[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
[ << Previous 20 ]
[ << Previous 20 ]
|Tuesday, October 13th, 2009|
|grandpa goes to vegas
I haven't written here in a bit, out of an attempt to stay offline and avoid the internet. And beside, my life and thoughts aren't really that interesting (but that's never stopped me before).
So last week, I took a short detour to see Hocico in Chicago with Broc. I decided it was for the best not to talk to my grandfather before I left. I got back relatively shortly, and to my surprise, noticed a lack of phone calls on my phone. My grandfather calls me at least twice a day, and this was starting to look unusual. I called him for several days in a row.
At this point I decided to start to get mildly worried -- no phone calls for almost a week. I started to formulate a nervous plan along the lines of having vacivus
help me break into my grandparents' house, to start calling local hospitals, check the papers, etc. At this point, I had to slap myself. I'm fairly certain that my grandfather's will-for-life, by far exceeds anything that I could ever hope to muster (I'm certain he'll outlive me). Sure enough I received a call around midnight last friday, with him telling me that they're in Vegas. Typical...
His first bit of outrage is that him and my grandmother had to sleep under the same blanket. He claims he hasn't had to do that since my father was born.
Well... sure enough, he won several thousand in roulette (either he's lying/selectively remembering, or he's won more times in roulette in his lifem then should be humanly possible). And of course, he managed to walk into a timeshare scheme. However, he had an ace up his sleeve to play (which he's unaware of), he ignores what's being said to him and starts throwing crazy accusations around. Needless to say he was bragging about how he handed the timeshare people their asses, and how clever he was to notice that it's a scam... I tried to explain to him what a time share is, and obviously he didn't care enough to listen. Current Mood: tired and sore
|Monday, September 21st, 2009|
So there's this Alain Badiou article called "What Is Love." It's fairly important, and I've had to read it several times. Blah... blah... the impossibility of sexual relation... encounter... event... love divides the one into two, etc. That's besides the point... every time I read it, I can't help but giggle, and here that stupid song from the mid 90s in my head.
That aside... so there I was, driving down 94 somewhere in the middle of Wisconsin, on a moonless night, in a highly delirious/sleepy mood. No cars, no lights, no people, and I'm obviously swerving all over the road. The solution was to open all the windows, and put it on the xm 90s station. So then this song came on, and I was horrified to realize that many of my drunken-adventure stories have a shocking similarity to a shitty early 90s SNL sketch. Current Mood: stress-break
|Wednesday, September 16th, 2009|
So I woke up way too early today, as a result of anxieties and mild hunger pains (unless I eat a meal before I fall asleep, my body doesn't like me/it). This is the reason, for bloggin (as lately, I've tried to avoid the internet)...
But I realized one of the practical skills I've learned, which I found out is quite applicable in non-academic fields is figuring "what's being done."
So for example, if someone says something to you, don't get to distracted by the words. You can write them down, and you'll probably find out that it's somewhat cliche or something that you can read in a book or see on tv. That doesn't mean anything. You have to asses the situation and map the (cognitive) context. Don't try to be a psychic/paranoid and guess the motive of someone's action (they're probably not fully aware of it, god knows you can't figure it out). You obviously can't asses the meaning or truth of the words themselves, as the words could have too many meanings (it's impossible to connect a signifier to an exact signification). The only thing you can do is see what an act is doing in the situation.
This is also very useful in ground fighting. While someone might be gripping your collar and have their knees across your chest. You'll miss everything if you just pay attention to what they're trying to do, instead of paying attention to what's being done. Work with the mechanics and don't freak out! Current Mood: jittery
|Saturday, August 29th, 2009|
So the planned 9 hours of sleep were interrupted by nothing else then myself. So I got up about an hour before I wanted to. This causes problems in hormone production, ruining bodily growth, causing mild disappointment.
But anyways... I've been looking into new pets. While there is an ultimate goal of having a pair of sugar gliders (as they enjoy being carried in your pocket). But there's a lot of complicated care to 'em, and I'd need a much larger cage. I've also considered rats, as apparently they're quite clever. Though I think hamsters seems to be the way to go (though I'm not sure about the kind I want).
|Tuesday, August 25th, 2009|
|how stupid are you?
[Jazz and I are still living ‘off-circuit’ – we have no working phone or internet. So my ability to connect to the speedy-stupid-world of online communication is limited and sparse. I can’t get all my online stuff done, because my connection goes on and off. In some ways this is annoying but also very refreshing, as I can focus on more important things (3-Ws -- writing, (w)reading, and “warrior training.”]
The thoughts of last night, while trying to fall asleep… (I use to listen to hamster sounds, now I think about these things).
So I was thinking about various stupid soundbytes that are often cited in various forms of communication (electronic or in-person). These are de-contextualized quotes, that sound like something profound but once you start looking at them you find that they’re complete crap.
I keep hearing this phrase which is completely stupid: “The definition of insanity, is doing the same thing over-and-over, expecting different results.” I don’t know who the hell came up with that phrase, but it doesn’t make any sense. Having a background in abnormal psychology, philosophy, and psychoanalysis, it makes me wonder as to what this definition was supposed to be opposing. A sweeping generalization of Buddhism would be that it defines the latter definition of insanity as the human condition.
But to clarify some definitions that the above statement umbrellas, as that’s one of my skills – divvying out analytic definitions – that the soundbyte refers to:
Idiot – an idiot is simply someone that follows the formal rules verbatim, without ever breaking a single one (think of someone that follows every rule of the drivers manual)
Stupid – someone who’s stupid is someone that simply can’t understand something, and feels that it’s beyond their grasp. This isn’t necessarily bad, and someone who’s stupid can often stumble upon something profound as long as they’re aware of they’re own stupidity (the history of philosophy, could be called a history of stupidity)
Ignorant – while this is commonly defined as a lack of information, I think that’s a misleading definition, as many people angrily insist upon ignorance. Ignorance is about accepting a childish passivity to awareness of self or surrounding world. Ignorance simply leads to accepting the immediacy of self/world without thinking or critical capacity. The ignorant have a tendency to violently repeat everything they do, and are always surprised by their experience of disappointment.
Fool – is someone that’s blinded by the aesthetic of the good and the beautiful, unwilling to see the consequence hidden behind the aesthetics (humanism is a good example of foolery turned into collective knavery)
|Monday, August 17th, 2009|
One of my favorite philosophers (fun to read, but will never get cited in a paper) claimed that ‘the man that loves dogs and cats is a fool’ (this is a phrase I learned at 19, and it’s been stuck in the back of my head ever since). I mostly agree with this sentiment, though I think it’s highly misleading. The barebones reading of this soundbyte is that people are most likely to anthropamorphise those particular animals. While this doesn’t really hurt the animal per se (aside for scrapping its ambiguous status as creature, and negating its particular historicity), it does hurt the way you relate to others. Ultimately, it reduces all our relations to a very boring and ultimately damaging formulas (anthropomorphizing people – mommy, daddy, ME!). The general idea is that we need to let go of “humanness,” as it’s done nothing but damaged us and our psychic life.
I don’t think that’s quite correct. When talking to people, and they express their feelings for relating to others, it generally sounds like what they’re looking for is a pet. I don’t mean that in a denigrating way. Most people need to care (I like the word “care,” and oppose it to motherliness, dominion, and charity) for a creature, whom they don’t really understand or know what they want. You ability to care is just that, you can’t really know what to expect (especially as return for your care), you remain agnostic to the outcome. I guess I would consider that one of the redeeming qualities of the ethics of pet-care. The hope is that it would lead to more creaturely-care relationships when interacting with other people.
(remember!: pleasure in the other, is not a sign of love, just another form of masturbation, but that’s just a footnote)
When thinking about this, and reading over my hamster-care manual, I found something very odd. The way many American protestants relate to god and most vulgar forms of Christianity bare a striking resemblance to pet care. There’s all these little guidelines that people follow and choose not to follow, and there’s a big concern about not upsetting the ‘little guy’s’ order. That’s what people seem to be talking about when they talk about their “private relationship with Jesus” (which if you’ve read St. Paul’s letters sounds fucking ridiculous). What’s interesting about this weird mutation of Christianity, is that there’s nothing Christian about it. This just seems to be a certain form of creaturely-care that has been let loose into christendom.
So much like the idea that what you need instead of a child is a dog, I think the same formula could be applied here. What you need isn’t jesus, but to care for a creature (think of it as therapy). Though in this case, you don’t need a dog or a cat, but something a bit smaller like something small and furry or maybe a lizard.
(as an aside: if you don’t know, I’m of the impression that the Christian legacy has to be defended at all costs) Current Mood: a bit drunk
|Sunday, August 16th, 2009|
|another hamster passes away
I was eating some peanuts (as it's a carb-free day), and somewhat instinctively I was going to give bitey a peanut. But she wasn't there. The nervous little hamster passed away, yesterday...
|Thursday, August 6th, 2009|
|geared the fuck up -- lame personal stuff
So the mom and the nephew are here. I'm just not sure what to do about this. I don't want to call this stressful, but it causes anxiety (and it did cause a few re-occurring nightmares). It has also made part of my thinking-process (malfunction). All I can think is -- keep going, don't stop, don't slow down.
I try to get all meals to be under $3 and to taste good. And I was recently horrified to discover how much money I can save when buying beans/lenties in bulk. Buying that shit in a can is for suckers. The only problem is it takes way too much for-thought.
Training seems to be going well. I've discovered that I have fucking amazing endurance, and am extremely well conditioned. The sprinting and daily bagwork has definitely paid off. However, trying to retrain my body to have muscle groups working together is a damn pain in the fucking ass... I have absurd posterior strength, a bulletproof core, can fire my legs damn fast, but can not get all these things to work together. Next step is getting the sledgehammer and the really big tire, a harness (there are plans to pull vacivus
up a steep hill), and then I might be ready for phase 3 of training. But I'm almost ready for phase 3 of the bigger-picture training plan.
I've taken a few too many detours in the reading schedule. Taking time to read things that are necessary for "the project," and that my counterpart doesn't have enough time to read. Currently, trying to figure out if reading Kant is necessary -- I was horrified as to how smoothly it reads. We'll see if the group effort actually pays off. Current Mood: food break
|Thursday, July 30th, 2009|
|brief notes on nutrition and a comment on the fairytale of evolution
Some strange dietary choices on wednesday have made me incapable of falling asleep (though I felt like I was going to vomit the majority of the day).
So I have a suggestion. Pee/lick on a litmus strip! Are you acidic? This really humors the hell out of me, and it's hard to explain why. But it has to do with alkaline ph, which seems a bit like voodoo, but I find its metonymic principles quite eloquent. Not to mention, there's a very large range of opinion about what foods are acidic.
I found out about this by looking at something called the "gracie diet." I won't bother you with what that is, or why it's relevant, though it would be safe to say that it is voodoo! But overall, I think it's a good diet focusing mainly on uncooked food, fresh fruit, and rare intakes of dairy and meat. However, it's too damn low on protein for my tastes.
Recently, I looked over an article about cooking food (check my comments section from some earlier post). It really irritated me on the fact that it used a combination of evolutionary/anthro arguments for the sake of justifying a current days cultural practices.
Too sum up my point briefly. What you're generally taught in intro to archeology is what's found in early food stores (you could probably guess that there's no meat). Ever heard of the term "hunting and gathering?" Well it's a generalization, but mostly a valid one. Though what in gods name makes you think hunting is for food? Hunting is a highly in-efficient source of food, as man simply has a really shitty physique for doing it (you waste more resources and possibly risk your life, at getting the animal, then what you gain in terms of calories from its meat). Then we get to tools/technology! But those require even more resources.
So why hunt? Well, hunting is a group activity (ie a ritual amongst men -- providing a base for many socio-cultural forms). Then after the animal is killed you can preform another ritual, wear its skin, use its bones, and yes eat the damn thing. Eating the meat of animals was important but not as a form of sustenance, and no one was under the impression that it tasted good (it wasn't cooked). So who's idea was it to cook food and why... I think I have 2 weeks of notes on that (but I'm currently not home). But whatever the reason, cooking is seen as a magical impure ritual that transforms the substance of a living thing (plant/animal) into food. Hell it's still like that today, you don't call it cow, you call it beef (and god knows you want to stay away from the shit covered killing floors). But the question always is when did people get the idea that food needs to taste really good (the troubling thing is, the answer could be not too long ago).
That aside, if you believe in the myth that you're descended from primates. The big thing there is examining tooth formulas. Current human tooth formula (2123 to 2122 is an anomaly), but otherwise the teeth are fucking useless and not designed for meat. Many of the human ancestors were really well pre-disposed for grains, seeds, and nuts (you can also check this by jaw size).
I forget what the hell what I was talking about. (and in case I forgot to mention, I'm a militant atheist creationist) I'm also supposed to be working on other projects right now. But... here we are.
|Wednesday, July 15th, 2009|
|marvel comics and ideological surplus
While I have nothing but scorn for media studies that waste journal space on these kind of ruminations, I can't help but do it in my spare time. Though I typically only engage in this kind of discussion when wasted with dcontaminant
Avengers (either west coast or east coast) are pretty much the most fucked up and depressing comic books I ever wasted my time on. It seems the central themes are drug addiction, divorce, alcoholism, and their relations to the state. On occasions they get around to fighting the aliens. Unlike other super hero teams they've always been accepted, and receive government funding. They really shouldn't let kids read this stuff -- there's not much fighting, just people dealing with there depressing lives.
Iron man is utterly the worst super hero ever -- he's the figurative embodiment of the 80s. Tony Stark is a billionaire who got rich off of weapon contracts. Aside from being a junkie/alcoholic in his spare time he enforces US post-colonical policies. Basically, a very rich guy that buys/builds a lot of fancy toys, and believes he knows how the world should be run. He actually deported the Hulk to another planet.
On the other coast there's Captain America. Who might have the most ridiculously looking and dated costumes in the marvel universe -- this seems to be acknowledged by the artists whom give his counterparts (US Agent) much more sensible attire. His entire life was ruined as a result of taking performance enhancers and standing up for a cause. But the jingoistic overtones, are actually subverted by the fact that he seems to be fighting for an ideal.
Then we've got Wolverine -- essentially the embodiment of christ. His main super power is that he can suffer and get beat up a lot. Let's not forget about stigmatic claws... and many plot lines come to end with wolverine suffering for everyone else.
Female characters in marvel comics is a whole interesting subject matter altogether, which are pure embodiments of male fantasy. As a general rule, they have extremely skimpy outfits and super powers that can destroy the whole world. They are either icy cold or hysterics (and generally hysterics are given much stronger powers -- ex: pheonix, scarlet witch).
Back to reading... Current Mood: powered up
|Thursday, July 9th, 2009|
|and now for some self-indulgent non-sense
I hate being interpolated – it’s a fact of existing, but it still irritates the fuck out of me. I hate being called into existence, as I don’t know what network of relations I’m buying into.
So I hate being asked what I’m training for or why I work out. I’m also highly suspicious of people that claim they workout because it feels good (it’s fucking painful! – and while pain can be highly pleasurable it never feels good) or to be healthy – that’s new age spiritualist non-sense.
Originally, I went back to working out because I was out of shape, and wanted to be in shape (compulsive monogamy makes you fat). I also quickly found that “getting in shape” is not an actual goal (as there’s the qualifying question of “what shape are you trying to be in?” – you’re going to need qualifiers and predicates). I continued working out for the sake of maintaining my way of life without falling apart. I wanted to drink and eat whatever the fuck I wanted, without baring the brunt of the consequences. This quickly started to get annoying, as it has a very Sisyphusic feeling to it.
Later, I realized that I have an addiction to it, and its key for maintaining my metabolism and keeping up serotonin levels. The corollaries to this: I have major problems with attention and depression, and working out helps a lot. So in order to maintain motivation for vital impulses, maintaining some form of rigorous training regime seems to be key.
Then something terrifying happened a few years back, which I guess could be humorously called an epiphany of finitude. Your body maxes out around that age of 26, after that it needs help as it’s in a process of decay. This was mildly terrifying, not in the sense of feeling of being stuck in decay (despair! – the sickness unto death), but just the idea that there are certain things my body might not be capable of doing. I don’t mean that in the sense of not being able to accomplish something, like for example climbing a really tall mountain is an accomplishment. I mean it in the sense that I wouldn’t be able to drive myself to the point of complete physical and mental failure. In the mountain-climbing example, it would be climbing almost to the top of the mountain, stopping, and falling off, not because of laziness or fatigue but a complete breaking point (“it can’t move anymore”).
This was great motivation to try to max it out. I’m not really that concerned about size, in fact I’m very pleased that my quasi-vegan diet prevents me from gaining too much cell mass. I’m much more interested in strength and endurance. Don’t get me wrong, it’s very pleasant to not be disgusted at the sight of yourself in the mirror (however, we’re always on our way to that, and never at the party). And at the end of the day, I’m probably much more vain then the next person. That shouldn’t be played down, maintaining appearances (in the broadest possible sense of the word) is not simply superficial; if you’re looking for an internal “authentic” human substance, you’re pathetic and you will lose.
Massive muscle contractions are one of the most relaxing things in the world – it’s fucking ek-static! When your muscle is at its breaking point, everything fades away, the only way you’ll be able to use it is to stop thinking and contract your muscle. Something similar happens in conditioning training, when you’re completely drenched in sweat and feeling like death is immanent you stop thinking and just keep going. This is one of the reasons that doing circuits and complexes, seems to be a lot more rewarding then simply doing 3x12s.
Time to eat and go to the gym… Current Mood: lunch break
|Wednesday, July 8th, 2009|
|a few quick words on destiny
I've always really liked the idea, as it was described in greek myth/tragedy (this is something my father read to me when I was a small child, that and Rabelais... go figure). Unfortunately, the concept has completely fallen out of modern-day understanding. The basic premise of the notion (and it has other names in other cultures) is that your action are pre-determined and you will even find this out. However, you're not permitted to use this as an excuse -- you have to take responsibility for things put into motion that are far beyond your control. The last part is actually the key point, not displacing blame but learning to deal with these things (a funny way of putting this is to be proud of your "shame"). The mistake most people make is assuming they can take charge of the future if they know what it is -- this always leads to the future being fulfilled (this is the childish solution). Instead you can take up necessity in full force, and try answering the question "If I know I'm an automaton, what does that mean?" Necessity doesn't account for everything, and you might stumble upon that bit of surplus but only on accident, and never alone.
Interestingly enough the problem of destiny is being brought back in the guise of neuroscience. And they run into the same stumbling block (in the philosophical world we call it "consciousness"), what does it mean that we can figure out that our actions are completely pre-determined?
|boring training updates
So weightloss month went quite well. I went from 184-186 to 171-173. I think I could safely go down as low as 163, without loosing too much strength. My bench went down to 195, though I guess I'm still doing good. Deadlift is holding firm at 355.
New goal is to try to gain 15 lbs, with the hope of getting my bench to 225 and deadlift to 425. So the new plan is to do roughly 2-3 45 minute workouts a day, plus 35 minutes of stretching. First thing in the morning I do 25-35 minutes of jogging outdoors -- this mainly for fun and to relieve soreness, as running for 35 minutes is really easy at this point. In the afternoon I do weight-training. Then at night, I'm either doing conditioning (mix of jumprope, abwork, shadow-boxing, push-ups,etc.). Gym-time looks like this:
Mon-Chest, Shoulder, Tricep (strength)
Tues-Back, Legs, Bicep (strength)
Wed-sprints (3x200, 4x100, 5x50)
Thurs-Chest, Shoulder, Tricep (dynamic)
Fri-Back, Legs, Bicep (dynamic)
Sat-sprints and swimming
Sun-is the day of rest Current Mood: fucking ready
|Monday, July 6th, 2009|
|a quick gloss on ethics and desire
The past 3 weeks have been dedicated towards thinking about this. It started innocently enough, as a few books that I needed to read for working on a paper. There was a detour, and instead of writing I end up laying sleepless in bed thinking, possibly going back to humbly reading behind a very small table. (psychoanalysis is a lot like crack, you keep coming back for one more hit, and all your friends wonder why you’re acting strange and look like shit…)
When you talk of ethics, you’re dealing with a space that’s beyond the grasp of needs or reason. Often times the problem is that when dealing with ethics, most people want to fold it into needs or reason. This essentially is nothing more then a fantasy – most personal advice espoused by either friends, moralists, or talk show hosts is just that -- FANTASY. What lays beyond the grasps of needs and reason, is the large gap in the your universe known as desire. You don’t know what you want, but always try to explain it away through various fantasies.
Even more horrifying is that there’s nothing personal about desire (it’s intimate not fucking personal), it can only comes from the outside. You desire what the Other desires (you only want something because you assume Someone else wants it). So you’re connected to a world of complete unavowable strangers through your desire. All these strangers are terrifying creatures who may want to use your body for their sexual enjoyment, exploit your labor, and possibly kill you, and in result you might be interested in reciprocating. That’s the space in which desire operates… but it’s more complicated then that.
But the most beautiful quote I got out of it that gets to the heart of it is “That there’s a difference between an act of philanthropy and a genuine act of love.”
Back to the trenches… Current Mood: taking a break
|Saturday, July 4th, 2009|
|finding points of agreement in odd places
So it's still fairly hard to find lectures in mp3 formats, I've been looking but I still can't find dick. On the drive to Madison (to see Babyland -- whom were amazing), I was flipping through radio stations trying to find some talk radio. I stumbled upon an evangelical minister, whom was reading a sermon which I thought was quite good. It was quite fiery, and I though he made quite a few excellent points (like I always say, I don't give a damn about intent -- I don't care what he thought he was trying to do, and am more concerned with what he said).
The gist of the sermon was a tirade against all things "post-modern:" specifically relativism, humanism, and tolerance. All-in-all, I agreed with the bulk of what he said, though quite a few points could have been fine-tuned.
One of the hi-lights for me was when he said, "Turn off the television, get off the internet, stop reading the newspaper, and read the scriptures and let them guide you." I couldn't agree with him more, I think most people would be surprised by what they'd find.
Some of my favorite books (written by people who might labeled atheists) did just that:Spinoza's "Theological Political Treatise"Agamben's "Time That Remains: A Commentary on the Letter to the Romans"
Badiou's "St Paul and the Foundation of Universalism." Current Mood: somewhere
|Friday, June 26th, 2009|
|300 - greatest leftist film?
So I've been reading Zizek's "On Lost Causes" out of the corner of my eye (there's a lot of books that I read out of the corner of my eye). The theoretical aspects of it are shaky at best, but it's very entertaining and doesn't really require to much thinking. Like I say, he's a great entertainer, but a sub-par writer and theorist.
Some of the best parts of the book are his takes on a few popular films. One of which is his hailing of 300, as one of the few of Hollywood's great leftist films.
Forget about the surface level (imaginary) reading of the film as being anti-iranian, or rousing up militaristic nationalism. What actually happens in the film: a small poor country is being invaded by a major hi-tech military empire, after being offered a peaceful offer to accept soft-power (sound familiar at all?). When the left is backed into the corner, it's best weapons are organization and discipline -- exactly what the Spartans depict.
(as a footnote: the film's obvious use of CGI, is a success in it's failure, as it works as a reminder that you're watching a film, and not (an imitation of) reality) Current Mood: picking self up
|Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009|
|almsot at the end of the weight-loss cycle
I never believed it before, but now I'm convinced. It only takes 65 minutes at the gym to significantly burn fat. Now the thing is you're suppose to feel like you're going to die for 50 of those minutes (abstaining from alcohol also helps). So at the start of week 5, I've dropped from 184 to 176; bench is holding at 205 and deadlift is still at 355 (though it is a bit harder). I hope to get it down to 172.
I've also been diversifying my quasi-vegan diet. I tried oatmeal for the first time in my life. I use to think Americans were crazy for eating some weird mush, with some odd looking man in a hat was trying to sell them on it. But now... I've decided it's amazing, and at $1 for a very filling meal, I can't argue.
When I have money to buy some stimulants and some corn sugar, I'll go back to strength training and gaining weight. Still thinking about what I'm going to do for that.
|Monday, June 22nd, 2009|
|the problem of other people reading
In early, much more optimistic days, I use to claim that reading books in-itself regardless of the content is a subversive act. Years later I came to realize that point of view is extremely stupid, some books are read as if they're a tv shows, some books are in my opinion psychically damaging and should be burned. Some forms of reading are extremely passive, and passive reading is simply regressive.
But I guess before we get to book burnings... I think the main problem is that there just seems to be a limited amount of awareness of what's out there on the fictive book front. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Chuck Palahniuk and Niel Gaiman, I just simply think there's more to modern literature (don't look at me -- I don't fucking know what it is, I work mainly in the early 20th century). But simply put people don't know what to read, it's no longer the early days of the printing press, where if a book came out it means that a large bulk of the literate population knows. You can't even really orient by the lines of publishing houses (unless you're in the business of theory/philosophy then you can almost exclusively orient on publishers)
I'm also under the impression that there is a conspiracy operating in the nations' high schools to make sure that very conservative minded books end up in the hands of youngens -- 1984, the Fountainhead, anything by Nietzsche (it can have a leftist twist, but it requires maneuvering). Next thing you know, the kids are in way over their heads in something they don't understand.
I guess in the end I'm also not really that impressed with much of 1950s-60s American writing. I'm still trying to figure out the value of "On the Road" (given I read it over 13 years ago). I have to try this out again, before I make any conclusive remarks.
But on the non-fiction front, I've noticed that people's selections are even worse. I can't believe people actually sat down and read Sam Harris's "the End of Faith." It's a terrible book that makes some philosophical moves, that were debunked in the 18th century. Fucking terrible... ON THAT NOTE: TRASHING ORGANIZED RELIGION IS VERY IMMATURE. Current Mood: late coffee
|Thursday, June 18th, 2009|
|your food will kill you (this is actually about sex, death, and desire)
So I’ve had this new obsession lately (in support of my quasi-vegan diet) to see how many different combinations of beans and rice (there’s thousands of different combinations, and various fixing you can add). The goal is to get the most out of my food out of a meal that will cost less then $2.50.
But this led me to doing a bit of research and a lot of senseless browsing on the “nutritionfacts” website. I highly recommend visiting the site, it’s level of meticulousness is utterly obscene. You find out that a grapefruit from California and Florida, have almost nothing in common. Then you can find out more specifics on onions then you’d ever wanted to know, like nutritional difference between a boiled, sautéed, and raw onion.
What’s interesting about this, is that much of the food has non of the substantive qualities of their appearance. There’s nothing new about that observation, in fact it’s a classic trope of much of what was (wrongly) dubbed post-modern. We keep encountering objects/desires that are deprived of their substantive nature. The clear example is decaf-coffee – why? It tastes like coffee, it feels like coffee, it smells like coffee, but it’s deprived of the essential element that makes most people drink coffee. So why drink decaf? You enjoy the taste, but don’t want anything of what makes it desirable?
Well this goes beyond decaf coffee. We also have similar problems with fruit (and fruit juice). The orange has been stripped of what would make it an orange, and instead things are done to make it simulate an orange. You get added die for color, flavoring to make it taste good, and even a vitamin/mineral mix to simulate the nutritious effects of an orange (however, there’ll obviously be a surplus, and in this case surplus = death).
This is the funny things about food labels, we’re under the impression that they’re there for maintaining good health and finding out what’s in our food. That’s ass backwards. Food labels only appear in those parts of the world, where the food appears to be the opposite of what it’s advertising to be (so if you buy store-bought beans and rice, you might notice that it’s more expensive, and that the nutrients magically disappeared). The ‘nutrition facts’ label half the time tell you that there’s nothing nutritious in the food that you’re eating (hence the disclaimer: this food is not a significant source of ______). The label is there specifically to tell you what you won’t be getting. The organic salsa I just had is a great example: while the ingredients do include tomatoes, onions, some spices, peppers, etc., it contains no nutrients. So I guess at that point you just have to wonder, why bother even putting them in.
You get the same paradox at many sub-par and suburban Asian eateries. Your dish will contain a small list of vegetables, which are only present for the sake of texture. They don’t have the taste of the vegetables, the nutrients were cooked out, and they’re mainly there for texture and satisfying a certain impulse that may have lead you the Asian eatery.
(Fuck! No, I mean it – really!)
This isn’t some illusion, from which there’s some form of return to/from. The problem ain’t hubris, actually the problem maybe a lack of hubris. It’s just a point of simple level of facticity; when you pick up something that’s referred to as “strawberry and cream” flavored, it’s a clear indicator that neither of those ingredients are present in what you bought. A mild lack of indignation and calling bullshit, is clearly absent – it’s just taken as the natural way of the world. You will eat, you won’t be satisfied, then it’ll kill you, the only actually disappointing part is that someone turns a profit on this. Current Mood: coffee break
|Tuesday, June 16th, 2009|
|what I've been reading in the sauna
A girl who resembled me desired to fuck this boy and wanted him to fuck her. She wanted this so badly that she wanted time to end as soon as they started fucking so that fucking would never stop. This was how she wanted him: she wanted him to want her so wildly that if he didn't get her and get her and get her... he'd die and die and die and, at the same time, he'd be, and is, the one who is the beginning of everyone and everything and who can't die. Because he isn't human. Also, she wanted them to have nothing to do with each other after they had fucked each other so that fucking would be everything. After fucking, there should be nothing.
As yet, there wasn't anything.
This girl wants to want. She look like me; like me she thinks in two ways: she smells and she has ideas. She thought: How can Iget him to want me how I want him to want me? But no one wants me. She thought: He's a baby because he's never had a relationship with another person.
Being educated, the girl thought that the history of this world had taught her two lessons. Lesson #1: Human sexual desire is never reciprocal. Moreover, humans are cruel. Lesson #2: Since a human who sexually desires another human automatically loses power over the desired one, the desirer can return to a, any, position of power only by pretending not to desire. In regard to her special case: the only way that she could get this brat to want her the ways she wanted him to want her, totally in heat, would be to show him clearly that she didn't want him.
She could no longer want him. As yet there was no world.
Whoever wrote this story said that history is philosophy, therefore, sexual history is the philosophy of religion.