This is what I'm doing with my surround soul people and curlicue thoughts gravitroned out to make new walls. Kimya Dawson was key in this invocation made tangible. I sank to the floor .... oh someone is at my door.
This is not finished. I am not finishing it now. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe not. I have no idea.
This is not finished. I am not finishing it now. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe not. I have no idea.
Comments
Yes!
d
Ponder this: it is impossible to prove that the soul does not exist. To claim otherwise indicates laziness in language or thought.
If you disagree with me, I challenge you to PROVE that the soul does not exist.
I refer you to Godel's Undecidability Theorem, stone cold mathematical proof that there are some things that can be neither proved nor disproved, but you can prove that there ain't no proof either way.
What is needed is a system for cutting out endless bullshit circular debates and using finite resources to do something useful.
Denial is on occasion a useful thing.
So are metaphors. There is a certain expediency in using them. I use them myself on occasion. The danger is that they are open to misuse and misinterpretation. They are particularly dangerous when they invoke the existence of supernatural beings, objects or forces. The danger is that people ACTUALLY GO AROUND BELIEVING IN SHIT.
The problem, as I see it, is that both belief or disbelief are matters of faith.
Without proof, your position as a 'strict materialist' is no more or less justified than the position of one who purports to believe in the supernatural.
This is not a problem of course, but it does seriously undermine your criticism of the beliefs of others.
One might say that you come across as something of a fundamentalist.
If your position is just about 'getting things done', then why deny the soul 'utterly'? Surely it makes more sense to say that the question is irrelevant.
In any case, a personal and unsubstantiated total denial of the soul seems a poor foundation for public literary criticism.
It is a problem. Faith is a big problem. That is my point. Belief and disbelief are problematic, which is why I am working on a position of unbelief.
It is possible to take certain positions and remain critical, it is a matter of not holding any particular position too dearly. We don't wear armour and we don't build fortresses. We don't need good foundations if we keep moving.
Of course fundamentalism is a dirty word. It is a shame that I find myself in this role. It is a shame that true fundamentalists should make this work necessary.
It's not literary. It's not even criticism.
I have to go now and collect scrap metal, it's needed at the front.
Spencer has a soul.
and too much time to comment on blogs.
I'm guessing that souls such as those of Hitler and Bush were meant to hang around in the realm of the simple and the predatory, such as the scorpion or the poisonous spiky bubble fish, where resources are fewer and less quantitative damage is possible. But they accidentally slipped through the gates. Or maybe Hitler and Bush share the same soul. I hope this particular soul goes back to where it belongs.
For next time around I hope to inherit the soul of a toy poodle. They have lovely souls.
There could even be desert ponies. Though I'm thinking that joyous frolicking camels are more likely.
Maybe they could have some wings? And one of those big, beefy arms? It'd look nice, coming out of his neck there.
my sandwish used to be for the fine, powdery kind of sand only found on remote islands. then i went to a remote island and that shit is sticky, it gets into all the places where one has the opposite of a sandwish. my sandwish is for the Middle Path of sandness on a fantastic island, not too remote because there must be a cocktail bar. Middle Path of sand is neither talcum-esque, or the gravelly kind found on dirty british 'beaches' (that shit looks more like industrial dirt).
i will allow camels and or ponies.
I invented reductionism myself, I take full credit.
http://www.songfight.org/music/morescience/mycc_morescience.mp3
That's not ideal, you know how I feel about science. I'm going rogue, its about time I took care of this problem.
Here's how it went down.
I read a bunch of comments.
Having been encouraged to do so, I decided to comment further. It is diverting, I had free time this morning.
Someone had mentioned songfight.org, it is a website I have enjoyed in the past, partly due to a connection with Achewood. I linked a song that I like (it is also an Achewood reference) without considering the full lyric content of the song.
As for all the ill-informed philosophical crap, it's just a bunch of ideas I'm interested in at the moment.
The thing about subtext is sometimes it's NOT EVEN THERE.
Yes, Achewood had occurred but it still sounded like you were threatening to kill me with science. That would be a fitting end to my sorry tale.