Log in

No account? Create an account

t3knomanser's Fustian Deposits

Sad, but true...

How Random Babbling Becomes Corporate Policy

run the fuck away

Mad science gone horribly, horribly wrong(or right).

Sad, but true...

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
run the fuck away
This is sad... but True. Carrot Top is better than you.

I've been confusing people as of late. In the attempt to be charmingly vauge, I've been cryptic, obfuscatory, and plain annoying. At least to myself.

So, lets recap some events, their interpretations, and listen to Dashboard Confessional ("Ender Will Save us All" as a matter of fact.)

Tuesday night we all get together and chill at Andrea and Greg's. Sarah, Dennis, Myself, Andrea and Greg (obviously) and Cate. I've met Cate once before, and had shpif conversation with her, but for some reason, she didn't stay clear in my head, so this was like a first meeting part 2. Again, we had alot of shpif conversations, and exchanged a decent amount of "Hrm... you're interesting... I'm not quite sure where to go with this" body language.

So, suffice it to say that night, I discussed this with Sarah. I find Cate interesting, and I'm attracted to interesting, and therefore, have an attraction towards Cate. Sarah mentions this when hanging out with Andrea and Greg, who through Sarah relay a warning that I could very well be setting myself up for a fall on that one. And agreed, the general, normal way of dealing with things, would quite easily lead to a big "oopsie".

So anywho, last night I get back to my computer after watching "Enterprise" and "Special Unit 2" (two absolutely great shows for totally different reasons) I find that Cate had shot me an IM. We get to talking, and through twists and turns in the conversation, I end up having with her a conversation very similar to what I'm discussing right now. And we both have reached the same conclusions independantly.

So where does that leave us? Exactly where we started. All that to get to the beginning, sounds annoying I know. Hey- pause, we're going to listen to Rasputina now.

"Prosthetic synthesis of butterflies sewn up with a virgin stitch."

Anywho, being that both Cate and I subscribe to very similar mathmatics of interpersonal interactions I have a feeling we're going to approach this in very much the same way. Hang out and see what happens- with no purposeful direction. The best friendships and anything else on the relationship spectrum generally results from organic growth, not directed "I'm going to make this happen this way."

::pulls the bar down, and makes sure to keep his arms and legs inside the ride at all times::
  • >>In the attempt to be charmingly vauge, I've been >>cryptic, obfuscatory, and plain annoying.
    Umm... yah... that's about right. I don't think there's any way to be "charmingly vague." Either you're simply vague & get people to get the point that you don't want to talk about it. Or you're just honest. The attempt to be "charmingly vague" becomes annoying because you're bludgeoning people with your vagueness... which also comes across as condescending, and/or deceitful.

    >>mathmatics of interpersonal interactions
    For some reason... that description seems so... cold & sterile. Not a shot at you personally... just my opinion of the metaphor.

    Just thoughts...
    • Glad to hear we're in agreement on the former.

      As for the latter, I knew you would say that. You see it as cold and sterile, but I see it as wonderfully alive and full of possibility. It allows for such neet stuff, and it gives freedom to the relationship, which in my opinion, is a discrete being with a will of its own.
      • Re:

        how are mathematics alive? applied mathematics are a sterile means of measuring life to fit a standard. It would seem to oppose your "organic" view of a relationship.

        What "neet stuff" does it allow for? A metaphor is only a way to describe something - it does not really change the substance of the general thing it is describing.
        • Spoken as one who never really got past the early mathematics. Eventually, you hit a point in mathematics where the answer is often no answer at all. Especially when dealing with such a complicated 3 body problem, where the actions of the 3 bodies (each person and the relationship itself) are completely unpredictable. Mathematics provides us a way of understanding it, but not predicting it.

          Fractals are an example of what I'm talking about. Fractals are an application of mathmatics. And they are very organic in the way they form, they are unpredictable, and infinitely complicated. Yet still math applies.

          And a metaphor is alot more than only a way to describe something. In fact, one could hold this as more true: A thing is only a way to understand a metaphor. The metaphor is as real as the object. And in fact, the metaphor can be more useful. You, as a poet should understand that metaphor is infinitely more real to a human than anything else.

          And it does change the object. We again have a three bodied system. We are dealing with you, with the object, and with the perception of the object, and each alters the other. If you construct a metaphor, you change the perception, and in turn change the behavior of the object.

          Or, as Peter Carroll put it, the World is very accomodating, and will do pretty much what you tell it to. Or, as I put it alot, the Universe is the Ultimite WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get).

          You're becomming cynical in your old age m'dear.
    • "And it does change the object. We again have a three bodied system. We are dealing with you, with the object, and with the perception of the object, and each alters the other. If you construct a metaphor, you change the perception, and in turn change the behavior of the object."

      This isn't so.

      A metaphor is not a thing except insofar is it is a concept of comparison of like attributes of two or more (usually physical) objects to illustrate that object as the constructor of the metaphor (poet/author/what-have-you) perceives it. Changing a metaphor can (and usually does) change a perception of the object, but the object (and whatever behavior said object has) remains constant. It is, in short, the perception of an object that is changed by a metaphor, but not the object itself.
      • It is a thing, we can agree on that. A metaphor has a very real existance. And like anything else in the world, it changes things around it. Sometimes in small ways, sometimes in large ways. The change a metaphor can work in you doesn't need to be expounded.

        What you're proposing is an unbalanced system where the metaphor can alter you, and your perceptions, but it cannot alter the physical world. This strikes me as slightly crazy. You're saying the same rules don't apply, that they aren't universal.

        Which is perfectly fine, I just can't personally live that way.

        The very premise of Chaos Magick is that our belief shapes reality. How we see reality determines what it is, not the other way around. I personally hold that how we see reality and what reality actually is have equal ability to change the other.

        Or let me pose it this way. Give me one a priori reason why a metaphor can't change an object?
        • Re:

          "You're saying the same rules don't apply, that they aren't universal"

          That's exactly what I'm saying. The relationship between the object and the metaphor, between the metaphor and the perception, between the perception and the object, all differ from each other, and therefore have different rules as to how they would affect each other, if at all. In some cases one of these three does not affect one of the other three - hence, while a metaphor can alter a perception of an object, it does not change the object itself.

          How does a metaphor not change an object? Because a metaphor is merely a description, an illustration, of the physical thing that is said object. It is not changing belief, or a changing of behavior, but merely a description of that object. I cannot hold your belief that belief shapes reality, because there are many people in the world who hold many divergent, sometimes even opposing beliefs, but reality does not change to fit those beliefs. Only PERCEPTION of reality is altered to fit those beliefs.
          • The only awareness I have of the world is how I percieve it.

            If I change one side of the equation (how I percieve and interact with the world) the other side must balance.
            • Re:

              Only if you go under the assumption that the world works like an algebraic equation.

              But actually, it seems as though the balance comes within the change of the perception. To wit: You have a perception of an object. Something occurs to change your perception of that object. Something is added in that change; at the same time, though, something else (within your perception) is removed. The equation, as you put it, remains balanced without a need for change in the object (be it a rock, the world, reality) being perceived.
              • Everything else in the universe behaves like an algebraic equation, from F=MA, ro E=MC^2. Seems logical to contiune that on, because I refuse to be a tenant in a universe that isn't consistant. Its okay if it doesn't make sense, it just has to be consistant about it.

                The thing is, you're still under the assumption that an object is solid and a rational packet. There's no evidence to prove that this is the case. If I envision a gargoyle leaping off of Proctors and talking to me, and attribute to it a personality, what is to stop it from developing a personality that others can experience? There's absolutely no reason why my thought of the Gargoyle flying about can't spontaneously cause it to do so. There's no reason why it should either, but at the same time, there's no reason why anything else should happen either.
                • Re:

                  "There's no reason why it should either, but at the same time, there's no reason why anything else should happen either."

                  You can make that claim; but then it follows that there is no reson why ANYthing should or should not happen. This leaves one without any solid basis upon which to build a discussion, argument, or debate, including your assumption that the universe behaves like an algebraic equation. This also leave the Universe completely open to be consistent or inconsistent at whim. Therefore I cannot accept your claim that there is no reason why a given thing, or ANYthing, should or should not happen. I prefer the idea that there certainly is reason, though I do not know it. I prefer to use what I DO know to frame boundaries (consistencies, perhaps) for the universe to work within - boundaries that can be changed, like a theory, if disproven or show to be imperfect, but boundaries nonetheless.
    • Truth & Honesty... though you won't like it

      In honesty?
      Your "flexibility" only inspires rigidity in me. You are so forceful, and at times ridiculous in your flexibility, that not only can I no longer take it seriously, I tend to recoil from it, responding with the contrary, if for no other reason than to balance it.

      I also have to say... what the fuck do you know about poetry? Metaphor: 1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language -- compare SIMILE 2 : an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor : SYMBOL 2 The purpose of metaphor is to clarify through comparison.

      I cannot hold to your "philosophy" - I think it's bullshit. I cannot prove you wrong, however, you cannot disprove me. You
      change your ideas to suit your needs, wants and delusions. I do not believe you seek any kind of truth - only your own strange comfort.

      You've said that I'm becoming cynical. You're becoming like Seamus: a know-it-all, who can't deal with being wrong.
      • Re: Truth & Honesty... though you won't like it

        Aside from that I never claimed to be right... you're absolutely right.

        I don't purport this as "right" or "true", I purport it as more favorable to any thing else. And I know I'm coming across heavy handed, its hard not to, because I'm too in love with this philosophy. This isn't about truth, it's about a romance with Athena.

        This is about me defending my lady love.

        As for what I know about poetry, while I can never flaunt my technique over yours, I however have come from a place where I understand the philosophy of poetry rather well. And that's really what I'm discussing... the philosophy of it.

        However, before I ramble endlessly, I'm just going to bring this to a close. I hold one thing as absolutely, unwaveringly true. The universe is infinite, in all respects. Anything less is heresy. If you want a fixed place from which to dangle the universe, that is it. If you want something which will hold your hat on your head, that is it.

        The problem we're having in communication is that some of us are serious, some of us are not. I am completely not serious, mainly because I've reached a point, is if the quest for truth is going to cause these sorts of conflicts, I don't want any. I'll just be an armchair philosopher and happy, as opposed to well versed in the mechanics of the world and miserable.

        Happiness is a choice, not something that happens to us. I choose happiness.
  • mmmmmmmmm discrete. i think i had more fun with ray's discrete textbook than i had with ray.
    • I had more fun getting my tooth drilled without novacaine than I ever had with Ray.
    • One of the only good things I can say about Ray is that he intro'ed me to the group, and loaned me his Glass Dragon books.
Powered by LiveJournal.com