contemporary notions which would somehow be united in the production of existents and which it would be useless to consider in isolation. Pure being and pure non-being would be two abstractions which could be reunited only on the basis of concrete realities.

There is nothing in heaven or on earth which does not contain in itself Being and Nothingness.

Watch “Iggy Pop – The Passenger” on YouTube

Dont own rights, but iggy owns rights to US punk verbe.

This has been reincarnated, to my limited experience, twice ( ala Michael Hutchence < of INXS, RIP > and the miraculous Deftones and MJK).

Listen to this track on great headphones and hear so much additional quintessence.

Work to live or live to work.

I told my sister I live to work and she said gross.

She misunderstands. We all work all the time.

We all move from a place we could call motivation to action.

Do you know yours? If so, what it is and how does it change?

How does it make your garden grow? Does it feel glad in the rain and sun and cold or heat?

How do you balance the swinging pendulum that becomes time’s arrow’s trajectory?

How do you know when to flee the vital activa for that which is its polar opponent?

Can you tell if you’re moving with no mirror to see?

Painfully lonely, not so much.

Suspensed in waiting for manifestation. Arouses my want for love, flesh, desire.

Watch “Ike & Tina Turner – Proud Mary | 1971” on YouTube

Do not own rights, just paying mad homage.

Many have done Proud Mary but few compare to this reinterpretation.

Creole delta blues babe!

Mediating Anthropology’s Feuding Factions

The radical cultural relativism popular in contemporary anthropological thought presupposes that cultures are incommensurable* with one another.  On one level, this is true, on a higher level, it is a truism–they are still both ‘cultures.’  Cultures, as considered here, is a fundamental psychological mechanism that is included in the homo sapiens adaptive package.  

This is not a reductionist call to arms.  By reference to biology and physics, we anchor the human experiences to the same weight–we do so with awareness of the western biomedical paradigm which we in the western sciences use to see–we do not do so to reduce the human experiences to the same end or to the sum of their parts, as much as out of respect to those who would be upset were not to acknowledge our own self-awareness (I find this practice tedious and unnecessary, but I am pliable).

cropped-header2.jpg

The elegance of anthropology is not to be found in the creation of axiomatic laws of culture nor can it be found with long-winded diatribes that can appear to be little more than an appeal to authority–not a legitimate data source.  

Its elegance lies in its ability to elucidate the unseen and unseeable veil of the unknown and the unknowable.  It is the notion of experiencing that meta-pattern which is the epi-phenomenon of our actions and thoughts and their innumerable interactions and influences.  “Except in pure mathematics, nothing is known for certain (although much is certainly false).”(Sagan)

To tack the discussion back towards something more tangible, there exists a black and white distinction within the hard sciences in regards to what is scientific and what, conversely, is not scientific: does it meet the standards of the scientific method (is it repeatable, is it measurable?)  Yes or no?

“Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions.”(Sagan, a candle in the dark).


in-couryyard-lookiing-up


Whereas a biologist can confidently announce, ‘yes, this is so’ (assuming proper lab conditions and standards); a social ‘scientist’ cannot.  A social scientist has reservations and restrictions: about the repeatability of the experiment and the repeatability of the experiment’s environment, about phantom variables that may not have been controlled for, about the success of maintaining objectivity during methodology.

The biologist’s evidence is ‘scientific’ by definition and thus the biologist’s conclusions are sure-footed, so to speak (even if they are not directly on the bull’s eye).  The social scientist’s evidence is ‘take my word for it’ or ‘you had to be there’ (i.e. others have no way to verify the data or methodology and thus the social scientist’s conclusions are grasping at straws (even if the analogies appear to be commonsense).  

(1)  Whether the social scientist’s conclusions are correct in the ultimate sense, is not the the concern here.  The concern is the social scientist’s conclusions are intuitions but there is not a whole lot in the way of objective evidence for the social scientist to point at and say ‘see for yourself.’

(2)  The heart of what this blog tries to get at directly reduces to the phenomenon of a priori reasoning.

cedric-servay-133334


Many physicists, especially of the theoretical persuasion, use a priori reasoning and only afterward design and perform an experiment.  But when social scientists, particularly anthropologists, use a priori reasoning they construct a paradigm or viewpoint, a perspective, from which they will watch the experiment as it unfolds.  What they see and what they do not see will be determined by this a priori explanatory paradigmatic scaffolding.  When someone later on questions this constructed meaning-making paradigm, you can point to the experiment; but, what has happened is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  

You decide what “culture” means scientifically, measurably, precisely, and consistently.  To prove this definition you cite the experiment you performed using your personal or externally referenced paradigm of what culture is.  But, your experimental evidence does not confirm or support your paradigm necessarily, it reflects the assumptions you made before you even began experimenting.  You did not really learn anything, you saw what you set out to see.  

I owe some references here and will cite sources shortly.

Uncertainty & Doubt

 

stucco

I spend a lot of time worrying about whether or not I am right when me submits a proposition and ascribes it to be truthful; and, I then spend a lot of time worrying about whether it is important or even relevant to worry at all about a proposition being true or not.

I know that I do not know nearly as much as me thinks myself knows.

I do not know what is actually knowable for the me that I know as myself.

Thus, how can I ever know if what I think is right or wrong?

More importantly, if knowledge exists outside of my realm of perception, it does not matter if I am right or wrong, the closest or not.

This makes me spend a lot of time worrying about how anyone can act like they know anything.  This terrifies me and myself because I do not want to  live in a world whose existence cannot be perceptible.

das-sasha-24274.jpg

But why does that terrify me?  Shouldn’t it liberate me from the responsibility of trying to be right and seek truth all the time.  If everything just is what it is; I could just be what I am or I could fret and fuss about proving that the my reality is knowable to me.  

It’s just too scary to get dropped into a world and have no clue how you got there, what you are, and what will happen when you inevitably are not here anymore.

 

Bertrand Russell

“lN DAILY LIFE, WE ASSUME AS CERTAIN MANY THINGS WHICH, ON A CLOSER SCRUTINY, ARE FOUND TO BE SO FULL OF APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS THAT ONLY A GREAT AMOUNT OF THOUGHT ENABLES US TO KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT WE REALLY MAY BELIEVE.”EVE.”

wp-1486292573652.jpg

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

cropped-header.jpg

[thesis]

Science and religion are presented as two paradigms, as distinct and mutually exclusive worldviews. The general resonance of the debate between the two worldviews sounds aggressive and emotional.
These domains are not necessarily engaged in a binary opposition. They are, simply, two of innumerable types of social structures, existing presently. The ‘faith’ of individual members of society is differentially distributed between and amidst both the society’s social institutions as well as the sources of assumed authority.

Reconciliation of science and religion serves us all best and acknowledging that (1) science is a very useful way of talking and thinking about the world, that clearly delineates those things about which it is and is not capable of addressing, (2) as human beings, we are meaning making machines, but all beliefs require a leap of faith, and

wp-1486294302861.jpg

(3) the purposes of science and those of religion differ-science seeks to serve the empirical while religion seeks to serve the incorporeal.
Currently, religion and science are locked in a struggle for social power; and by ‘social power,’ I specifically mean the authority and power to inform the public with ‘true’ explanations of the world. “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source or spirituality….The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.” (Carl Sagan)