all my thoughts

People have built-in cranial hooks for relating to other people.

Looked at from a distance, the planet is occupied by million of people who randomly interact with one another much of the time.
But looked at internally, we have words like 'luck, 'fate' and 'synchronicity' whereby we invest many of these seemingly random acts with meaning and significance.
Sometimes it is the vary random acts that have had the most significance in our lives.
"I met my wife as we bumped into one another walking into a classroom."
What is happening here? Do we treasure these acts that displace us from the expected, and because of their non-routine nature, strike us as more vivid?

People disagree uncomfortably and vehemently about important things they cannot prove:
religion, values, how to raise kids, what to teach kids ...

Political correctness and all the things you can't say: If nothing else, this means a censor is always sitting there.

Would you rather live as a primitive Indian or as a 21st Century American?

Is it impolite to make another person get off their cruise-control?
But this dance of cars along the highways takes place outside the area of public discussion.
We need more of that.

What sounds are music?

Why does music make us dance?

I read that in nature lemming DO NOT commit mass suicide by jumping off cliffs. (The scenes in the Disney documentary were staged.) Populations do go up and down, but it is due to the scarcity of food than any instinct to commit suicide. Yet this fact has been built into our conventional wisdom. We are all such lemmings!

Most of the time we make speech gestures

We remain overstimulated and unilluminated.

We live in intellectual emotions, our descriptions and reasoning are mostly expressive of feelings we have.

Academic writing has strictures so extreme no one can actually say anything.

Lawyers define laws by using laws as the rules of game.
Laws are like a programming language that can be used in creative, useful and unanticipated ways.

Personal identity becomes more fluid with the Internet.

Superior powers are a recurring theme of mass art: as in vampires, serial killers, heroes, gods and aliens?

The full horizon effect: no matter how little you know, what you do know seems to form a world.
An eight-year old boy always thinks he knows what is going on.

There is a double interest in works or art that have survived for a long time.
There is a beauty in seeing a ravaged Greek sculpture, even as a copy, as well as a desire to see have the marble would have looked in a pristine conditions.

Today it is rare that a stranger will be trusted to be alone in a public place.
Most public spaces are made of concrete, and are as barren and hard to damage as a stainless-steel sink.

People do a lot more than reason.

At some point in any society you cross over a line.

Do all men judge other men about whether they can beat them up?
Do women? Or do women judge men on their status?

Kids do not see art

Men's fashions are like uniforms: sports, rock bands, skateboards and DJs.

Once you are an adult, most of your life is lived inside the head.
A kiss, an insult are over in a few seconds, but resonate in the mind for a long time.

How is it that so few people read history, but love to visit historical sites when they go on vacation?

Why do we take sides in history?

A child is happy playing and walking in the water but she will not remember this.

Abstract art flourished after a war so horrific no one could talk about it.

Among the many things we don't vote on in life are all the unanticipated consequences of our policies.

If homophobia means only a fear of gayness, I am homophobic.
I have some fears.
But it is not wrong to fear.
Most men have fears.
But homophobia also involves the active termination and prohibitions against gay people.
You could be scared of gays without being prejudiced, and vice-versa

If there were a god, would it be quite ok to pray for sex, money, and misfortune for my enemies? What are the rules about praying anyway?

It's not good design if you need to point out that it's design.
"It's a Thomassiero!"
It's status.
Or a touchstone for the cognoscenti.

Man walk more "out-there," with a zone of alertness and defense in front of them.

The stream of consciousness is braided.
It has several channels at once.

Where do thoughts come from?

Society is a way of keeping everyone on busy and out of trouble

Is it better to fully take delight in something that is not of the highest nature, or to read/listen to something of the highest quality, but not take full delight in it?

You can't know what people are thinking.
And you can't just ask them.
People are like forest animals, you can't just walk up to them and touch them.
The fact you are trying get to know about them frightens them.

Another false assumption about the Internet was that people want to communicate.
This is a spcial lie. Most people are shy. They love to share as part of intimate situations, but shy away from public speaking and broadcasting.

People, families, cannot sit in a room and simply love each other.
We do not connect through a high-bandwidth interface.
So we play games, we bicker, we argue, we share.

We cannot present ourselves whole, complete, in all our facets at any one time.
Instead we communicate over a slow modem line, one aspect at a time.
Here we are in a van, here eating Chinese dinner; here we are playing cards on Christmas eve, laughing and impatient.

Why am I affected by certain events in my day and not others? Here are three theories:
(1) Events happen by accident and we, weak creatures, are affected by them.
(2) We have our moods constantly running in the background, like processes in an operating system.
(3) Events that happen in the world resonate or trigger our subconscious moods and fears.

A unity of theme, in poetry or plays or any work or art, is a limitation of our imagination.

It is now easier to get to China than it used to be to cross Snoqualmie Pass, or go from Spokane to Ritzville.
China is now just 14 hours of sitting down.

Our society seems to generate silly jobs - work for employment's sake - including:
Therapists and counselors - massage therapists, physical therapists, crisis counselors - people who now help with things which we used to do ourselves as a normal part of life.
Lawyers: If you have too many lawyers you will get more law-suits.
Administrators: If you have too many administrators or politicians with too much time, too much staff, you will get more strange laws and policies.
Police: especially the politically correct police and the education police.
Computer technicians: a cadre of highly-paid professionals now necessary to fix machines invented only twenty years ago machines which now seem essential to do the work we used to do without them.
These jobs, and many others, contribute to employment but not to wealth, and not to individualism or self-reliance.

We use school to keep our kids off the streets and out of trouble.
We use employment in the same way for our adults.

Mankind as cattlekind.

Honesty doesn't open doors.
Doors are opened from the inside.

I don't enjoy traveling by car while I am on vacation.
The inside of a car is as generic as the inside of an airport.
What would a car look like that made traveling in a car more like traveling?
It could contain bits of local nature, smells and architecture; it could be full of pretty strangers.

I share a romantic moment with myself.

If you don't try to impose your religion on me at all, talk as thought is true, or pretend it's any more than your fundamental belief, I'm there for you buddy!

Is the current human social life a temporary construct caused by our lack of insight, or is it something inevitable, caused by our nature?

Sexual moments are often more of a lifetime memory than, say, the graduation of your kids.

In a family it doesn't matter what we think or say because we are joined together regardless of what we say.
That is it's unique curse.

Music and design create something where there is nothing.
You think that no new song can be created, and no one can create a new design for a chair.
But on day, here they are!

As you age you may define yourself as old.
You are not really telling anyone anything, as much as defining your role, giving up doing certain things.

Calculations of poverty - this bed sheet can last another year.
Calculations of wealth - I should get this sheet in a different color.
That will spruce up the room.

I'm in political agreement with my friends but their reasons are nevertheless stupid.

Sometimes you like music because it is hard to like.

There is no American people: there are just a bunch of people who believe in one thing and a bunch of people who believe something else.

There is no background music to background music.

Three reasons why nature is beautiful

  • It obeys a mathematical sense of proportion and color schemes we find soothing
  • We grew up in it.
  • We find any spectacle that fills our vision beautiful

Who chooses the dreams I choose to keep? Who selects the fantasies I choose to indulge?

Why is nature beautiful?
Why is every plant, vista, mountain beautiful?
Why is not every parking lot and garbage dump equally beautiful?

As I sit here, I am fully involved in the discussion AND I am looking at people, I am looking at women and I am reacting with my ego, thinking about my appearance, feeling my lust.

Caesar and the Rubicon:
I read that the Rubicon was "the official border between the Roman state and Gaul, apparently a tiny stream whose historical location is unknown today." ( Alexander & Nicholas Humez, A — B — C et Cetera: The Life and Times of the Roman Alphabet, Boston:1985, p.
The metaphor exists though the reality has disappeared.

Can intelligence be taught? Can an education be evaluated?

Entertainment is less about art and truth than about creating something that people finds interesting, that makes them stop and listen.
Entertainment is limbic.

In my ideal world the government would spend some of its billions on adding all the world's books and accumulated knowledge to the Internet.
It would also create a better linkage system between the various innumerable parts.
The fact that governments do not do this, tells you something about government.

Some students cannot be taught. They can only be subjected to teaching.

the Freeway River, or the New Plastic River

We all do a social dance, and follow thousands of non-rational conventions.
We dress a certain way, we use a certain tone of thought, we stand so far away from another person, we do not touch them in certain places.
If we violate these conventions, people become nervous.
But social rules are not written in stone.
Most of them are not written anywhere (beside Emily Post) and they change slowly over time.

We all spout our opinions and there is no way to adjudicate between them.
Unlike science, this is not a collective enterprise.
The question to ask remains: "What would make you change your opinion?"

What do we see of your public life - your car, your car pulling your boat.
What don't we see: you relaxed, you on the bathroom, having sex, cheating, in despair...

Why do we not learn how to separate out the moral wrongs from the social taboos, the incorrect from the politically incorrect.

I am amazed that the hooker and the good Christian woman can walk about simultaneously in the same world.

I no longer believe historical museums.
That their view of the past changes over the decades, as tastes change and as my own tastes change.
They always look a bit like the current art fashions and political correctnesses.
Museums have a huge amount of stuff undisplayed in their basements.
They pick out the stuff that resonates with today's aesthetics and values.
I read that 25% of all the artwork in Pompeii was pornographic.
Yet they never showed me that stuff when they talked about Pompeii.
Who are they to alter the past?
We present the past in own image, we bowdlerize.

I really don't come alive until I begin to read Carol Shield's Unless.
Why is that? How can a book, arguable a huge waste of time, so seem not to be a waste of time?

When I see people playing various forms of solitaire, or golf, I think they are pathetic.
They are not doing the important things, interactive things, worthwhile things.
They are not making a mark, but are content to amuse themselves by tucking their minds into trivial pursuits because they don't know what else to do with it.

Why do we suffer and shine through the acts of our children?

After a week on vacation our senses have dulled.
When we first arrived a coconut tree was a coconut tree! Now it is just a tree, perhaps one that blocks a view of the harbor.
We have become selective in our perceptions.
The foreground becomes the background.

Family and friends hold you up and hold you back and keep you from spinning slowly out into space.

In the Caribbean, there is not much news about Bush or Israel, like there is constantly in the US.
All news, even world news, is local news.

Looked at another way the existence of Creole culture and the mulatto is a testament to interracial love.

Some of the adventure of working in a hectic environment is to see if you can juggle all the people coming at you, in a pleasant manner.

What if I could speak French, and talk to the people around me here in Guadeloupe? Where would that lead? What can we, what do we, communicate to each other? We help each other.
We supply facts as needed.
We tell our tales and sing our songs.
We make each other laugh.
We desire each other, though that does not need language.
Language is not much about communication.
It is more about entertainment.

Can there be ugly sounds in nature? How about a bird that sounds like a fart?
The raven? Ian/Susan speaks of a lovely white bird in Ecuador, beautiful to look at, but it's cry was guttural and unlovely.

How am I suppose to feel about this? Should I feel proud? Or should I feel ashamed of feeling proud? Or should I feel confused?

I look at the spiritual paths I have accepted without thinking, the guides and goals I chose for the path to happiness.
As a youth, I accepted Zen masters, assorted hippie gurus (Baba Ram Dass) and assorted unknown psychologist.
Among their tenets: true happiness / salvation exists
it is accomplished by apart from the material possessions of the world
as part of this it is important to live in the moment apart from the material possessions of the world.
who advise that the way to deal with negative thoughts is to express and accept them, overcoming guilt and shame.
happiness is necessarily accomplished by the individual in spite of and apart from the community
The question then becomes: should I believe everything I happen to believe?

Nor could you pay anyone to make the roads more slick and treacherous.
"We are going to put a coating on the road to make your driving more interesting.
It will be a challenge to go up hills.
And be very careful about making any sudden stops."
Lawyers and the insurance companies would object.
It would be equally interesting if we covered the world in molasses, or sawdust, packing peanuts or small furry creatures.
We would deal with their effects and then, after a few weeks, they would disappear.
Snow could come in various colors.

There is something inside us that constantly responds to, as well as constantly emits, erotic stimulation?

You can't tell the lawyer warnings ("the coffee is hot", "you can get hurt on the trampoline", "don't eat the plastic") from actual warnings ("this product unexpectedly shoots out bullets", "the circular saw can cut off a finger of you are not careful").
It all becomes yadda-yadda.
Could I sue someone over this?

You talk to someone and there are no sparks: her spark machine is not on.

Films have a resonating quality that books lack.
We can replay the scenes in our minds.

How many people marry someone even though they don't know what true love is? Love is never simply there, like sex or being pregnant.
You are or you are not pregnant.
You have or you have not had sex.
But even if you think you are in love, or are being loving, you may be wrong.
Love can be put to the test.

The Human Interface Paradox: although we are all sorts of exciting things inside, our external interactions with others tend to be conventional and guarded and boring.
"What's new?"
"Same old same old."

Why don't we wear two hats at once?
(Some people do.)

A candle seems the very essence of spirituality.
It burns silent, clean and slowly.
But if you run a card through it you realize it is full of soot.
That is what is burning.

Alcohol makes me at home wherever I am.
Alcohol makes me lose my sense of wonder.
Alcohol gives me a sense of comfort.

Films are how we now see history, even though they are fiction, and highly susceptible to political correctness and the intellectual and financial limitations of their creators.

I used to rail against two faced (five faced) nature of films.
They never took a stand as much as they covered a whole gamut of opinions.
They had something for everyone, liberal and conservative, young and old, letch and prude.
But that that is how they world is: a place seen in a variety of inconsistent human perspectives.

I used to think that when I read about history, I was reading about things they way they were.
But history then, as it is at all times, was as wide and confusing as society is now.

In the teenage world everything is open.
But they are tuning into a very narrow band-width of life.
They are keeping the bandwidth low but loud.

My opinion is an intellectual emotion, a feeling disguised as a judgment.

Pueblo pottery - the age of the piece makes a difference.
If this was pottery from 1984 it would all be different.

Soon all we will have are novels and films about World War 2.
No one will be left alive to say: "No, that's not how it was at all!" We will be able and free to choose how we think it must have been.

When I read at the age of fifty, that one-third of the paintings in Pompeii were pornographic, and that I had never been told that, I realized I had been fed an expurgated view of the way things were.
When I see the displays of arts from primitive cultures reflect the concerns of our society, I realized I can not trust the caretakers of culture.

You don't have to know all that much about art in order to appreciate art.
This is different than appreciating say the pueblo language.

In band music the solo is a celebration of the individual.
It can take away from listening to the music.

It is uncommon to spend more than two minutes in front of a work of art.

It used to be we could drink from every brook and river.

We interweave our personal lives around each other.
Although we are constantly surrounded by thousands of strangers, we only deal with a very small number of them.

When we use British slang words (like quiffy, arsehole, shite, teats, and bloody wanker) in America they sound cute.
They are curse words lacking the weight of communal opprobrium.

When you are stoned, you violate norms by paying too much or too little attention, or thinking a bit too fast or too slow.

You can't tell by looking at anyone, whether they are a musician or not.

I am not anti-Jewish, anti-American; I am anti-asshole.
I am against all people who cannot see multiple sides of an issue, who cannot multiview.
I cannot see the multiple side of a person who can only monoview.

I want to see the personal bubbles, the mental terrariums, in which we each live.
It would be interesting to see the half-baked stuff we process all the time.

Is it ok to be unhappy and upset about things you cannot change?
Like aging and dying and being me?
That would be called grief.

What would an intelligent movie be?
Well, what is an intelligent book?

Why is it cute for women to masturbate, while men who masturbates are pathetic losers?
Because anytime a woman does something sexually assertive it is to be applauded, while with a man, the opposite is true?
Because in orgasm, a woman experiences an inner thrill, while a man makes a big, sticky mess?
Because a woman can be satisfied, while a man cannot?
Because a male orgasm is not only about orgasm, but also about possession?

The problem is not people remember through photographs, but that they remember only the photographs.

Cities are a mix of the famous and the insane, the gorgeous and the ugly, the cool and the dangerous.

In the cities we gaze upwards, towards the peaceful, relaxing, unspoiled place where there are no people.

It was suggested that Spokane be renamed Spokane Falls, the "original" name of the town on early European maps.
Instead of Spokane Falls, (and Can't Get Up), I suggest we use Spokane Trips, or the pleasantly suggestive Spokane Tumbles.

The ideas we have of people is complicated and enriched by their extensions in novels. Novels however are also fantasies of the real.

We live right on top of each other.
Our co-mingling is lubricated by our lip-service to the belief that each person is entitled to their beliefs.

We sit in coffee houses to watch each other.

What do women think about when they masturbate?

How can there be different places in the world?
And such different places!

Ideas matter.
What matters more are power, and the ability to control the situation to your advantage,

The tolerant pluralistic society seems to be going the way of all things.

Thinking, yet being too tired to write anything down, is a way of not thinking.

Without using language, how do you display your intelligence?

A landscape cannot be seen from a train, anymore than wine can be appreciated in the bottle. A landscape must breathe.

After seeing the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 which shows us the pain of the Iraqis, I think that this is what a church should be like: an emotional meditation on the morality of action, without the instant solutions, moral clichés, and references to a suspect and dubious authority.

Christianity is a brutal religion.

Criminals and thugs want your stuff, they don't want your life, unless you (with your damn life) stand in the way of them taking and keeping your stuff.

Everywhere in Europe, I am served orange juice for breakfast.
With all the fruits available locally, why am I am always served the fruit of a tree that wilts at any frost.
Perhaps when the world is boringly heterogeneous, we will open up a Yesterday Land, where one will go and live as they lived in the past, clothes, food and all.
We could visit to the Fifties, all Ward and June Cleaver, and drink Tab.
We could visit Fin de Siecle, with their heavy clothes and stolid food.
We could be Marie Antoinette, Tyrolean Peasant, Native American or even Fisher Folk.

Hidden away - inside us all - are a small group of soft moments that make us weak in the knees - the birth of a child, acceptance at college,

I see the old Medieval clock on main square.
The most interesting thing about the clock is what I read about the clock.

In a zoo you see animals.
In nature you spot them.

In the future they will track everything you do (the music you listen to, your attention span, the whole matrix) and see patterns.
In a benign world this could be useful. In a marketing or a paranoid world, this will be hell.

Information should be free on the theory that knowledge is important, and that knowledge is power.
But that's just a theory of knowledge.

Is self-esteem an emotion, or a tendency to have certain emotions?

It's funny how we glorify certain highly totalitarian and repressive systems that killed millions of people, like the European aristocracy and the Catholic Church, while we vilify other, like the Communist Party.
Was this because the latter did not give us enough good art, music and architecture?

On what job is stupidity an asset? Maybe in coaching, a neanderthalian stolidity is useful.

Repetition is emphasis.
Repetition is emphasis.

Simple unpretentious food doesn't taste good, but it feels good.

The Internet is a fact checker and a spelling checker.
It is not an understanding checker or an idea checker.

There are political arguments that no one can stand up to because the arguments against them are too complex for a sound bite.

To what extent am I responsible for crimes of my gender?

When I read a good book, I want to brag about it.
When I read People Magazine, Dilbert, or porn, I am a little quiet about the whole thing.
Is a good book a better quality of experience? But why? And how?

Your body shape displays choices you have made over time.

A novel of plot creates fantastic sequences of acts far removed from the lives we actually live.

Characters in books are artificial creations, taking thoughts we normally have over several days, discarding the blanknesses, the repetitive, the obsessive/compulsive, and the hopelessly trivial?

Exercises in self esteem:

  • for men wear makeup; for women, don't wear makeup
  • beg for money on the street
  • drive a crappy car around town
  • wear two shoes of a different color
  • walk around with your fly down
  • get on a bus, have a friend loudly call you "a shit"

How can half the country be in favor of Kerry and the other half in favor of Bush?
How can some people believe in God and others not?
How can there be such differences?
And why does it matter of there are differences?
Why is in not like dress, or artwork: hey that's a cute opinion you have there!

How can there be differences among people?
because of different values?
matters of taste?
snap judgments?

If we view our opinions as aesthetic things, we can better explore them.

In Prague and Regensburg, there are so many squares, so many unique combinations of unique buildings they don't make anymore.

Jane thinks that relationships should be more business-like, and based on short-term contracts.
These contracts would contain clauses like "I have the right to visit Seattle and see friends (but not to sleep with anyone else)." and "I want to go dancing once a month."
It should be renegotiated periodically.

Just because someone makes a boat for $1,000,000 doesn't mean you should want one.
Just because someone makes a hotel room with marble bathroom and all the amenities, doesn't mean you will or should be comfortable in it.

On religious people: If they can't be wrong; I can't be right.
Can they at least see how I can think it?

Our fragile high-tech world.
There is not enough redundancy.
For example, there are not enough ferries or bridges or world-trade centers.

Perhaps we think that quiet beauty was not invented until after the middle ages, but a city like Regensburg makes me think that this is not true.

Sadly, there are places in this world you just need to get out of.

The people in German still read while the people in the US do not read very much.
Why? The two cultures have the same temptations: TVs, videos, and video games.
Yet this goes against our simple theory of civilized evolution.

When do you love your kids too much, or too blindly?

Why are we here? Most of us aren't good for anything except raising a family.

You can't envy others their opinion, because you could always adopt their opinion, or at least entertain their opinion.

People do not pay much attention to what they are thinking.

The world of books is a simple one.
The world of humans is a leap into arenas I am not sure I can handle.

What would the world be like with no copyright?

I have completed editing my writing and I have had 4632 thoughts.
This is the intellectual output of my life, my fifty-seven years.
It does not count my jokes, my importance as a partner, father, and friend, my contributions to work and home improvement.
Nor does it count my being a friend, being nice, or being there for students.
Had I kept a complete journal, I could make a list of all the 3835 such events in my life.
This must be what St.
Peter sees in his book at the pearly gates.
The human mind is not constructed for its own finitude.

If our government cared about knowledge, they would have spent money to place all historical resources on line.
But our government has not shown any interest in doing this, nor in reigning in the bloated copyright permissions.
Our government does not care very much about knowledge.
They care more about the people who want to sell it, and the anti-knowledge of entertainment, to you.

We are all trapped inside ourselves, so deep, we don't know if we can ever find our way out.
Perhaps the idea of finding your way out is a part of the trap.

What if everyone was beautiful? If all women were slim women and all men buff?
Would we all be happier and less fucked up?

A believer and an atheist are, after all, looking at and living in the same universe.

How does this happen.
Everybody now says that tryptophan causes the lethargy after the Thanksgiving day dinner.
A little bit of Internet research shows that this is not true.
How come we still get chemistry old-wives tales?

Tonight everything is a metaphor
Christmas lights are webs of stars, a thousand candles, holes in the gray fabric of the universe.
A warm house, a car full of love, relatives visiting, songs - are all metaphors.
The cloud across the moon is a metaphor.
The cloud drawing apart and revealing the moon is a metaphor,
The trees and mountains hold and guide me.
I have friends who love me is a metaphor.
People at a party is metaphor.
I am a metaphor - the happy daddy, the happy man.
Everything stands for something deeper - it's true(r) self.
A metaphor is a metaphor.
(My friends are metaphors for themselves.)

Capitalist countries prefer the term "employee", which makes it sound like work is a gift (employment) from the company.
Socialist countries prefer the term "worker", which makes it sound like working is a gift (work) that comes from the person.

The Internet gives you too much information about things you hardly need to know about.

The US has a lot more employment than it has work.

There is limited bandwidth for communicating your inner soul and personality, while there is great bandwidth in communicating your sexual attractiveness.

To think clearly you need quality information.
To get quality information you have to block out getting trivial (bad, irrelevant, distracting) information.
Information is not an issue of bandwidth but of routing.

Why is being a tattle-tale wrong? Why isn't it seen as a kind of whistle-blowing?

With the Internet everywhere, why are we not smarter?

Being on the Internet is a humbling experience.
There are so many intelligent people, many with more time than you.
Collectively we matter very little.
There are also so many ignorant people, spouting their truths.
How little it all matters.

Copyright and the facts that constantly disappear from the Internet.

Have we lost our faith and hope in the very possibility of a better society? Recently, such as after the fall of the USSR, we see how quickly the thugs and mafia take over and prey on normal people.
What then is the ideal society? Is it a small society upon which we stumble, and possibly join? Or is it a transformation of our own society?

I float down the somewhat polluted stream of my consciousness.
There are so many man-made objects in these waters.

I must deal with the many subroutines that keep me from focusing
or thinking.

I watch a small, cute movie at night.
I wake up at six this morning mulling over the characters and going over the plot in my mind.
This is wonderful but pointless.
I am, after all, contemplating a fantasy.

In grad school, Russ Abrams had a dream where Immanuel Kant approached the foot of his bed and told Russ of his philosophy.
After he had said his piece, Russ would reply "That's what you say!"
Wittgenstein then approached the bed and told his philosophy, Russ' response was the same: "That's what you say!"

that thoughtless way of thinking

The aging successful artist, perhaps the ideas do not come so quickly.
So he lowers his standards.
He is after all, a successful artist.
His later work is often more polished and sure, but less apposite, less telling, and there is less joy of discovery.

Timeless philosophy is forever?
Forever? Most people don't even study philosophy any more?
Timeless philosophy is no longer fashionable.

Today an internet company like Amazon will be the main bookseller to the world
because they can.

We are all committed to our core beliefs, be we Christians, scientists, debunkers, anti-debunkers, environmentalists.
We are not going to let a little reality get in our way.

We are living in a time of little philosophy.
We cannot distinguish between thinking and advocacy, between lawyers and judges.
We have talking points.

We are moving towards greater and greater data gathering on every individual but it is not clear that we can handle such information.
We all pretend we are who we are not exactly.

We seldom get down to the granular facts in knowledge, especially of the past.
We go straight to the interpreted facts.

We should be going to Church to think about the important things

What current political beliefs and political problems are caused by belief in non-existent beings? By a belief in a so-called God who demands a few things from his worshippers, some of which are moral, some of which are not?

What is it to disagree?

Facts come interpreted.

"Being rational" is partly a tone of voice.
It is also a way of ending one's justification.
It is the molding at the base of our thought, the plinth on a column.

All a writer can do is speak the truth, or something that looks the truth.

Being in love does not imply that you do not hate someone.
At some time you always hate the one you love.

Books about knowledge fail to distinguish between the terms you should know, and the many things in nature, science and history that are truly cool.

If you were to interview me about what I thought about the world, or what I thought about life, my answer would depend on what day you asked me, and what my mood was.
These questions are questions of feeling more than questions of fact.

In the city it is hard to meet people, because people are normally in a mode of contact avoidance.

My concepts of spirituality come from drug experiences: boundless happiness comes from ecstasy, contentment of the moment from marijuana, essential insight comes from LSD.

People on reality shows aren't really people.
Nevertheless they soon become our paradigms for people.

The dynamic of keeping a relationship are as difficult as the dynamics of not having a relationship.

Using the metric of how many novel thoughts I am having, my trip is great.
But by the metric of getting laid, or (its mature version) of meeting attractive strangers, my trip is a failure.
Why am I driven to still use the latter?

What would it be like if we did not want to look reasonable, and did not present statements of emotions or feeling as statements of true facts?
"I am anxious about the future." "I feel happy and comforted by the fact that I believe there is a God who says that homosexuality is bad."

When I photograph a scene, say street scene in a busy city, I am surprised how many normal looking people exist in the world.
My mind tells me the street is full of beautiful women.
Now blink me eyes to take a mental snapshot of the world around me.
I then see mostly average looking people, like myself.

Why, in our society, is the teacher treated with so little respect?

What is the proper amount of guilt to carry around with us in this world?

Clichés and aphorisms hijack my thought process.

Good books have been written on everything and yet nothing changes. No one wants to think what they don't want to think. The book I want to write probably already exists, as does its opposite, the anti(dote)-book.

I want to explore the fundamental structure of the world because I don't understand the writings of people who have already done that.

If God explained how he made the world, with DNA and growth over time, a priest in the 6th Century BC, could not have understood it. How could he? If God were to explain the universe to us, would we? We can't even understand electricity!

Our emphasis on security, insurance, lawyers, administrators, and regulations makes us economically less efficient.

Strangers come into our lives open and questioning.
Quickly, decisions and boundaries click into place.

Subroutines make up who you are.
They are not puppets of your psyche.
It is more the other way around.
I have to accept my subroutines to accept myself

The absolute simultaneous intensity of people is a very powerful force.

The trouble with basing a morality on not offending, is knowing how much of offending is conscience and how much is unfamiliar or prejudice.
Blacks in baseball, women in the work-place, and long hair on men were once all offensive.

There is the pleasant illusion of getting answers, and the pleasant illusion of providing answers

TV and movies stand outside the individual.
They favor relating to others, snappy-retorts and visible feelings.
Will the future bring a new medium that gets us back inside the individual — like books?

We accept the loss of a hundred-thousand to car accidents, 300,000 to a tidal-wave and a 100,000 Iraqi civilians, yet we concern ourselves perpetually for the 3,000 who died in the World Trade Center, and Karen Schiavo, a human vegetable lying in a hospital-bed in Florida.
We have to accept the fact that one day a terrorist will detonate a nuclear bomb in one of our cities, and move on.

We are fascinated with animals.
Animals are a bit of consciousness on the fixed landscape.

We are multi-faceted; we display different facets to each other.

What if we were to consider all human action as unconscious?

What is the importance of a pair of socks once worn by Elvis?

Abstract art: We tend to see abstraction as an invention of the 20th century, but there is much abstraction in the past, and there is a vast amount of abstraction in nature.

Coincidence is the closest I can come to miracles . Coincidences are miracles without the fantastic machinery.

Copyright puts a condom around your cerebral emissions.

In the 50s certain questions were asked but never answered.
Today new questions are asked but never answered.

In the sixties, religion was mostly seen as superstitious crap.
Now it's suddenly sacredly true.

It is a shame I have to live my life.
It looked so much better as potentiality.

Most public discussions are only public rationalization.

People don't meet each other easily because the possibilities and the contacts we have with people are so strong, and not something to stumble into casually.

Politicians! What a bunch of sophists!

Shopping is partly a quiet, private accumulation of stuff.

The herd mentality is now the herds mentalities.

The Internet has created more cultures.
We can now surround ourselves with people who are more like our favorite parts of us.
Once we feel there is a community of us, we are strengthened and we are happy.

There are those who have faith in meaningless words.

Today we are seeing the economic consequences of illiterates with money.

You know maybe ten adult people.
Your view of the world should at least fit those ten.
Now, what about the other six billion?

Cowardice is no longer cowardly. Today it's good to confess and to be cowardly — if that's who you are.

"I have studied astrology.."

At the church I was told "believe whatever you need to believe in order to make sense of the world."

Ideas do not change, fashion in ideas does.

Movies are a social event.
Movies a way of socializing without actually meeting people.

Today we do not distinguish between fact and symbol.

We are like animals with an invisible giraffe-like neck.
We see others from way on high.
We do not see their giraffe neck, as it is also invisible.

We surround, decorate our mind with authors, passages, thoughts and emotions.
We like to think about it in certain ways.
Some want obscure sayings from Derrida, or Wittgenstein, or from Biblical passages.

Women like to point out that women didn't cause any wars.
But, women are often timid, and tend to support restrictive and repressive laws and procedures.

Church is also a place to recognize deep feelings.

Art as an investment is no longer art: it is calculating what others will like.
Others like art touched by celebrity.
Koko the chimp was auctioned off for $30,000 (AUD) Others like sports memorabilia, or pair of socks worn by Nicholas Cage.

Free museums are an extension of public space.

If we torture in Abu Ghrabi, and justify it that it is "because lives are at stake," a border has been crossed.

In a virtual world you can replace love with appearance of love and the illusion of love.
In the actual world you cannot.

In order to make education and technology work, we need CPWGAS (pronounced cap-hoo'-gaz): Capable People Who Give a Shit

In phone calls, the content of the conversation does not matter are much as the fact that "He called me." ("He spoke to me.", "He looked into my eyes.")

It's a perceived meaningful action simply to engage someone in speech.

Laws written because of one incident: Becca bill.
"This cannot happen again."
But this is legislation by reaction.

Music is the most egalitarian art. I can afford the same quality music as the richest man in the world. The rich listen to Frank Sinatra. I listen to Frank Sinatra. (The rich do not have their own artists.)

No one can tell us about religion.
They can only show us the symbols and artifacts.
They can tell us the stories.

Our world is embellished with lies (stories, rumors, and fantasies)

People like: representational art (which, before digital tools, involved a high degree of craftsmanship), craftsmanship, hours of time, sentimentality, conventionality, spectacles, sex and violence

Religion is a nexus of related untestable fantasies centered around our deepest fears.
People may not love me — but God loves me.
I will age and die — but I will live forever.
Bad people will prosper and thrive — but justice will be dealt out in the afterlife.
I am a weak and frightened human — but I will be protected by a powerful god.
All the impossible things we wish are found in religion, at the price of accepting some conventional and possibly socially useful taboos.

Shopping is all about the concept that you can buy attractiveness, or, indicate how an attractive of a person you are, above and beyond how you already look.

The masks were made of local animal parts, like boar tusks.
And that did not take away any of their power, for how would you get boar tusks away from a boar?

There are limits to what I can be at this age: not sports, sex, adventurer, soldier, career, pension...
What can I still be? An artist perhaps, but perhaps not an ambitious artist.

There are several kind of apocalypse.
My favorite: thinking that the laws of physics no longer apply.

Torture was, no doubt, justified as reasonable in the Middle Ages.
It was only opposed by crackpot secular humanism and knee-jerk liberals who have notions of human dignity and human rights.

We are receding from the natural world.
No longer do we need to live with, deal with and compete with animals in nature.
Outdoors is the place we put our communication towers

We love alternative worlds — some in fantasy, some romance and some in the morally perverse.

What I want in art is a meditative complexity, hidden perfection, [significant form (Clive Bell)], passion, a kind of faith, and like all faith, a kind of illusion

What might modern art be? role playing — give me a remote, interactivity, new version of etch a sketch, painting that shows different views — like photographs on wall, large screens on the wall

Why then does religion not evolve? It's almost like it can't evolve.
It was created as steadying force, woven into human nature.
It worked first for small groups, later for larger societies and warring cultures like the Romans, the Muslims and the Western Europeans.
But whatever its origins, why does not religion evolve now? It seems that it should.
It seems to me that it needs to? Is it like our state in food, learned in childhood? Is it a symbol of the supposedly golden days of old? Is it kept firmly in place by its bureaucracy of priests? Was its modern, scriptural (textual) form made intentionally hard to change? Is it that people like being told what to do? Is it embedded at a level below that of choice? Like our conventions of speech and dress? (I don't know.)

After reading Newsweek about the London bombing: Why should news-magazine have to tell us how to feel about the news? Are feelings news?

Having seen great truth, we write it down and we move on. It's not like we're the first ones to see it. We constantly take snapshots of the truth.

It is said the Internet has made the world smaller.
But the world remains as big as it ever was.
Our minds however remain small, unable to comprehend but a smidgen of what the world offers.
One might say the Internet has made our minds smaller.

We drive across the Oregon landscape.
The sky is full of clouds.
The rains have engendered many more greens this year than usual: the stark greens of moistness as well as the lighter sage-greens of the arid grasslands.
The vistas are vast and unbroken.
It is thrillingly beautiful.
But in looking for words that start with a certain letter, my mind comes up with words like "grass","road", "shrub", "divider line", "barn", "tractor", "grass", "house", etc.
My words are so feeble and child-like even as I pass through one of the most aesthetically variegated places in the world.

A book is a brick, a weapon of a kind

Feelings are not true or false, but always changing. Describing feelings is like describing clouds. There are several obvious types of clouds, but often we see a skyscape of various intermediary kinds. When we look a little later, things have changed.

I want to understand the world in an interesting and communicable way that makes sense to me (and people like me).
I wish to avoid silly or fatuous assumptions, like the existence of a God.
I also want to eschew delusions I believe primarily because that's what I want to think.

If I want to know about say fossils, or strength of materials, I test them. If I want to know about people, I cannot trust what they tell me.

In moments of weakness my values begin to look like personal peculiarities.

It is both tragic and unexpected that in today's world we can not protect basic human rights for women in Islamic countries.
It is incomprehensible that Islamic women don't seem to care.

Lawyers are the governmental thugs.
Lawyers do not ask nicely, "Would you stop doing this?" They tell you to stop and threaten you with dire consequences.
(In the horrific legal voice.)

Love serves a function, but that is not why it originated or why it perseveres.
And that is not how it feels.
It feels like something that you want to do.

Modern food is about the packaging.

Movies count; quality time counts.
Sleep, airplane rides, the commute, walking down the street don't count.

Movies hijack the emotions.

Practices I once naively believed were behind us - stoning, cutting off hands, torture, death for apostasy - are back, both in the Islamic world and to a lesser degree, in the West.
Intolerance is also back, as a virtue!

The experienced world is a mix of whatever happens on the outside and everything I bring to it from the inside.
That usually includes a whole world of fantasy and desires.

Values are what we value.
And the value of something is influenced by those around us.

Well that's one way to look at me.

Why can't we all get along: pork is considered impure by both Muslims and Jews.

Why do we believe that there could be telekinesis? (It never works.)

Attractiveness between the sexes is a social cement between generations and classes and cultures.

How do we use meaningless statements in conversation?
We pretend they have meaning.

How or what should you debate with religious people?

I think we all understand prayer, bowing to Mecca, going on a pilgrimage, thanking God, lighting a candle, burying the dead.

Males not only want to surround themselves with pretty woman, but also with attractive guys, in whose posse we would be honored to ride. It doesn't matter so much what they say to each other.

People's comments about movies they have seen are made to invoke a shared, pleasant experience.

Sometimes we buy a regimen — or a set of dos and don'ts.
Sometimes we like to give things up: we sacrifice: honey, money, habits.
(This is tied in with the very nature of causality.)

The cost of doing nothing is climbing; corporations are buying up everything and charging a lot of money to use it.

The quick and constant bobbing dance of heads and eyes as people pass each other by.

The world is a partially and badly decorated conventional house, one with say, a Spanish or an early American theme.

The world is not the way it is when you are thinking about it.

We now watch feelings on TV.
We treat them as news

Human beings lie. They hesitate, think and lie to you.

How would a modern fight with bows and arrows differ from an older bow fought the battle of Agincourt?

I realize I am being subtly rejected by, and rejecting, males as well. This has been hidden because I don't desire men. Ah well. Beauty is a game I do not play well.

If our opposition consists of religious people and movie watchers, then the appeal to a book is bound to fail.

Just because you can be happy in extreme poverty, does not mean that poverty is not bad.
(Just because you can be happy when you have cancer, does not mean that cancer is not bad.)

Kids accept the world and the families in which they grow up.

Look at all the security guards and police officers.
We need more of us to control ourselves..

People grow up ignorant of their situation.
They do not know the pain nor the dangers.
What can they compare it to?

The Internet, like the newspaper, seems like it contains everything.
The stories it shows us seems like all the world's news.
Yet important things are happening that will change the world, and we don't know at all what they are.

The salt-shaker as a tool To see it as something else may be difficult and desirable but it is not the actual point of the salt-shaker.
A salt-shaker should look like a salt-shaker and not a sugar-bowl or a pepper shaker.
A hammer should look like a hammer and not like a book or a banana although someone could create a hammer in those forms.

There are things I can't multitask on, like answering a serious question.

There are zones of ambiguity in all human relations.

We understand the world through language and metaphors.

You identify with you own attractiveness.
It is mine, I am attractive.

What will people think . . . next?

If God were good and kind he wouldn't care if you believed in him.

If there were a device that would always broadcast in real time exactly what you were thinking, would you turn it on?
Perhaps you would fake liking a person, or deliberately displace your attention.

Moral rules are rules of thumbs..

Perhaps it is more moral not to believe in God.
The evidence is far too sketchy.

Please don't think that god can talk to you.
It is another part of yourself that is talking you.

Racisms: US founded by blacks, whites and Indians, not Asians, Vietnamese and Filipinos.
We think they are opportunistic interlopers, they have not been a part of the story.
(What do they think?)

Remember, the world is full of poor people, with almost no resources to weather a storm.

So utilitarianism doesn't work?
What does?

The banks and large companies are buying up all the real estate in the world!

We watch ourselves.
We judge ourselves.
We take an interest in ourselves, and root for ourselves, they way we root for our favorite teams.

Whatever I think about I think I may be avoiding thinking about something else.

You don't become moral because you join a church.
You join a church because you are moral.
You don't do good works because you join a church.
You join a church because you want to do good works.

An epistemic commandment:
It is morally wrong to believe something without adequate supporting evidence.

Can there be a religion with no imaginary beings and no silly stories?

God would not want you to believe that he exists on the silly inadequate evidence at our disposal.

If I need to find a set of principles to reconcile myself to the universe and to other people's beliefs about the universe,
then I also need a political theory, to reconcile myself to the actions of the governments and my attitude towards them, and to other people's beliefs in them,
as they exist in the world in which I live.

In the city, I travel around in schools (of cars). I turn when they turn. I stop when they stop.

Love is genuine acceptance and accidental compatibility: Most relationships are not based on love.

Our over regulated, law-driven world will not go away on its own.
So now what?

Perhaps, if an other is in the mood, I can toss off a sequence of zingers that will make your mind stumble, but your mind will reassert itself; it will talk itself back into making sense.
People just won't abandon their mind-set.

Philosophy is mentally accommodating myself to the world around me and finding a place in it.

Religion in primitive religion is a kind of mental health to avoid going nuts.
It is frightening out there.
Perhaps nature can be cajoled.

Religion works for us.
Religion plays upon a deep genetic level of trust.

Sages are examples of happy old humans.
The message is that one should be like them by believing the things they believe.
The message is that significant and complete happiness can be found in quiet contemplations apart from the world.

Some of morality is reigning yourself in.
Some is letting yourself go.

Sports — the goals are clear The results are too.
All can appreciate your agility, cunning and grace.
This is different than life.

The fact that people play a lot of video games (or watch a lot of television) simply demonstrates that people have a lot of leisure time.

The false experiences of films: The event may not have happened, there is no viewpoint, and it is not how you would have experienced it at the time.

Trouble with living in a culture is that after a while the specifics of the culture seem like human nature.

We have little sympathy for person caught in our laws.
Cat Stevens could not enter America.
No one was concerned that we might could be wrong.
No one was able to make that call.

What is the morality of religious leadership? What is the morality of religious followership?

NO REWARD for good deeds?

Why is it ok to be "addicted" to reality shows, shopping, chocolate or football, but not to drugs?

I constantly construct a narrative for my feelings.

In a bad relationship you cannot seek out someone else for love or intimacy, even if you are being but denied these things by your partner

It takes a while for my thoughts, or a description of my experiences, to find the proper reflection in words.
When it finally happens, things are suddenly completely obvious.

People need rules and regulations to define themselves and evaluate their behavior.
Morality is like the rules in sports.

People who stay together in spite of the fact they are grumpy assholes evince a certain amount of love.
You take care of a spouse like take care of a kid, or a sick old dog.

Public radio fills your mind with stories of Afghanistan so you can engage in a public conversation, not about what I feel and what happened to me today

There are two different kinds of television shows: The one time drama (the movie) which is over in two hours, and the on-going series or sitcom which is never over but where nothing essentially changes.
Neither are true to life.
Both are a more interesting than life and a welcome diversion from it.

When you are young you read for excitement: You want more world, you want to be re-assured the world is not as dull and disappointing as it feels.
When you are old you read for it to make sense.
You want to remember the deep power that swelled up and carried you forward in your youth.

Why do so many religions ask you to give up fun things?
Is it because fun is not a good guide in life?

A bureaucrat can be mean by applying regulations.
Especially when there are too many regulations to be followed at any one time.

All sadness and depression about the state of the world has a personal component.
We can fix the world or we can adjust the person.

Buying and selling stocks is not work.
Standing up and checking groceries is work.

Do the drugs make me viscerally open to things, or do they simply give a more profound feel to every trivial contact?

Government regulation is always crisis management.

I am not sure that the essential weirdness of human consciousness, the repetitive thoughts, the micro-obsessions that give us comfort, can be adequately captured in words, or that we would recognize it if it were.
This is certainly not the picture we have of ourselves.

I thought narrow minded religious fundamentalists were a temporary, fading phenomenon, soon to be wiped off the map by a nuanced education. It turned out that it was nuanced education that was wiped off the map.

If everyone carried their high school's picture on a lanyard we could better see who they really are.
But people would still hide themselves and dissimulate.

It's a lot easier to believe in something as stupid and impossible to conceive as heaven, than to accept that what was once here, and you loved more than anything else, is now gone forever and there is nothing you can do about it.

Music is a good example of Platonic ideals.

My concern with the world news blinds me to the small kindness to be performed and received locally.

My mind is constantly digging drainage canals of thought.

Our world swings back to rely on old and dangerous psychic aids: religion, violence, bluster, puffery, war-dance, personal daemons, millennial feelings of exaggerated importance (end of world so normal thinking does not rule), the failure to believe in a future, downplay humanity of others, preaching to the choir / arming the choir, the notion of a nation, appeals to trust the government.

There are many forces conspiring so that we do not talk honestly and openly about ourselves: lawyers, politically correct, appropriateness, shame, fear, powers to conform, others don't want to hear it, sinful,

There's no regulatory oversight to see if there are too many regulations.

Think about the formation of ice.
Today we understand the formation of ice on terms of temperature.
In the past the ice goddess came and sealed the pond with ice, perhaps to guard it against the ravages of the god of cold, Myothor.
We had an anthropomorphic story that is mysterious and beautiful.
You would wake up In the morning and you would think: "Ahh the ice goddess has been here, and so close to where I live." Now we see that the formation of ice is correlated to temperature.
The world we understand now is essentially different.
It is a world without ice goddesses.
Although freezing of water no longer change our behavior, it is more poetic to have Thelma (The Frigid Woman of the Far North) mysteriously cover our pond with ice than it is for atoms to combine into a sheet of ice crystals floating on top of the water.

We are animals of understanding.

We constantly hear about the fanatic Muslims.
But it is not all Muslims who are dangerous, just a group of organized fanatics with guns, who successfully intimidate far beyond their numbers.

What did the first music sound like?
It had to be a kind of chanting, as musical skill could not develop before music itself.
Did it develop before the rise of language?

What is the role of our misunderstanding and delusions in human life? Misunderstandings about the world, misunderstandings about other people and other cultures?

What is there to figure out?

When I can see myself clearly in the course of my day, I see I have many repetitive emotions and thoughts I cannot write down, as they are petty, inappropriate, highly particularized to my life, nearly unconscious and often extremely stupid.
I may have emotions without many conscious thoughts as well.

Why do we think that life would be better if it weren't so cerebral?

You learn more by watching the way the world than by understanding the world. What it is always trumps what you think it is.

Movies — the shared experience. You have to be there, and for $9.00 you can. Well, $18.00 for two.

Health articles tell us to do this and don't do that.
Modern laws tell us not to do this and not to do that.
Is this the contemporary version of religious taboos?
Humans are comfortable going through life not doing this and not doing that.

In fine art, the painter paints and the customer buys.
Where is the meaning here? What is the point?

My sickness may be(come) the autistic child, the dying father, the invalid wife that absolves us from trying to be ourselves.
"There there.
You don't have to try anymore."

People startle and frighten us.
We may be thinking over a complex set of thoughts.
Someone asks us "How are you?" We reply "OK."
And no one is the wiser.

The concept of nation is both a legal description and boundaries, yet it still embodies the old ties of tribal loyalties.

We have a new taxation unit of "Starbuckian" coffee for important social initiatives that cost us one cup per day.
It's the only taxation unit our American minds can deal with.

We need energy to sit.
We need energy to listen to music.
We need energy to rest.
We need energy to perceive.

We skip over vast stretches of our life.
Like the ripples of a brook, like waves in the ocean, most of the world remain undercover and unrecorded, including most experiences of most people all the time, including both the obsessively trivial and the deep thoughts

What about giving an epistemological quotient for our facts?

What kind of a statement is: "I should be more upset than I am."?

What's classified is the information about how weak the classified information is.

Why do primitive people think that animals the harbinger of meaning?

You know a person.
You know a person over time.
Can you therefore predict a society over time? I think not.
Think of water.
How can you predict ice, or clouds? Think of dirt.
Can you predict mud-slides, or volcanic uprising?

"Freedom is not free" is not a tautology but a pun. It is like saying "bravery is not brave" or "helpfulness is not helpful."

A variety of plans are always going on in the back of the mind.

Among the simple rules of life:

  1. Don't rock like an autistic.
  2. Zip up your zippers.
  3. Don't be too fucking happy.

Can the truth be told in small sentences?
Parts of the truth can.

Criticism doesn't matter on our limbic responses to mass media.

Even unattractive people have their sexual morals.

In the art museums, you are inside the hypnodome.

Is it possible to understand without desire?
If there is no self interest then, for example, what is the point in understanding springtime?

It's not only that the sculpture of the Buddha itself is large, but also that people cared enough, and dedicated enough resources, to make such a large sculpture.

Never think you're thinking well on a good day.
Never think you're thinking well on a bad day.

Not only is the experience of art defined by what we bring to it,
so is everything else.

On almost any subject, the best information will be found in a book.
We should read books because books are where knowledge is located.

Talking has been outsourced to writing.
This is convenient.

The hope of engineering: we can master the problems.
Toss us the variables.

The world is local phenomenon (a small subset).
And even locally there are countless things we don't know.

There are things we don't collect: great cobwebs, artistic mouse droppings, cool stains.

To stay some place is to define myself in the eyes of others and to accept myself as I am seen therein.

Traveling is usually a good education.
How can schools be made more like traveling?

We blow our own concerns way the fuck out of proportions.

We don't need to hear the commentary on sports; we do on arts.

We know very little about out local world.
If a sign or a person tells us we can't go there, we don't go there.
We accept that, and unconsciously define our local world as the local public world.

What if everything was there and available on line: all books, all music, all movies, all art works, including ones is the back rooms of museums? What would you pay for a few hours inside the eosphere (or hypnodome)?
And what would you do?

What would be different if I had essential insight, if I understood the world?
I would still enjoy the beauty of nature, the erotic world, food.
Wouldn't there always be a horizon of ignorance, the undiscovered parts of the world?

Why is religious language so dated?

Among all the many artists working today are the true artists.
Among all the writers writing are the great and true writers.
Among all the musicians are the musicians.

Courage: something that should be done, and something that I have to do.

Fat people - amidst all the talk of overweight people and overweight kids lies the fact that we are not attracted to fat people.

Hippies and Goths have no association with anything existing in the culture.
Hippies not grow into big super adult hippie.
Goths do not grow into elder Goths.

I assumed that primitive society was a state of man that had almost passed out of existence, and that modern man had attained moral and intellectual superiority over the so-called primitive tribes.
But modern societies are still pray to all the foolishness, threats, superstitions, thuggery and power games that exist in the so-called primitive societies.

If privacy is partly the belief that our basic nature causes disgust in others, it also implies that this disgust is salutary.

If you have no attention span you miss so much.

In the intellectual world, we each have our theorists, who in turn have their theorists.
No one uses ALL the theorists.

It's remarkable that as human we don't have a universal conceptual structure.

Maybe no one understands the world because we're just not smart enough to understand the world.

Perhaps the only way we can escape our contemporary idiotic leadership is: (1) an inspired, Charismatic leader, or (2) a new religion.

Profiling is taking something not illegal as an indicator of something illegal.

Sports as an early kind of fame.

The limbic system may be judge and jury in my mind, but it is not presenting the case.

There is the insight.
There is the judgment that it is a good insight.
There is the judgment that insight is good.

Thoughts in real life must account for or at least deal with the unexpected happening of the things that happen.

We can talk about the role of desire and the role of envy, or we can talk about our desire or our envy.
We can talk about understanding or epistemology or we can talk about our understanding or our epistemology.

We don't know how we work because our taboos prevent us from talking and accepting us the way we are.
Plus, we lie.

What connects us is not reason, but a feeling and a feeling about that feeling.

When I spoke to her and took her up on her sayings, she fumbled around on the follow-up.
We all do.
Our best ideas become crocheted pillow.

Driving to work i turn off the radio as usual but I have NO thoughts.
I don't know why.
And I don't know why I don't know why.
And I don't know why I don't know why I don't know why.
Why are we so self-unconscious?

I buy books.
I can buy them quickly and almost without thinking.
What is going on?

If religious fundamentalism, torture and words like "blasphemy" can return to our world, why not "aristocracy" and "feudalism"?

In nearly every culture before the Twentieth Century, it was a source of pride and amazement that any people could survive in their environment, with the danger and difficulty of the environment and with the fear and paranoia the mind is prey to.
Today survival is no longer an individual achievement.
Our existence as a species would be a significant group achievement.

Landscapes are like people — when are new to them the you see the possibilities and beauty.
Later, the landscape and people will remind of you of all the experiences things that have taken place there.

Philosophy books usually begin with a good title and it's downhill from there.
I get no insight on truth by reading a philosophy book called Truth.
A book called Knowledge and Understanding is almost never about our knowledge and our understanding.
It is usually arguments over some other person's theory of knowledge, often based on a trivial instance of truth, like "The cat in on the mat."

Speaking of hypertext, decent linking, while it can only be done on computers, is something that cannot be done well by computers.

The bad news drives out the good news.

The Internet may eventually be able to put world of information in every home.
It will then be an alternative to the older system of authoritative knowledge, the kind of knowledge that exists in fat books and journals, and which is monitored, reviewed and praised by universities and presses.
This also highlights the fact that there is such a system.

The world is being dominated by fundamentalist assholes, who do not honor the phrase "point of view."

We have our inner Google, the inner search engine we click with our attention.

Were our ancient ancestors happy to be living on the savanna, with lovely days and lots of sex.
Or were they cold, hungry, scared, and pushed around by bullies and thugs?

What aspects of your mind does your mind take seriously?
What part of the mind judges the superego to be more or less important than the limbic system?

Where are the "right to life" people on the killing of civilians in the Middle East? They should be horrified!

Although our world appears more uniform, its diversity persists in the immense inner diversity represented in the media and the Internet.

America is many things.
It is:

  1. a government
  2. a historical nation
  3. a place, a landmass on the earth
  4. the environment and culture in which I live out most of my brief life.

An interesting fact about primitive tribes is how different they were from each other.

Given the vast accumulations of art objects from all cultures at their disposal, do the items on display in museums express more the current taste of the curators than the prevailing taste of the original culture.

Gods really like to be worshiped, treated in a customary way, similar to how we would treat humans.

How many rich American people were born rich?

I think without thinking that a party is a place to show myself, and to meet others.
Others may be just going through their party motions.

If I had no books, history would be whatever I thought it would be, or, perhaps, whatever the community thought it would be.

In the cities we have worked out behaviors and boundaries so we don't interact with each other.
We run in our private ant-colony.

It feels good for people to venerate and to worship.
It feels good to work hard to please a god in a common cause

It would be interesting to spend a year among unattractive people.
After a year, would some of them become more attractive?

Making a religious statue is just something you do.
It is like honoring the dead.
There is no great reasoning involved.
People get upset if you don't.

Maybe human life is, essentially a predicament (a "difficult, perplexing, or trying situation"), both objectively in fact and subjectively in experience? Fine.
Now why can't we all agree on that?

Our actions and adventures may well bear spiritual fruit, but from just looking at a tree, we have no idea what kind of fruit, if any, it will bear.

Politically correct actually means politically risk free, or even politically expedient.

Primitive people don't explain using science.
Instead they tell little stories to shut people up.
Things are explained as actions of the gods.

References to books in conversation are seldom more incisive than references to a movie. "Did you read ______________.? Wasn't that a great book!"

Religion: It's not a question of giving it up but of spelling it out.

The blue jay does not have a history of the invasion of it's territory by humans.

The city, for all its ugliness, is in the end the natural state of man: the packed dirt, the dung, the hut and corral.
Love it or leave it, if you can.

The incisive scepticism of Hume is in every bookstore.
So what?

The large figures of gods and parents are like large parents

The media could enhance love: by treating all human life as one.
Instead media increases sectarian tendencies and sectarian tendencies of indifference.

The next generation will always take the last generation's precious intellectual keepsakes to the thrift store.
After all, it didn't work.

There are fashions of understanding,

To stop using the vague philosophical words, like Logical Positivism asks us to do, would be like taking a vow of silence.
We would be reduced to gestures.

We are embodied beings.
If you endanger our bodies, we react predictably.

We have a cult of super-personality: super good looking people, super articulate people, super powerful people.
We have industries consisting of small groups of people to create these illusions.
We wind up with super saints and super sinners.

We have made the world ugly with our lumpy asphalt, electric wires, and small crumbling garages.

We like to answer questions.

We make our peace with death.
Certain numbers of deaths are normal and acceptable.
When war or epidemics change those numbers, we become upset.

We talk about deep things (spirituality, reason, religion) in word so broad they are almost but not actually meaningless.

What did you discover from experimenting with drugs?

When did "inappropriate" become "sinful" or "morally wrong"? We might suggest that something may not be appropriate, and fit in to the situation. But this makes it gauche, not immoral. Who can say that something is never appropriate? (Another way we are slouching towards secular fundamentalism.)

When you are young thirty years is hard to distinguish from forever.
"But honey, we only have 70 more years to live...!"

When you harm the bodies, especially when you harm the bodies of the children and those the body want to protect, the results on adult humans are predictable.

Why do we want to be rational, and act with good reasons?
It may help calm our fellow beings.
It tells them we are not indulging in a display of will, we are not crazy and we have set our actions in context, they are part of a bigger picture; there is no need to be concerned or afraid .
Giving arguments, and being amenable to reason, is a part of what makes us human.
It sets us apart from wild animals, who do not explain themselves in reasons.

Why doesn't everyone who takes it seriously see it the same way?
We see the world through an interpretation
We highlight different sets of facts
We prefer a simple if incorrect explanation to the messy truth.

Working on a house, decorating on a house is a kind of waiting for something.
So is so much of what we do.
It is better to think of it as what we do.

We are raised in the small picture.

We use words and behavior as normative checks: ways of seeing if you are normal and "if you are one of us." There are many kinds of normative behaviors: ways to dress, ways to talk, tone of voice, greetings, gestures, distances to stay apart, eye contact, etc. We can do whatever we want as long as it does not harm others or unless it triggers a normative check.

"You can't stay high all the time." The world experienced in understanding is nor the permanent state of being in the world. The permanent state is not one of being experienced.

A young person experiences and discovers the aspects of their culture.
An older person also experiences and discovers the constant change within that culture

Although culture is honored with hardly a second thought, culture, like language, can be a divisive force among people.

Attractiveness is a kind of self-esteem.

Being a Christian involves learning how to take any statement in the Bible, no matter how ridiculous, and justify it.

Can we say that a group of beings are "human" if they do not have a language?
How can a group of beings display their humanity without having a language?
They could display hospitality.
And by extension they could demonstrate intelligent care, love, and concern.
So they could care about you.

Did we have the concept of hospitality before we had rules of hospitality?

Difference of opinion, in values, politics and religion, should be seen more as differences of taste.
It's not that one is side is right and the other side is wrong.

I see the hawk sitting on the telephone pole, looking, looking.
Why would prehistoric people identify and honor a predator? Is it that a predator commands your full attention and respect? Perhaps at some point in the past, we saw the hawk, a casual killer, as a paradigm for something in life.

Improving Google News II: Real news, not fluff.
Democracy may work in government or in capitalism's appeal to the greatest market, but democracy does not work on knowledge.
People don't care and can't distinguish learning or news from entertainment.
They like news that appeals to the limbic system involves sex, killing, scary things, people they know, stupid things.
If we could put tags on news topics, we could see the kind of news that appeals to us.
I would like to see a Google News of "significant" news, or news tagged as "meaningful."

Improving Google News III: The special case of science.
Science is not news in the usual sense.
Science is my nature on ongoing discussion with peer reviews, duplication and refutations.
It is a sequence of events.
And current practices of reference are too cumbersome.
I suggest that each scientific article be given a unique number, something like an ISBN number.
Later discussion of an article would reference the article by its unique number.
In that way the sequence of discussion would be trackable by search engines.

Intelligence is not always intelligent:
Consider game playing, crossword puzzles, and coaching sports, where the end results are not all that important.

Kids can embarrass their parents and parents can embarrass their kids.
The tie between kids and their parents is a two-way thing.

On Israel's right to exist: If a tribe of well-armed Native Americans with a legitimate historical claim (like the Lenni Lenapes) had taken over New Jersey in 1947, would the US have forgotten and forgiven this by now?

Reading the opening chapters of Deuteronomy , the oldest book in the Bible, I see that religion defended itself against backsliding from the very beginning.
It could not be defending itself against reason, because this was before "reason" became a concept.
Perhaps it was defending itself against other voices of authority, whether they came from family or friends.

Religion encourages certain subsets of emotion: anger, revenge,

Some things are very hard to think about impartially.

Something is not news just because everyone is interested in it.

The trouble with political correctness is that "weight challenged" really means "fat."

There are still many situations where one's physical endowments are an asset.

We can't live with actual people.
We much prefer to watch their entertainments, or to talk with them on a phone.
Why is that?

Wealth created through rising housing values has nothing to do with a person's anything.

What are some of the things you never find out in your lifetime?
The impact you had on your kids.
The actual impact your mother had on you.
(She is the only mother you ever had.) The constraints imposed on you by the society in which you live.

When we meet people, we never say "Hey I find you attractive!" even though that is a common experience.

When we retire they won't let us run the world anymore.

Why is it no longer socially important to seek love or world peace?
Why do we not know why things change? Or even recognize that the standards of acceptability have changed.

Why is it not enough for our culture to be easy (safe), civilized and tolerant (a bargain where no one takes anything too seriously)?
Maybe they don't see it that way.

As we move about the world we are constantly readjusting our attention, though not necessary our points of views.
Why then don't we think the same things? There is an element of randomness and happiness to our thoughts.

At twenty, life is too involving and full, to think you are going to die in just sixty years.

Do we need feelings of mystery to live in the world?

  • the feeling of the inexplicable
  • the feeling of being special
  • the feeling someone may be attracted to me
  • the feeling of understanding
  • the feeling of living forever
  • the feeling of being loved
  • the feeling of being lucky

Evolution is key to understanding of human behavior, morality, genetics and life itself.
In targeting evolution, religion is targeting science.
Perhaps science has religion backed into a corner.

False religion makes false claims and present false knowledge about things it cannot be sure about.
False religion makes false promises, about things like life after death.
No one actually knows about life after death.
False religion talks about life in the future: no one knows the future.
False religion gives simplistic answers.
Simplistic answers are always wrong.

If pets are people made simple (people we can manage, people whose needs we can satisfy) then games and (in a different way) celebrities are also people made simple.

If you have a religion that doesn't believe we are all equal, or doesn't respect life, it is hard to call it a religion at all.

Music and books show us a world of people who are out there thinking and feeling.

On teaching at-risk students: Do we really not know what these kids need?

Religion is the story we tell ourselves, when we don't have any better explanations.
Nature makes us feel "spiritual," but that can be explained.
Science is currently eroding many the role of religion in providing a scientific understanding of life, morality, consciousness, and music.

Religion uses its old and successful ploy of siding with the dictators, conservative nationalists who want to keep everything just the same, as it serves their interests.

Religions caters to our ego by telling use we are super-special: Life has a purpose.
I am here for a reason.
(I am on a mission, from God)

Religions make unwarranted claims of intellectual sovereignty.

Risk is the same as not knowing the future

Some books you want to read.
Some books you want to have read.

Some people do not want to consider history, economics, mile in his shoes, loving your neighbor, frustration, poverty, racism, colonialism, xenophobia: they do not want to deal with complications.

Teaching gets in the way of thinking about teaching.

The poverty of religion is that it can't distinguish between moral injunctions like "love thy neighbor" and "you shall not kill" and non-moral injunctions like "don't curse" and "gay marriage is bad."

The scientific attitude has a spiritual side: it is true to the facts, and being open to the way things are.

There are a greater variety of self-selected crowds in the city.

There are no wise men.
We want there to mean wise men, people of supernatural power and alternative wisdom.
We portray them in movie all the time, where magicians and demons can easily be made credible, by the power of suggestion.
We desire to believe it, we want to believe it so much that we are willing to take almost nothing as evidence: we accept visceral criterion of feelings.

Three boys in a field, with enemies all around.
The enemies kill them.
For the boys do not only belong to themselves, they belong to the tribe and the country.

To pray is to cleanse yourself, wash, purify and refresh yourself, reorient yourself, receive strength and forgiveness.

True religion is not about following rules, it's about doing the right thing.

True religion reveals a unity among thing.
True religion embeds us in the universe and on the earth, where we live.
True religion shows us beauty.
True religion reveals a connectedness with all mankind as equals.
True religion gives us strength.
True religion does not kill.

We cannot think about Islam or religion, or people, if all we think is negative.
What is the true good Islam? What is the true good Christianity?

What is the worlds-slowest snap judgment?

What would people be like who actually knew just what they wanted all the time, or who knew why they felt the way they felt all the time? Would they be human?
What about people who always knew how other people felt.

You could go with the theory that's you're not going to connect to anyone at a party: connecting is what blogs, poetry, books, friendships and tête-â-têtes are for. But then what are you going to do at a party? Talk about your pets?
Then it's not a party.

Although we don't believe in myths, we are intrigued by them.
It is as though the only the myths we have seen are the fictional ones, but the real ones are out there somewhere!

Has math and literature become less relevant over time?
We don't need math for building or cooking.
Our bank balances our checkbooks.
Reading too has many alternatives as well as many competing entertainments.

It is funny how everyone has answers to life's great problems: what should we do about schools, how should we raise our kids, what should we do about crime, does God exits, what is God like, what does God want, what is the right way to be?

It's one thing to help students who want to be helped, it's another thing to help students who don't want to be helped. Sometime the student wants to accomplish the task you set in the easiest way possible.

Most people don't really believe in a god who will punish these people, otherwise why are they so obsessed with doing it themselves?
Why are the people who believe in God so vigilantitudinous?

Philosophy is virtual confusion.

Religion is like an early constitution.

Video game playing is all about taking foolish risks.

We can think/speak in celebrities as well as gifts, song, album covers, and clothing.

We get hung up on the rule and not the reason, the procedure and not the point.

We make friends, we interact with people, very slowly and carefully, because once the process begins, it takes over.
All we can do is not get on the ride.

What if I live in a world where everyone was hipper and smarter than me.
They listened to their own clever music, and had read many great books that "you have to read."
I would be isolated.
I would say my little piece: "blah-blah-blah..." and they would simply trump me.
"Have you read Gigglesby on that?" or "Terry Pratchett is good.
But have you read the hundred volumes of Rudy Frond? He's Australian."

Why do we need answers to big questions?
Well, that's a big question.
Do we seek answers as a Pavlovian response to the high pleasure of understanding/comprehension, of the world fitting together, free of the pain of being confused and having to puzzling things out.

You can have a just dictatorship or a just totalitarian state, and you can have an unjust and unfair democracy.

In pre-modern Japan and other cultures we can see people made mad by grief; they do, feel and say strange things. In today's world we give special credence to the words and feelings of those who have been addled by grief. We cannot see they have gone mad.

Academics could be set up more like a sport:
We could call it Wit and Entertainment.

Being born into poverty, or falling into poverty, it seems as though we are paying a game, badly.
And we have lost.
But there is not really a game here.
And it is never a fair game.

Driving to work in the cold icy weather, I think that if the farmers here can get up and face this cold, so can I.
But there are not many farmers here anymore, and I am not sure that the ones left get up very early.
We who are here now are the follower of farmers, followers of those who lived here before us.

Drug testing is demeaning because reason plays no role in carrying out the policy.

Given the growing overvaluation of sports in our society,
and the way it has become embedded in our educational systems,
I think that instead of talking about Sophomores, Juniors and Seniors,
we should talk about C-Squad, Junior Varsity and Varsity.

I worry so much about the artificial world of movies, the world of television, the world of news, the world of rap.
Perhaps I should also focus on the artificial world of books, the world of the Enlightenment, and the world of civilized men.

I worry too much about how I impress,
not enough about what I express.

If I thought of Socrates or Lao Tzu or Buddha primarily in racial terms that would be wrong.
If I thought of Virginia Woolf primarily in gender terms, that would also be wrong.

If one bad customer can ruin the day of one employee, then one bad day can ruin your image for other people in the world.

In an analysis of Schubert's "Moment musicaux" William Kinderman writes:
In the fourth piece, the expressive contrast of the principal sections is striking: a moto perpetuo in C sharp minor in a stratified Baroque texture is interrupted by a soft, ethereal theme in the major reminiscent of a dance, which recurs fleetingly before the conclusion.
Why is an analysis of something as abstract as music so concrete, while criticism of a movie is vague and mostly general?

In the sense that most sounds consist of many sounds,
my life dance consists of many dances.

Is civilization just a dream? a shared dream?

Is language just a hunting tool?

It's amazing we have such a badly thought out non-existent concept of heaven and still want it so bad. On second thought, that is why we want it so bad.

Looking at scholars solve problems is not as viscerally interesting as watching a football player catch a difficult pass, but what is we had a team of people solve a MacGyver kind of problem, with negative physical consequences for failure.
(Call it "Civilization.")

My days are full of microevents, the things you do while you aren't really doing anything interesting.

One of the major lessons of history is that we don't really know the facts or the meaning of history: such things are always open to discussion.
By extension, this is true for our time as well.

People may have an addiction not to the drugs, but to a need for alternative consciousnesses.

Perhaps fantasies are the staging ground of desire and motivation.

Since majority of our values are not reasonable, values generally are not grounded in reason.
Values are handed to us.

Some problems can't be solved with only good attitudes: You probably can't solve the overpopulation problem only by being nice to people because people love to have kids.
You will need to permit some draconian circumstances, because only that will work to alleviate population pressure.

The poor put up with the rich because they can't do a damn thing about it.

Throughout history and pre-history people have buried things in graves.
These have proved valuable to us, in the afterlives of the afterdwellers.

We are always overwhelmed by our surrounding circumstances.

We're loaded with care, but we don't exactly know what to care about.
We care about people, the poor, the oppressed, god, the troops, animals, nature, ourselves?
We lend our care out freely to songs, to tearjerkers, to sympathetic stories on TV.
We should care about people.
But people don't live up to our fantasies of people.

Why do all cultures have myths and fairy tales when not a single one of them is true?

Young people do not know that the Sixties took place right here,
even though there is no historical marker.

Why aren't rich people more sympathetic to poor people?

Any reasoned approach to morality threatens our sacred taboos.

Being sick and being in traffic jams vanish from consciousness quickly.

Computers can only search in written words, while humans can also search in sounds and in images.

God and Jesus didn't say stoning was cruel and unusual punishment, God is into cruel and unusual punishments.

Having pets, raising a family take place in a perceive zone of free choice
I may indeed be satisfying a need, but that makes no difference.
Satisfying a need is more than enough for most people

Humans have a survival issue not because there's not enough of us.
It's because there's too many of us, and we don't know how to get along with each other.

In the city, a half-second scan of looking at another person is acceptable.
This is processing time.
Any more than that becomes significant, either flattering or creepy.

Intellectually and spiritually we know that people are all the same but still we have categories of special people: family, friends, tribe, and nation

Movies often say that life is a sensory overload.
Is because commercial movies themselves are a sensory overload?

Perhaps the only way we can become caring people would be if we would actually feel another person's pain.

Remarkably, the only power strong enough to counterbalance our ever-encroaching laws, are religious taboos.

The structures of our minds developed without self-consciousness.
Self-consciousness arose to adjudicate processes.

The symbolic logic of movies: When we see a movie (or read a book) and we come across a gun, it is significant.
In life, if we see a knife or a gun it does not mean that it will be used.

There's an educational aspect to the readily availability of porn.

Through our limited tunnels of urban contacts, we keep our fish ponds small.

To say that something is hardwired into our brain is a metaphor: the brain is consistency of oatmeal and there are no wires to speak of.

We have family slot in our brain, as we have tribal slot in our brain.
We're not aware we have these slots.
In practice these are seen as moral and social obligations.

What extent do we all participate in the power (hopes, dreams, delusions) of the irrational?

When I think about the structures of the mind, the genetic slots or behaviors to which we as humans are predisposed, I will always remain in the realm of impressions.
It is like the soft structures of an Oldenburg's sculpture, or like landscape forms, cliffs or a peninsulas, which are not working parts but common appearances of nature.

Why aren't we all Democrats or all Republicans?

Why do we believe in wise men? Why do we believe there are special men, often strange and illiterate, who can foretell the future and who have strange magical powers?
There are no such people.
Add this to the similar questions:
Why do we believe in fairy tales? Why do we believe in monsters? Why do we believe in myths and celebrities?

Why is it not possible to invent a new part of speech?

You can, amazingly enough, disrespect someone by a gesture.
But what if you really thought that a certain hand gesture would really harm your mother?
That would put it into another realm.

"That mountain is sacred."
That may be irrational but sometimes it is all that keeps that mountain from being plundered.

As humans, we can't stop having babies and making families.
We know it is the root cause of pollution, scarcity, global warming, wars, poverty, exploitation and the destruction of the only environment in which we can live.
But we are out of control.
We cannot admit we have a problem.
We will (politically) kill those who say that we do.

Does self-esteem come from the esteem of others?

I am a philosopher: an expert on things we do not know.

I don't like to think of myself as a conservative even though I am conservative in many ways.

In books we can see and we can question the motivation and inner-thoughts of the characters.
In films characters are primarily defined in symbols, rather than through their inner thoughts.

It is not prejudice if someone says you are old (or black).
That is just stating the obvious.
Prejudice lies in peoples' reactions to those bits of obvious information.

Muslims can present an understandable critique of decadent western culture.
I can too.
My worry is that if we were to present them with the sophisticated glories of western culture (ecumenicalism, utilitarianism, scientific thinking, tolerance and multi-culturalism)
they would hate that too.

On the news people say "Can the US drive a wedge between Syria and Iran?"
They forget they are talking about government bureaucracies and not usually the ordinary people on the ground.
Instead of saying Syria they might say "the bureaucracy that runs Syria"

Perhaps it is not a question of being smarter, but a question of being more kind.

Perhaps the current rise of interest in movies, especially among the young, is in part because of wanting a shared experience, a shared world, so they can relate over distance texting, chat and emails on computers and cell phones.
Movies are the television shows we no longer have in common.

Perhaps the naturally environment is only aesthetically pleasing when you no longer have to survive in it.

The question is not so much how we evolved
but what behaviors we carry with us.

Reason is not rational.
The decision to use reasons and reasoned argumentation cannot be justified by reasons, as that is precisely the issue under consideration.

Religions, like Judaism (and therefore Christianity) and Islam were built from the start to govern.
Islam was built by a conqueror.
The Jews were a conquering people.

Salespeople have their own religion, one that preaches motivation and success.

The world is full of collective enterprises that are out of control.

There are many things one cannot really show in movies: conversations, people thinking, people reading and the passing time.
In real life these are sources of some of our greatest rewards.

There is an educational aspect to the process of dating and getting close to someone, as you hear their favorite stories and their best anecdotes.
This is difficult to replicate outside the erotic arena.

When people claim that the porn and language on the Internet are "bad for kids," they may not be claiming that anything bad happens to the kids at all.
They think that it is bad for kids and bad for society if those things become acceptable.

Why cannot books supply all the human contact we need?

Why does bad news always trump good news?
I would love to hear when a person does something incredibly romantic for his wife — that's news to me.

Why is it so difficult for me to see what is going on in my own mind?

We want there to be wise men because we want there to be answers.

A path is how we can get somewhere without thinking.

After all is said and done, perhaps all we have at our disposal is our myth-making ability; our salvation is our myth of salvation.

An 800 pound gorilla may be relaxed on the ground.
We are not 800 pound gorillas.

Consciousness is like stumbling upon twenty-pounds of cocaine: it is a gift we don't fully know how to use and often can't integrate properly onto our brutish existence.

Education is not just a piece of paper.
In real education you are enhanced, you have learned something, you understand things better.
(I have received pieces of paper where the latter did not come into play.)

For humans, nothing is simply what it is.

Here is my understanding of the world.
It is based on everything I know.
It harmonizes with everything we can hold in common.

Humans have a deep sense of apocalypse.
Perhaps this is because we are frightened creatures.
We did not evolve courage, just spears, guns and bombs.
If lions could speak, they would not have such strong fears.

I graduated high school in 1965.
It is now 2007.

  • Do we know any more about parenting?
  • Do we know any more about educating?
  • Do we know any more about relating to each other?
  • Do we know any more about loving?
  • Do we know any more about world peace?
  • Do we know any more about finding happiness?
  • Do we know any more about ourselves?

If a philosophical position can be held for centuries with no solution in sight, surely it is not a valid intellectual response to the world.

If all human meetings have a sub-text of relationship, then, put in crude terms, are we all looking to get laid?

in addition to advice and guilt from the super-ego inside, we get a constant stream of advice from the ex-ego, the outside "I" instantiated in the expectations and advice from other people on the outside.

It is too fucking hard not to beg, not to pray, not to throw yourself on the mercy of a god, and not to invoke magic.
Life is too hard not to do those and other strange things that provide us a measure of relief.
I don't know, and I don't care, if such relief is deep or shallow, long or temporary — it is relief.

Language is a form of behavior that puts us at ease.

Music consists of arresting sounds.

No I am not before you, or any man.
Frankly no man is worthy.
I am only before God.

Our motives are usually opaque to us, but we are clever creatures and we can easily make up lots of stories.

Parenting, our ideas of how to raise children, is not a science.
It is closer to a shared delusion, or a communal hysteria.

People treasure their diversity. They like to separate themselves from other people. It's too scary to not.

Perhaps traditional religion is more powerful if our idea of our past is one that is much better than the present.
Then you are missing something.
In the US the good old days not seen as all that much better.
In the Middle East they may yearn for the re-imagined glories of the dominating Islamic Empire

Since we believe in an ethos of personal responsibility and choice, the wellsprings of our actions are hidden from us by our ideology.

The bureaucracy wants to control everything with laws, rules, procedures and regulations.

The contemporary communal horror against say pedophilia or rape affect people in the same way that communal beliefs in curses, spells and voodoo affects people.

To determine our pecking order in the monkey band, we have to have built-in ways to recognize strength.

To understand the world we must reference other people's understandings and its major intellectual movements.

We are a weak and frightened animal, talking trash from the safety of our trees.
We created (stole and not evolved) our superior strength and hence our dominance.
We really can't handle it.

What if our role model isn't real?

When do we say a bureaucrat "over-reacted" to a security scare?

Why do religions place so many restrictions on sexuality? Is it because free sex is the prerogative of the alpha male? Giving up sex is a clear signal you are not in charge.

All old religions, including the major ones, contain many false, primitive, immoral and offensive beliefs.
Is that not true?

Business meetings and business conferences rest on a primitive base: I am an honored guest, a visitor, an important personage.

Do sexual laws against promiscuity go back to pestilences and early forms of venereal disease?

Evolution does not grants us transparency.
We don't know why we feel the way we do.
There is no need for us to know that.
It may be better for us to be deluded.

Evolution does not vote on everything that happens to evolve.

Given that no one knows the future, how can we be so cock-sure about our political positions?
Is it a misplaced sense of the importance of decisiveness?

Here is the kind of news would I like to hear on television:
Intelligent people talking and thinking about the news as it shows up on the wires.
They can disagree and even get excited, but they would then analyze why and how disagreements and emotions could arise between two intelligent people.
Attitude is key: they do not get carried away by the teapot-tempest of the day.
They would treat our news as human comedy; currently it is being treated like soap opera.
"Why is this news?" they would say. Or "This is silly" or "No one is getting hurt", "Why does anyone care about this?" or "This is bureaucratic propaganda."
(Circle-Round TV™)

Hiking in the mountains as in life: you have to force yourself through dull and difficult terrain in order to get to the breathtaking views.

In times of trouble, sex as well as money is a kind of currency.

Is it the fact that we have one feeling at a time that makes us think we have a unified soul?
(instead of the myriad of processes taking place in the "Society of Mind?")

It is so easy for us not to give a shit.
We have no shit-giving about how to treat and feel about our enemies or those who we think threaten us.
(Religion has not been able to change this.)

Most people say what other people might like to hear, things that will make them comfortable, and things that will not embarrass anyone.

Of course we must limit our spending on our troops
as well as our spending on health care.
But politicians cannot say that out loud.

Part of what we may politely call civilization these days is that everyone is pulling in different directions: be polite/be real, be religious/be scientific, more laws/less laws.
The world is currently a mélange.
There are no right answer right now.
It's all contradictions.

The birth of decorating:
Instead of moving to lower Oduvai gorge, we will just decorate our place to like the lower Olduvai gorge.
(They have those funny looking nuts there.)

The contemporary world is an uneasy combination of restrictions with deep eccentricities, contempt and rudeness.

The trouble with a conversational relationship: after a while you get to know the person and their life becomes more interesting than the conversational topics.
(This is how people work.)

We are a culture of massive indifference and overly concerns.
We torture, we lock people up for life, we bomb and accept collateral damage, we impoverish and uproot, all the time while we do not show death on television, notify the families first, respect the pages of the Koran, respect feelings for "closure," react in horror when a house-pet is mistreated, etc.

We may disagree about the importance of physical attractiveness,
but we all have a judgment process about physical attractiveness.
It is working all the time.

We trade off human life all the time.
We accept death in war, in economic competition, in a failure to intervene, but we don't have a theory, a calculus, of when to do this.
Instead we have rule of life-trumping rules: the invisible hand of economics, the needs of war.
Sure these thousands of people died, but they died fair and square.

When they say respect for life
they usually mean
respect for the lives of human beings
and no respect for the lives of the other animals.

Who wants explanations?
We want fun.
We want glamor and sexiness.
We want emotions, weirdness and limbic thrills.
We want vampires.
We want astrology.
We want pet psychics.
We want know-it-alls, we want people who claim they can do what no one can actually do.

Why don't you want an old body dance?
You don't want to have your attention drawn to them.
Who wants to see an old person dance?
This is the source of much of the feelings that concern age-inappropriate behavior.

News of nations and politics: Tales of the Great Bureaucracies

Why do religions spend SO MUCH time on sexual morality? Is it because deep down are we are always thinking about fucking each other?

  • we, humans, like little figures of animals
  • we like figures of the dangerous kind.
  • we like pattern
  • we believe in spirits, and witches
  • we have enemies
  • we like the precious: as technology takes hold we can better mine the precious stones and metals, kill the dangerous animals, and cut the precious woods.
We do all this without thinking about this

After a tragedy, people do strange things:
they award posthumous degrees, tape teddy bears to crosses, bringing roses, fly flag at half mast.
Such things are accepted as an expression of reverence, and are not to be looked at reasonably, no matter how idiotic they may be.
But just what is the point here? If people do get pleasure out of this, surely it is a pleasure that should not be encouraged.

As we change to please, we are at the mercy of the values and standards of the group up to which we aspire to suck.

Education is not primarily a rational process.
When we ask for education to justify itself, it is a sign we have already lost faith in education.

Email, iPods and cell-phones, even though they fully occupy the mind, are not signs of intellect.
The are a sham intelligence — shamtellect if you will.

Even though we are in the most intimate contact with it every day of our lives, humans and human activity are impossible for us to understand.
If that part of life could be figured out by humans, surely it would have been figured out by now.

Given the size of the earth's population you could kill over a billion people, 16%, and it wouldn't make that much of a difference.

How can we prove or disprove whether the world is too hard for us to understand?

How do primates instigate and coordinate collective defense of their territory?

Human behavior changes in primal and unanticipated ways when certain things happen to us:
when we are threatened, when the routine of our life is disrupted.
Sometimes we have no clue that we would react in the way we do.

Human beings, the dominant species on the planet, are actually scared of most animals.

Human history could be seen more objectively if we imagine the events of the past as taking place as among monkeys.
We should think of human concerns and worries were as taking place among troops of chattering, instinct ridden primates, incapable of caring for anyone but themselves and their band.
When we look at a picture of a monkey, we do not bring up the multiple pre-judgments we automatically make whenever we see a picture of a man or a woman or a child.

Humans are suckers for advice: if we do this then this will happen.
But we don't actually know what has an effect or why.
So we will try almost anything.
We will try to life small objects with our concentration.

I would be less irritated by the media coverage of the tragedy at Virginia Tech if people also did this for the tragedies in Iraq.
People in Iraq are no less worthy of compassion and suffer no less than the students and parents of the people in Virginia.
Even we did this just one day a year.

I would think that in a museum of all places conversations would better than average.
At the very least they would try to have an interesting conversation, perhaps about art?!
I would think that being in a museum would dissolve the encrustations of the conventional.
(But I would be wrong.)

If I lived in North Korea and had my family there, I would join the army to defend and to support my family.
Joining the army is never a referendum on the goodness of my country.

If we go to the top of the tallest building, we think:
Here I can see the whole city.
But of course this is not true.
I cannot see what is hidden from me.
I cannot see the details, or the small insects.
I cannot see the experiences of reading a book or watching a movie.

Interfacing with an ineffective bureaucracy is still work, or at least feels like work even when nothing is accomplished.

Is our stupidity evolutionary useful?

Just as the minister in a funeral will often use the event to further his own agenda, so our communal media feelings take over after a tragic event and people are expected to go along with the communal reaction, no matter how unreasoning.

Much of our evolution took place before the development of primates.

People are willing and open to think about personal counseling and self-help.
They are comfortable with talk of guilt, shame, inadequacy, compulsions and neuroses.
But why don't we apply the ideals of counseling and the need for counseling to our sociological entities like organizations, governments, bureaucracies, nation states and media?
These too are all hosts to a varieties of dysfunctionalities.

People find it far too easy to trump reasons with feelings, intuition, revelations, tradition and team spirit.

People have a real tendency to think that because they are watching the game it makes a difference to their team.

Suppose someone were to beam advertising onto the moon.
If I were to protest: The moon is aesthetically powerful, it is unfair to place commercial interest on the moon, etc.
no one would listen.
I would have to say: The moon is sacred! Why is this?
Why is the irrational argument of sacredness more powerful than nuanced reasoning regarding beauty or wilderness?

The hip urban district in which a bookish person like myself would be most comfortable is The University Library District:

  • the district is like a huge reading room
  • surrounded by stacks of academically interesting books
  • with comfortable chairs
  • it siu quiet
  • the books all have bright book jackets that show everyone this topic is something you are interested in
  • no cell phones or email is allowed (go outside if you can't be here)

The recent return of religious fundamentalism forces intelligent people to re-think these issues, in order to have a coherent position. Occasionally this is interesting, but most of us laid this issue to rest in junior high school. I hope we won't now have to argue why sports isn't very important.

We can be afraid of things that do not directly affect us at all.

We tend to think that the world and its ways today are the right way, better than all previous wrong ways.

What is a sign that an animal is using reason or rationality?

What kind of fantasies and delusions did you have as a kid?
Other people had secret signals or special powers?
Are these fantasies every truly gone?

What will happen if there are no catastrophic changes in the next hundred years?
"What! No changes!"

When we watch TV or video, the people don't look back at us and make us feel bad.

Who administers the administrators?

Why is meso-American art so stylized and disfigured.
Well our cartoon art, anime, is stylized and disfigured and we don't find it strange at all.
We like it.

Why not have each culture write up their own politically correct history: Europeans, Native American and Mexicans. What would that look like? They would not be identical.

Do we like the wood grain pattern in our furnishings because it demonstrates our mastery over the powerful wood?

"How are you?" We ask that (in part) because If you am in a good mood, my interaction with you will probably be more fun for me.

A dog is fully engaged with a ball, or a rich smell.
Humans too are satisfied engaged in the moment.

As the world shrinks, the world's culture shrinks, religions clash.
We are faced once again with a kind of paganism, a neo-polytheism.

Being safe is like being wealthy: the initial part of money and safety, that which is essential for existence, is more important than wealth and safety that come after that, which tend to be psychological over-indulgences.

Comedy is sharing inappropriate opinions in a deferential way with massive smile gestures and laughing sounds to indicate that we are non-threatening.

Existentialists tell us: life is a predicament. If that is true, what kind of fucked up animal are we?

I rail against the word "sacred" because it's analysis seems to depends on the existence of a (nonexistent) god.
But when I say I walk the earth "in sacred manner," or that something in nature is sac red, I know what it means.

In a society of strangers, movies are a better source of commonality than books because there are less of them.

In philosophy, you can in no sense depend upon word-play or rhymes.

In-group/out-group behavior: part of that is to demonstrate we don't care about members of the out-group.

Instead of saying "I'm just making this up" or "I'm just pulling this out of my ass.." when you explain something for the first time, say "I'm just reorganizing my thoughts on this."

Intellect (like musical talent) is not a limbic thing, you cannot see by looking at someone.

Our imagination cleaves close to existing reality.

Perhaps discipline itself is good: No matter how stupid the rules you follow, it is good you are following the rules because at least not making up the rules yourself.
(The rules you make up yourself are the ones that get you in trouble, as well as give everyone else the right to make up their own rules as well.)

Political anarchy in all its forms mirrors intellectual anarchy in all its forms.

Politically correct does not mean politically neutral.

Schools have adopted the peculiar notion that it is the act of reading that is important, and not the understanding, knowledge and experiences you get while reading that is important.

Seeing the radical Arabs and Israelis in the Middle East, I wonder if these were the kind of fanatics that Jesus was up against, say with the woman taken in adultery.
If so I admire him more.
Or have people subsequently degenerated to the contemporary low level, in part because of their religion?

Should European ever feel proud that their ancestors conquered much of the world, defeating all other cultures? They were warriors and instilled fear into all other tribes. Should anyone ever feel proud of the military prowess of their ancestors?

Sometimes it is only in the Western world that we can see cultures of other countries in other times.
In other countries, they are willing to deny and destroy the cultures in their past.

Stupid things to be embarrassed about: being a morning person instead of being a night person

The counterpart to our desire to be nurtured is a desire to rule: we have animals, we have toys (little animals), little lawn ornaments, and we write a novels.
We seek to exercise dominion over our computers.

The part of our mind that agrees with each other is not the part that thinks.

There are times we simply want to harm another person.
We are that primitive.

There is a pecking order not enforced by an individual but by the group itself.
like standing up to salute the flag, rules about cutting in line and other rules about what you can and cannot say, and where you can and cannot touch them.

There must be an intellectual limbic system? One that understands intellectually but subconscioulsy before it reflects?

To have a spiritual conversation:
You must

  1. meet the right person
  2. at the right time.
  3. You lay it out there and
  4. it is received.
  5. Then the process is reversed.

We grow tools.
It is evolutionary useful.
We grow not only evolutionary attributes but also the attribute of evolution itself.
It is good to have a good tool-bench.

We use people who do not read, sports figures and actors and singers, when we should be using educated cultural figures, teachers and professors.

What is the role of conformity?
Why do not our social constructs and our conformity go deeper?

When I watch the news, I prefer the competent, attractive victims over the lazy, shiftless, funny-looking ones.

Why the persistence of our images of ancient rulers? Despite the fact that their actual use in politics is no longer useful, we talk incessantly of kings and emperors.

Any "Asshole Theory" of people cannot be a shared theory.

As you age, you are not as threatening to people, but people do not take you as seriously.

Every something is a great variety of meta-something as well:

  • Here is how education works.
  • Here is how bureaucracies work.
  • Here is how the modern world works.
  • Here is how politics works.
  • Here is how sexual attraction works.
  • Here is kindness.
  • Here is emotions.
  • Here are societies of societies of mind.

Gaming is a social skill, like make-up.

I like my Wish List on Amazon. I wish I could have a Wish List for my government. I wish I could have a Wish List in my relationships.

I listen to Bartok's Concerto for Viola and Orchestra as I go about my day.
It is too complex.
It is a symphony of emotion.
I just want to enhance my mood.
My mood could be:

  • "Have a nice day — have a nice delusion."
  • "People are interesting were I ever talked to them."
  • "I am hip."
  • "Women would find me interesting if they ever talked to me."

Movies give us fake significance.
Every sound is significant.
Every where the camera looks things are significant.

Philosophical knowing is a creation that fits the fact, works for you and has room for other people.
It may not be unique, more like the variety of parks you could create out of the same lovely plot of land.

The battle is no longer between one simplicity or another.
The battle is between simplicity and meta-awareness.
It's not about going back to simplicity.
You can only go back to your version of simplicity.

The deeper meaning of the copyright laws:
In our society, the flow of truth and wisdom and and insight is controlled by the flow of money.

The world moves all around you all the time: the clouds, the sun, the wind, the water, the people, the birds...

There are many different ways of creating a park from the same piece of land.
Some are more interesting than the original land; some are not.
No one park can be said to be the "correct" park for the land.

To live in this world, especially in today's world, you have to lose the sense of a basal reality.

What do we do when we feel something deeply, as we sometimes do in church, in the woods, after a sickness, on drugs or in love,
We sing a song.
We babble foolishly.
We should at least say to ourselves I am here now.
(Don't speak.)

What if they made the world habitable and pure, with clean air, water and food, but they made it ugly — perhaps by paving it over?

When we are fucked-up we are not not ourselves. Who then are we when we are fucked-up?

Why don't our government bureaucracies, paid with our tax monies, make us think they are intelligent, and that they care enough to make the experience as pleasant as possible for us?
It must not be on their mission statement.

You think it is enough just to believe that Jesus exists? Don't you have to live out any of his precepts.

Actual humans have been superseded by a kind of humanistic robot: entertainers, books, plays, art, music, beauties, wars...

A lack of obscurity in a philosophy book is almost a deal breaker.
We know the book must be mistaken if we can understand it.

A mask is a non-responsive human.

A religious point of view doesn't have to be any more coherent than any other point of view. Think of how we decorate a room: My style is modern Scandinavian, but here is a gift from my friend, here a knick-knack from China, here a picture of my daughter.

A sacred space is a space of special behavior.
What is the point of special behavior?

A true religion has to encourage the brotherhood of man and an ethic of love.
How do I know this? That's what my spiritual sense tells me.

Are movies educational?
They're educational largely about themselves. Because movies are an experience, it feels like you are learning something about something, but you are mostly learning something about a virtual something.

Believing in God is not enough. You also need to be moral, to have faith have goodness, and to be more like god yourself.

Compulsive obsession is fake work.

Do animals ever feel unloved?

Do animals seek happiness too?

Europeans overcame primitive taboos by say, climbing the sacred mountain without consequence. To keep them safe from our own reason, we have moved our taboos into the realms of the untestable.

Everyone surrounds themselves with their opinions.
Having opinions is a sign of being thoughtful, a monkey useful to the group, no matter how stupid those opinions may be. (In many cases the dismissive judgments define a common out-group.)

How do we evaluate different cultures? Do we evaluate different cultures?

I am the one should decide if I should take drugs.

If you wanted to find someone just like yourself, what would you look for?

In order to be this monkey, we had to cut the ties between our feelings and our reactions, because with the extension of our tools, like our clothes, we no longer had the usual nerve impulses.

It's hard to complain to much about the virtual world because you can turn it off.
It is an optional reality.

It's not that rape and sexual abuse are not wrong and not important, it's just not that they are not end-of-the-world now-we-must-kill-you-and-we-must-all-agree-on-this important.

Once you enter deep into nature you enter the web of hunger.

Once you think about it, it is remarkable how little you can tell about someone from their appearance.

Over-generalizing is also a moral sin.
We should temper our perceptions about the world with "some" and "many,"
or we should own up to our personal and limited responsibility by saying "I feel that."

Personal happiness is intense and personal and cannot be shared any more than I can play my favorites background music for others and expect the joy that I feel to radiate and fill the room.

Shouldn't writing a philosophy book be easy?
Don't we all live in the same world?
Shouldn't we have it figured out by now?

So what good is a philosophy book if it doesn't really change anything.

Songs are one way to react to the world.

Strong taboos that override reasons.
This is what makes primitive people so different.
Why would you accept them so deeply you would not question them in any way. That is how your culture works.

The delusion of the family is the delusion of the tribe:
Who is on our side?
Who do we defend?
Who is us?

The military take their jobs so self-seriously and important, even though their job and role is a symptom of a deep societal disease.

There are academic movie watchers who pick up on all the minutia, like academic students of literature.

We are moving towards a society of full employment where no one is working. Everyone is contributing to a huge waste of time.
In organizations, reports are filed. Often the point isn't what is in the report, or whether you or anyone thought hard about the data in the report; the point is, did you file the report? The report has to be filed by July 25?

We could work out a common understanding of the universe, but it would involve agnosticism: don't ask, don't answer. Don't think, don't talk.

We fear being alone in nature. Instinctively we know what to do: We go with a spouse. We bring along a cell phone.

We know about genetic predispositions, but what does that feel like from the inside?
What do instincts feel like from the inside?
I suppose it feels like the most natural thing in the world.

We read something deeply meaningful — and then we read something else.

We talk about all sorts of things: illegal aliens, terrorists, Muslims.
We never question if we are talking and thinking about them correctly.
Most people don't think about their thinking.

We were formed in nature and a part of us is at home in nature.
Another part is alert and apprehensive.

What can you learn in five minutes?
What takes a semester?
What takes a specialization?
What can't you ever learn?

What is it to learn math?
What is it to learn science?

What is the role of not understanding in ritual, explanations, religion...

Why do we even form memories?

Why do we fear rejection? Why do we reject?.

Why does society tolerate religious arrogance, and the religious know-it-all attitude?

Why would our government ban ecstasy, a drug that makes us love people? How then are we to increase the amount of love in the world?

What is the world's greatest porn film? What would be the criteria for deciding something like that?

Art is not a communication. Art is not a dialog.
It is not like:
Picasso says <this>
Matisse responds: "OK but what about <this>?"

Can you take a picture of the universe, a picture of everything that is?

Different parts of the mind thinks different things.

Every person can tell a long story about who they are, what they have going on, their long-term plans, their relationship with spouse and family.

Governments like to think your freedom is a privilege, not a right.

I think I am or at least can be in control of myself.
This is almost a contradiction.
Am in control of what I think about myself?

I try to philosophize within the bounds of my understanding.

I watch TV.
Who are these people pretending to be people?

If everyone else believes something, we too have a tendency to believe it.

In times of complexity and confusion, we hold to our simplicities.
We need them.
Now is not the time to think.

It's not that we don't live in a society that views women as objects,
but people are objects.
Our minds are embodied in an object of flesh.

Just as there is easy listening music, so there are easy thinking words.

Most people travel in packs

Not only can we not cry in public,
we cannot share feelings in public.
(We do not see it demonstrated, and validated, on TV.)

Once we begin to identify with the limbic choices of the ego, the ego becomes the new id.
(The conscious, the new subconscious.)

Our need for negativity and taboos is now served by health and safety warnings.

People like pointless stories, simple tales of just a person walking about an ordinary world.

People try to look normal.
They work on it.

Perception looks like reality but it isn't.
Our perceptions are up for discussion (or should be).

So we are monkeys. What is the value of saying that?

Sports is stylized tribal combat.

The mind thrashes around in new situations.
Why do emotions also enter I into it?

The subconscious is not like a voice in a cavern, an unheard voice beneath the threshold of consciousness.
But there is no threshold, just a lack of communication.

There is a limbic check for normalcy.

There is no proof that we really need proof.
Is it reasonable to be reasonable?

Think of people as monkeys in people-suits.

We all want to be fucked.

We can assess women on their T&A, but not on the tightness of their vaginae.
We can assess men on their A, and on their arms and trunk, but we cannot assess their dicks or their package (D&P).
Men could display them, but soon, like the Wonderbra, we would have the Wondersupporter (Codpiece).

We don't know what we are; we don't know what we seek

We live among others and yet we pretend they are not there.

We live our life between the known and the unknown. It is impossibility not to participate in the ambiguity.

What does it mean to say there is a gene for something?

What is it we want to do when we want to understand the world?

What is the best picture of the universe?

Why is there a world of Warcraft but no world of Sexcraft or even Rapecraft?
Are there crimes worse than murder?

You can have an economist figure out the consequences if 25% of the people made four times as much as the other people.

It would be one thing if the rich made the world more interesting, or beautiful, but they don't.

The failure of our schools (a continuing list):

  • We do not teach subtlety.
  • We do not teach forgiveness.
  • We do not teach us to see our ignorance.

An idea for a better news program:
a show where people sit around and actually think about the news.

Another thing proving that we don't know what we want is the fact we go to psychiatrists and counselors.

Are we capable of living meta?
Yes, no: we are capable of understand the truth like we understand evolution, or analyze media but it is hard.
We can analyze any reaction from several points of views at one time and we do.
But sometimes we can only talk about it later.

Can the limbic system be trained?

Consign it to the flames?
No, consign it to the structuralists.

Everything we say is what we "are inclined to say."

Have a narrative that holds up under pressure though it doesn't change anyone's mind.

How do we get to the point where the stock market determines anything?

How do we separate coincidences from causation?

Humans are made for a world that is big.
We are made for a world where so much is unknown.

If it weren't for problems we wouldn't have a life:
people being born, people being sick, people getting old and dying.
This is what we do without thinking,
instead of thinking.

Is there a lot of stuff we don't let ourselves think?

Nature is the home if our ancestors.
It is our ancestral home.

News about things we have no power over far away takes our minds off ourselves.

No one knows the future.
All we have are intuitions about the future.

One side of not thinking is let your auto-pilots fly free.

Our emotional system evolved together with cerebral system.
We are the most emotional animal.

Our ideal world does not include a lot of the animals, like the ants, porcupines, mice, squirrels and skunks.

Our partial tattered visions are enough.
We don't need to understand the world;
we just need to have something to say.

Our understanding of the world is driven by our animality.

People go nuts on a moments notice.

Perhaps we need a home country.
We need a country, from a land, form a people, members of, a gender.

Philosophy books that seem to talk about the meaning of the world in interesting and provocative ways, are never upsummable.
But then, what is?

Reason is not enough:
reason cannot supply the untestable irrational ideas under which we live most of our lives.

Sex is not only about sex (it is also about power, self-esteem, etc.).
Games are not only about games.

There is little evidence we know what we're doing as a species.
For most of history, the correct answer to most questions would be: we don't really know.

For politicians, the correct answer is: we don't know the future and we don't really know what to do.

We are surrounded by lies and false conceptual appearances.
(Not sense-data, but thought-data.)

We believe things so easily.
We make we world out of nearly nothing.

We get scared but we also scare ourselves in language.

We repel each other.
We are all the same pole of the magnet.

What are saying with our clothes?
We're may or may not be saying anything really.
We can distance ourselves from whatever we may signify.

What would a society without conservatives look like?
It's not clear that liberals can get along either.

When we speak about the virtuality of the world, and the disappearance of "the real,"
this is a kind of end-of-the-world thinking
(in the present.)

Why do I even identify with America?
America is a world run by people who care primarily about money and power.

Believing in God is a common error. It's easy to see how people can make that mistake.

We have a cerebral zoom lens in our vision.

All we have are perspectives.

All words become clichés.
Who doesn't use clichés: only poets and critics?
How come atom or car don't become cliché?

Animals are not politically correct. You cannot tell an animal not to be violent (except certain pets).
Animals are violence.

Ants do not stop working, even after their anthill has been severely damaged.
Neither do people.
The will continue to go about the business of seeking of life, food, shelter and pleasure.

At some point we write each other off.

Dancing is war, as well as community,

Do we need a threat to keep us in line?

Hanging around with people is a way of not thinking, which is strange unless the group is somehow engaged in a process of thinking.

I am more frightened of blacks than of Mexicans.
What kind of statement is that?

I understand all your talk about God and salvation.
You understand my talk about god obviously not existing.

If given a chance, would we like to rape and pillage?
(I think I would say I would if you would say that you would.)

In the US we live among ticks, Nile fever, serial killers, speeding cars, yet we feel comfortable and at home. We live our lives.
So do people in the rest of world.

Is a false narrative better than no narrative at all?
(Plato thought yes.)

Language is from the get-go a way of hiding communication.
Hiding communication from the animals you are stalking.
Language is selective communication.
Lying has been a possibility form the beginning. (Perhaps language arose in deception.)

Life sucks the life out of life. We are encouraged to stay in mediocre relationships and in jobs that are boring. We give ourselves scriptures to diminish our sexuality.

Many give primacy to the physical world, based on our life and death.

Most movies and most books are a kind of intellectual masturbation.
Masturbation is sexual pleasure without sexual competent, adventure, women an reproduction. Available to anyone any time.

Oh for Pete's sake!
As you get old you should have figured out how to enjoy life,
how to be entertaining,
how to be happy.
You should have overcome your shyness and fear of people.
You should know how to smile at people. ("Oh for God's sake! Grow old!")

Old days they would lie about the people in power.
Just as the ruling families of Europe had a lot in common in how they ruled: Their ceremony, beliefs, the intermarriage...
So, no doubt, did the ruling families of Meso-America.

Postmodernism is the vessel into which we pour our intuitions regarding the intellectual underpinnings of the present time and our ideas about the course of the future.

Reading about a poet, a philosopher, a novelist is no substitute for reading the poems, the works of philosophy, the novels.

Seriously, why are so many people down on gays anyway? It seems so trivial.

Sports is one place we express common emotions and we are on same page (for or against).
It's roots are deep and various. You can give sports a trenchant and cynical analysis but it never makes any difference.
Behavior is embedded.

Survival of the most fit to survive.
Survival of skill sets most able to survive the times in which they live. And the times may change.
And in addition like an ability to fight, or scavenge, one must also have sexual reproductive survival.

The irrational lash out with reason because reason is a tool, and a weapon.

The sun shines on the earth and the human ants scurry around
doing their ant-thing.
As the world turns dark they return to their homes to rest.

There is a moral feeling not to hurt the feelings of boring people, so why is there not a moral imperative to not be boring?

This is the true mind/body problem.
We work as an animal but we think we work as a mind/self/individual/ body in a body.

We are not aware of the me in media.

We don't cry in front of other people, we don't run in front of other people, and we don't get real, and show who we really are in front of other people. (People can hurt you.)

We don't run, or cry in front of other people and we don't be (get real) who we are in front of other people.
It's scary and people can hurt you.

We have alternative visions for who we are and what we are and no way of deciding between them.
We use old concepts together with new concepts.
Wives tales and tales of science.
And we're ok with that.

We hypnotize ourselves with ceremonies and entertainment.
We're full of ourselves.

We ought to learn to understand when we are being led around by our genes.

We seek gods who can provide us with

  • an elementary sense of fairness
  • a concern for fellow man (basic rights)
  • a basic common framework
  • deeply common wisdom held in common
  • some sense of duties and rights
  • courage — heart — supported -- empowerment
  • faith and faith in faith

What assumptions we drag with us or burden ourselves with as we move into the future?

What would a non-rational explanation be?

Where does power fit in here?
It is hidden to the oppressor, but not to the oppressed.

You can go and live by yourself but you can't be born not among people.

You can't really avoid reason:
You can't say "I believe in {something} but it is not based on reason."
You certainly can't prove another person doesn't make sense if you don't use reason.

How come "atom" or "car" doesn't get to be a cliché?

A word that might be philosophically useful would be addiction: to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively (to kids, to normalcy, to sports).

A world is an absorbing set of involvements, which to a point, preclude others:

  • study
  • sex
  • eating
  • (your) work
  • Sports
  • Media experiences —
  • A bath, a massage,
  • Concerns
  • Religion
  • Shpping
Not only that but each activity has its own world — attention....

Certain parts of our behavior can only be unlocked by interactions with other people.
We do not know what these are.

Concepts for the society of mind:

  • sees the mind is composed of a large number of independent processes, not all of which talk to each other
  • the mind does not have a centers, an ego a self that is a man within a man. Well it has that but it is one process among many
  • some processes are opaque to our consciousness

Criminal news has a moral: here is what happen when you swim outside the school of conformity.

Do we need a narrative to understanding history?
Do we need a narrative to understand a river, the growth of a tree?
What is the difference between a narrative and an explanation?

Do we need a narrative?
Does an actor need motivation: what is my motivation here?

Even our best aspects are imbued with animality.
What gives us the desire to be a better person?

Everyone is judgmental at some point. We live in a world filled with our own reactions, judgments and put-downs. It is easy to trigger the judgmental part of us.

Freud's theory has both explanatory power and therapeutic use, yet it is probably not true.

How can everyone contribute to a world narrative. For minds of goodwill, how could this work?

    You can't if:
  • you claim exclusivity in your story
  • there is no other story and you threaten violence against the other story
  • you want your view respected
  • can it be done, can one be sensible, common sensible
  • not if you take people as they exist

How can people talk themselves into thinking they are worth four-million dollars a year?

How would things change if we said: this is how I feel.

Humans have a unique ability to think that we are not essentially connected to our body.

I cannot live in real time.

I expect philosophy to provide a nuanced, intelligible overview of the world, that takes into account its maddening irrationality.

If should be an axiom that no one knows what they are doing or why they are doing what they are doing.

If the platonic individual to political entity is false, the political entity to individual (society of man) is also false, albeit seductive.

In war we think: we'll do what we need to do and we'll clean up the mess later.
Unfortunately we do the same in economic "war": we'll burn the coal we need to burn and worry about cleaning up the atmosphere later.

Initially did not use language to talk.
The mostly did not know each other's language.
Today language has become the primary form of communication.

It is an interesting fact about us that we can speak and think like a philosopher.
That does not make what we say true.

It is better to shatter heads in art than in the world.
Much, much better.

It is far from clear that a proper understanding of the world will yield to precision, logic, and clear categories.

It is not false that we have a self, but it is equally true we have many selves

It is not merely that we are like an animal in having say a liver, but in many ways I think like an animal: instinct, fight or flight, herd instinct, pecking order, inconsideration of other animals, the drive to reproduce, a will to live.

Let us say we see an incredible sport play or an feat of juggling. A philosopher, before he wants to talk about that incredible event, wants to bounce a ball up and down and ask how that works. Can we say this ball is round? What is a ball? In this way academic philosophy abandons anything interesting about the world.

Listening to news is an emotional experience.

Most men want to be in a uniform and be part of a band.

Most people want so desperately to be rational they are willing to offer and accept the most ridiculous argument in order to sound rational.

Normality covers many things.

  • things cannot do that put you beyond the pale
  • tendency to be comfortable with the way the social world is, happily a part of best of all possible world
  • The way most people actually are. (It is normal to feel you are not normal.)
  • If you are normal, no one can make a claim on you that you are not doing something
  • Psychologically normal, if you are depressed or hyper you are not normal
Normal is a baseline and also an ideal.

Often, reading a book or watching a movie is not profundity but validation: other people have said this as well.
It's not just me. I am in a band.

One function of morality is to give people noble reasons for not doing things they couldn't do anyway, for an old and unattractive man not to be cheating on his wife.

One sign of overdetermination can come up with a load of ideas and it doesn't make much difference.
This is where intuition is called into play, and here is where the thoughtlessness of normalcy comes into play.

Our sense of self is so big.
I certainly don't feel like one of six billion,
or even one in ten.
I fill my world.

PC-world is one where we do not use any word that offends, might offend or have negative connotations.
(Unless we really don't like that kind of behavior.)

People like sudoku, others like early modern philosophy. Both are interesting. Both can be outpuzzled,

Philosophers make the world ridiculously simple and then fail to figure that out.
They spend their time arguing about what map to use,
and which way is up.

Philosophy, ordinary life philosophy, must examine the relationship between what is being said and the reasons given.

Religion is a shared way of acting and often an allegiance to a code of conduct that enforces group solidarity.

Small talk may be good in a negative way. We fear strangers (who speak a different language) and we fear the crazy. Small talk establishes their language and their ability to follow conventions.

Suppose people had a lot more money. They could spend $1000 to cut their lawn. Say using scissors, by hand.
Would we be in a world of imagination and creativity, or would we be constrained by our need to conform?

The difference between the people who went and those who resisted the War in Vietnam has never been resolved. We might start by thinking that it took courage to go to Vietnam and it took courage NOT to go to Vietnam.

There are lots of things I can accept not understanding.

There are two kinds of hate: hate as a momentary feeling on the inside, and hate as on ongoing project.

There is no theory of truth which demands thoughts occur immediately in real time. That is a kind of entertainment or glibness.

To unpack a paragraph takes longer than reading and possibly writing the paragraph.
So you do the math.

We are more like the sculpture in the marble than we are the ghost in the machine.

We cannot study if the house is burning.

We confuse non contradiction with argumentation — because we love to argue.
It is a way of not running out of things to say.
And face the limitation of our species.

We don't know what to do with each other.
We spend most of our time avoiding each other,
and avoiding saying anything to each other.

We listen to:

  • maps
  • weather
  • travel books
  • how-to
  • including how-to do things you cannot really do
  • religious leaders
  • politicians
  • psychics

We must learn to see and to feel the animalistic side of our intelligence. All our words baked by threats and posturing. Words are antlers.
Is it all bluster? No.

We often read a book for validation: other people have said this as well. It's not just me. I am in a band of people like me. I am in-group.

We see the artificiality of video games, but not the artificiality of our language-games.

We spend our energies in ways of not talking to other people: Books, privacy, homes, facial gestures, cell phones. We're all around us all the time. It's amazing we can do this. The ones who can't are driven to live in the country.

We're about as clear on education as we are on parenting.
We certainly don't work from reason.

What I have not learned is why I do what I do.

  • Why am I not married?
  • Why did I get married?
  • Why am I staying here in Spokane?
  • Why am I staying in this job?
  • Why did I choose to live here?
  • Why did I have kids?
  • Why do I love my kids?
  • Why do I love my car?
  • Why do love art?
  • Why do I look at women?
  • Why do I like whatever stupid thing I love?
One sign of such over-determined choices is that we can come up with a load of speculation about it but it doesn't make that much difference.

What is the difference between narrative and explanation?

What would it be like suddenly to understanding music,
to see and to feel the strings it is pulling inside us?

When normals say they do something for fun, are they only saying that I am not doing it because I can't stop myself, or because I am psychotic or paranoid where everyone is out to get me.

Whenever they mass together in cities, humans generate jobs for people just to take care of themselves.
We must have overseers.

Why can you not describe who you are?

Why would academic philosophers not try to get on the same page?

With all these narratives going on, which are the best narratives?

Work — a poor bargain made under duress

Everyone is judgmental at some point. We live in a world filled with our own reactions, judgments and put-downs. It is easy to trigger the judgmental part of us.

Humans are a highly successful timid frightened animal

People should be sent to Interesting School. (What is the curriculum in Interesting School?)

Prohibitive academic book prices and copyright laws hide away many of the ideas of the last eighty years.

The attractions of youth for youth is not only about beauty It is also about the potentiality of having kids together and growing old together.

I buy my own arguments because, in part they are my arguments, the arguments I use to defend and present the conclusions I like. It follows that if I really want to re-think my views, I need to come up with better conclusions.

A celebrity: tell a story just that say Tom Cruise was in the same restaurant.
He looked older | younger, shorter | taller, tired | lively than I expected.
Like I saw a rare animal, or a god.

A philosopher is a stand-in for the wise-man (daddy, the silver-back.... )
Oh I have the answers: can't you hear my tone of voice, big words and gestures of power and authority.

Abstracts of papers and books are usually written either by the writer or by the publisher as a money-making blurb.
We need more objective assessments of academic articles and books. This would be a kind of intellectual tags. Surely this is possible!
Is the academic community incapable of judging the true worth of a publication?

Animals are fairy tales.

As animals, we believe a lot on authority but we like to think we believe it because it is reasonable to believe it. We spend a lot of time and trouble to hide our animal pecking orders.

As far as we know, there is no god or devil, only a wildly successful timid species that over populates and talks incessantly but never listens.
Small group dynamics, of power and status dominate.

As I hurry to work there are many emotions going on. Emotions will at least result in certain words and not others. But look at this the other way. Emotion are ways of rewiring our world.

At time ignorance is useful.
Self-delusion about our ignorance is equally useful.

Big idea: we don't understand world. We can't put our mind around it.

Books are a special hypnosis.

Does music communicate feelings? heightens something?

Girls are women without sex.

How do we separate the reasonable from that which only seems reasonable?

I cannot substitute Cliff Notes for the experience of the work.
I do not come away from Cliff Notes with awe or silence, or admiration. (Just words.)

I only think of what I look like in the first person.
Today we are more 3rd person movie
What is my 3rd person persona?

Idea: 20 appreciations of a famous person (by 20 different people), together with some of the person's best writing. (cf. Barzun)

In the early 20th century we took on the idea that the atomic theory was going to be the universal narrative.

In thinking about say religion, we go through a mental worm-hole where different rules apply.

Is text have a privileged position, or is music and film at the same level as text?

Is there a privileged narrative better than other narratives?
The answer is not necessarily no on that.
Some sentences are better than other.

It has been said before.
But has it then been understood?

Lemmings; we're the lemmings. We're the chickens. We're the pigs.
We talk in animal.

Modern politics is an offshoot of the nation state.
Older politics involves heredity and power and pecking order

Much of politics is irreason, in that it is based on a vivid picture of the future.
We have a real tendency to extend our current mood out into the future.

Oh the stories we tell ourselves!!

People in general talk with icons they do not know anything about: Einstein, Socrates, Jesus, Hitler, Bush.
We think and feel in wise people.

Political correctness is universally scorned, but in spite of being unsubstantial, hypocritical and ineffective, it is universally practiced.

Professors are like priests, in charge of sacred mysteries.

Reason is a corrosive force that strips away much of what we want to think. It is analytic rather than synthetic

Religion communicates gods? spirituality?

Religion or art are not communication, unless we expand the word communication as that which makes us think or feel.


  • Some people have a simple minded religion. Like DMV, stand in line (get on knees), and in the end you have your certificate to do what you want to do.
  • Others want religion to be more like a drug experience
  • A trip to a psychiatrist delving deep inside
  • Fantasy movie uncovering alternative world
  • In confusing time, want same things said.

Science is public knowledge it has many rooms, looks like room of physics, looks like room of math.
Consider: physics , chemistry, geology, psychology, social science

The decision to believe a certain kind of writing is not made just from the page.
A decision is brought to the page.

The distinction between rational and irrational seems so rational.

The emperor's new clothes involve a lot of math.

The lesson we refuse to learn from history is how just how little we know.

The media chatters in books.

The most powerful writing we encounter, writing that quiets down the world and stops us in our tracks, is the most difficult to analyze.

The opposite of understanding something is being confused, ignorant, stupid, misguided.

The philosophical concept of intentionality is a nod towards awareness of what our words can cause on other people.

The Society of Mind is a metaphor.

There is no indication to think we were wise in the past.

Thinking is partly deliberate and partly subconscious-intuitive.

Thinking is: action to survive in the broadest sense.
And deciding what actions to take to survive.

To ask who is most intelligent is like asking who is most beautiful: once you get to a certain level, it becomes impossible. Or what is the most catchy tune?

Understanding for dimwits.

We all chose some narratives we can live with.

We always give attention to strangers.
That too is little status things.

We are schmoozers: To converse casually, especially in order to gain an advantage or make a social connection.

We are subject to paranoia as we are subject to sexual fantasies.

We believe science because of the knowledge we get out of it, but our belief in science is also based on some general societal honorific that we have committed to for a passel of unknown reasons.

We can feel things we cannot feel at the time: That is what counseling is for. You are all upset. (You show behavior that demonstrates)
We can't feel it because there is no hookup on many emotions. If physical pain as paradigms of emotions I think were in trouble,

We can't take visceral emotions as a paradigm of feelings.

We delight in extreme views and the provocative MANNER.

We have no words for who we are.

We need some insight into insight.

We stupefy ourselves with fantastic narratives that metaphorize our own power conceptions of people onto the world. When can we do that?

We talk politics:
We align our beliefs.
We engage in mock-combat.

We think our reasons for not liking something are reasonable. (Pineapple should not be on pizza. Pineapples is a fruit.)

We understand/enjoy many different kinds of music.

We want to reference other books and people because it is so hard to make a good argument.

We're always one step away from the messiah of knowledge.
True knowledge is about to descend on us.

We're always testing each other.

We're the lemmings, we're the chickens, we're the pigs. (We talk in animal.)

What are the criteria for great movie criticism, great book criticism or great architectural criticism?

What does a delusion look like from the inside?

What is peculiar about sexual morality is that it is so stupid.

What is thinking?
One aspect of it is a deliberate act, while another is subconscious and intuitive.

Why is not insight also news?

With all this stuff in our civilization, we have created too much: now we're all curators, or junk dealers.
We evaluate but not appreciate.

Yet the books do not fit together, must choose between them,
like meshing astrology and phrenology and acupuncture.
Each makes sense,
with high understandability based on simple narrative,
but they do not fit together.

You cannot mash Wittgenstein with Heidegger, any more than you can mash classical with folk music.

You cannot merge insight.

You cannot readily merge insight in different fields. .

You do not have to know everything in order to argue reasonably that humans do not know everything.

How do you fit the brilliant people into one narrative? How do you mash up Heidegger and Wittgenstein? (How do you mash up the early Wittgenstein and the later Wittgenstein?)

Our very understanding of history, and of who we are, is distorted by the idea we are children of a god with a precious soul.

(A certain kind of ) language takes yourself away from other people. You need to think about it.

"[Sex and the relation between sex workers and feelings are] much to multiplicitous and complicated to generalize about,"

"Of course I want to sleep with you.
But that isn't the intelligent me."

A doggie lets people do what they have a doggie.
Run, be funny, get interest back.

A lot of activities are based on our paranoia — fear of others.

A lot of people have nothing but their sexual attractiveness.
Or with human politeness, everyone is interesting.

All too often academics only spread befuddlement.

All we can do with language is say it as clearly and fairly as possible.

Am I allowed to have sexual fantasies about say 12 year old girls?
Well yes, but does it further anything?

An ecosystem has personality.


  • rudimentary
  • we are animal on animal
  • we too are an evolutionary kludge
  • opaque
  • not necessarily conscious in a straightforward way
  • indifferent to humans

Arguing about the right way to live presupposes the notion that there is a way to live.

As an archetype,
Women are the force that can say "No."

As we can see a movie or work of art and know it is good without being able to say why it is good, so we can understand a concept of science and see that it is good without being able to say why it is good.

As we have bad questions, so we have bad answers to the same questions.

Being and living self-confidently in the world does not mean answering philosophical questions, it means being able to fit in and be accepted by the tribe.

Disadvantaged kids do not know they are disadvantaged at all.

Do deer see the antlers of other deer? Or We have things we can't see, it in selves or other people? (like what)

Even if you know you have buttons, and you know the buttons are connected in an irrational way, the buttons still work: you can still have your buttons pushed.

Everything they are doing their part in an ideal society.
Yet there is no ideal society:
Every part has been replaced by an actual and corrupt society.

How much time do we spend posing?

I always thought the future would be in the future. Only in the future will I be able to handle the future.

I am now sixty and slowly starting to figure myself out.
But that's just a hobby.
It is easy to go through life and not figure yourself out.

I no longer watch football. Yet I am glad the NY Giants are doing well in the playoffs.
You would think I Could just root for winning teams and always be happy but that is not how it works.
Why can't we simply change out allegiances?
What else is at work here?

I notice when you notice me: intentionality.

If astrology were true, so what?
What problems does astrology actually solve?

If we can see a movie or a work of art and know it is good without being able to say why it is good, can we also understand a concept of science and see that it is good without being able to say why it is good?

If you deceive other people into thinking you know what you are doing
your power of delusion will make you think you do know what you are doing.

In the 21st century, there is small reason to think the universe is simple or elegant, except that it is most comfortable to understand it that way.

In the contemporary market (community) economy
not only do we fear that gas and food can be taken away,
we also fear that our knowledge can be taken away.

In the modern world we all know we are nothing without the numbers on our credit cards.
Deep down we know we are at the mercy of the number givers.

In using metaphor we often ambiguate things...

Is there a drug way of thinking?
Is it valuable?

It is not bad to think about who we are, what we want, why we are here or what is our purpose in life.
But it is bad to assume that that we are someone, we want something, we are here for some reason and that we have a purpose.

It is so easy to become confused when you read other people.

It may be a game of being, but it's a game of monkey being.

It's a displacement thought that we don't know something, but that there is someone else that does know.

It's not that the theories about emotivism, nominalism and realism are right or wrong.
It is that putting our thinkings into simple (or elaborate) models is wrong.
It is not clear and not to be taken for granted that a theory underlies the problems.

Language itself is a storage medium.

Like many things (religion, astrology, touch wood) it feels true.
There is no way it could be true except under a primitive science view.
Our scientific paradigms filter out certain views.

Thinking is a dual word: insight, flash (I just thought of) and reflective thinking: You're not thinking.

Most of our back stories are sketchy, we fill them in with fantasies and fears.

On television a woman sums up her work on human sexuality and sex work by saying:
"Everyone does not feel the same way about sex."
This is true for so many issues.

One benefit of not connecting with the countless people around us is that we can be alone in a world of many other people.

Our powers of deception and our powers of delusion go hand in hand.
If you deceive other people into thinking you know what you are doing,
your power of delusion will make you think you do know what you are doing.

People are a nice combination of body and face and (eventually) mind.

People talk and talk but only after a while do you see what they are talking about.

Personality types are a modern form of astrology.
We really don't know who we are.

Physical attractiveness is mostly a sexual stimulant.

Pretty soon we're no longer surfing the web, we're surfing reality. Because we have to stay on top of it

Reason is a language game.

Simplify selves assume we should figure out who we are as though we are something.

The comforts of a decorative style, coupled with the meaninglessness of it all: the comfort of familiar symbols

The important question to ask old people:
In your life, what worked for you?

The Internet is nothing if not a mechanisms for getting distracted.
Getting distracted is what we like to be: distracted, amused, triviated,

The self is program that monitors other programs and keep peace between them.

There are so many ways to look at humans.
(Heidegger had so many existentiales...) There is no end to all of it.

There is a lot of stuff that people think they can know that they can't know.
They don't know what they can't know.

  • whether there is a god
  • the right way to live
  • what will happen in the future

There's history and there's mythstory:
history as concept.

Think of all the things we do not know because we are lacking in social statistics.

Time is causality: When do before and after matter.

Torture is not not-torture just because you do not classify it as torture.

Until books language came from other people.
It's a people relationship as well as a linguistic relationship.

We always think we understand the world enough and that we have the tools we need.

We are better off with a concept of fate beyond which gods cannot roam.

We are but an evolutionary kludge

We are not aware when we are using language outside its language game because using language in a new context is a part of language.

We can be engaged with our own engagement.
We can engaged with almost anything.
Digestive system and blood system but we are not engaged:\;
If blood is leaking out in ground, we are engaged.

We can know the microscopic details of a small cellular organism but we don't know (among other things) how to get along with each other.

We can't stand each other and ourselves at the meta-level of our reality.
Instead we dress ourselves up, in fancy clothes and fancy notions.

We do calculus in our mind when cars are coming towards us and we have to turn out. The world does calculus.

We do not know what will make us go nuts. We may have Berserker programs pre-programmed in our selves.

We have to get over the illusion that we know it all.

We have to realize there are people think they have the right to kill you

We hold onto our morality but after a while, it is just a shield, I am too stubborn to engage.
An answer that you present as obvious and everyone else things not.

We like the fundamentalists; we like to be exhorted, like to be told what to do.

We shouldn't permit advertising as it is misleading on epistemic grounds.
This is after all the same argument they use against drugs.

We think in books, in expositions, in riffs...

What if everyone spoke in aphorisms?
Could they?

What is the smallest unit of understanding?
Do we need a book? Why not a paragraph, or even a sentence?

When someone tells us an story enthusiastically, it does not matter about what, we can still share their enthusiasm.

When strangers strike up a conversation, they often talk of shared experiences, sports events, music, or common places they have visited.
They can no longer find a common relative. Instead they can relate by talking about common experiences in a common way.

When you buy a ring-tone, you are buying a song that references a song which in turn is references an attitude.

Where does our sense of a sacred place come from?

While I read I meta-read.

Why do people love the WTF experience?


  • Women (as a mammal with sexual characteristic)
  • Women as archetype.
  • Women as traditional tendencies.
  • Women as archetype for men.
  • Women as societal roles.

You have a pet because of what you want to do with a pet.
Now, why do you want to do what you do with a pet?
We want to not-grow up, and play. We want to care.

"How do you see the impact of the East on the Western soul?"
Such a question invites you to talk about East, West, impact and soul.
But these are no longer the best words to use.
Think of changing technology.

"This is a good place to raise kids." We think. We click off that part. Inside all processes click off or not. This is not simple voting. Someone could start whining and making problems.
Processes are like people, or more correctly, the people work are like the processes inside our head.

A beautiful women seems smarter because people want to agree with her.

A law is also a desire for you to obey me. (And it is treated by everyone as being that.)

A lot of academic writing is establishing your credentials:
here is a person in the know
who has read the literature
and can grasp the facts

Academic philosophy is where big ideas go to die.
Caught in intellectual spider webs, enveloped in words, the big ideas have their life juices sucked out of them.

Although we think of ourselves as individuals, we are embedded with the people around us.
This can "proven" in a number of ways, but just like "proving" we are animals, we give it verbal assent, forget it and then go about our business.
We need to be aware of it,
to know what to do with it,
To live and experience it.
And then modify our thinkings and our behavior.

Art (like porn and sex) is an international language.

At some point sex is an easy indulgence that takes away all other concerns.

Can mathematics be seen as reason developed into a sport?

Do The Numbers:
If only one in a thousand is doing something bad,
that still results in six million people doing bad things.

Government is not established by theory, but we like theories to help resign ourselves to the necessity.

Heidegger can make the statement that "we are the being whose being is the being whose being is an issue" because we are more than willing to entertain the ideas that we don't know.

Humans put up a walls — of inscrutability and self-importance.

I want to watch myself watching the SuperBowl.
It's not like I don't want to look at animals, deer across the road, I want to watch myself watching animals.

If we don't see the lenses through which we see things, how do we know they are there?

If reflecting on things (most academics, postmodern,) results only on a boom that is more impenetrable than the original, with jargon and the feel of jargon speak, it is not worth it.

In times of stress we go to magical thinking

Just are there is not only one way to live your life,
there may not be only one way for you to look at the world.

Look at water molecules all you want, you won't see their inter-relationships.
Not effect, power, ice and history of glaciers.

Mythological thing of sports being originally a kind of stylized warfare where we kill the opposition, I don't know how much there is of that. Sport is a tribalized athletic skill, as is dance. (War dances. Mock combat.)
Perhaps the universal trait is intimidation.

Notes to a speech to academic philosophers:

  • After 50 to 100 years, give it up
  • What has happened to the philosophy of
  • What is task of philosophy in 21st century?
  • To work on a large meta-narrative
  • To do meta-work: what is wisdom, what is bullshit
  • Do you have a working useful research programme.
  • not say reason. Philosophy is not a voice of reason for years.
  • The voice of reason is not the voice of logic.

On murder mysteries:
we all know the feelings of having enemies, and we know the subsequent feelings it engenders.

Our coalitional (group awareness) includes: a sense of justice, a sense of fairness.

Our monkey thoughts bleed all over everything we do and see.
Humans team up with a fuck-buddy and wander through life in small groups.

People can believe almost anything. Why is that?

People just like to talk about politics: it is like talking about people in a photograph album.
It tells us mostly about the speaker.

Philosophers have identified reason with logical reason in a mathematical sense.
That led to nor results whatsoever.

Shouldn't we know why I am driven to do this yet it is not rational.
I must be driven by DNA.
Like discovering Plato from the perturbation of other planets.
There are signs.

Speaking to their own groups, leads to an intellectual genetic drift as it disattaches form the rest of the herd.

The ease of fooling perception.
What if the perceptual field is a metaphor for the intellectual field.

The model (realism and idealism) implies that beneath reality there always like a model.
This is probably not true.

The past is an aspect of the present.

There are lovely things.
There are horrors.
We pick out the ones that justify the things we want to think.

There is what reason tells us,
and then there is what we do.

Three ways to relate: sex, intellect, corporality.
We like you because you are human.
(We extend the tribe.)

Truncated functionalities: slaves, pets, digital controls...
We like miniaturization.
We are comfortable with small.

War is a way of making decisions.

We don't do anything and our minds are up there — woo — firing away.

We like to do what we have always done.
This involves not-thinking, in the sense of reorganizing.
Why is it hard to change?

We listen to music. What do people listen to in nature when they listen?
Is it that bird songs are a sign of peace?
In music people listen to more of the same.

We see and think in terms of groups, as we see in terms of good and evil, and sport groupings of coalitional behaviors. We see England, we see France

We see the world in bands and groups.

We simply cannot sit among people and not rank them in desirability.

We talk of cultures, but these days, most cultures are dull.
(It did not used to be that way.)
What about livening things up by creating cultures that are better than the ones we have?

We think in tribes,
we think in teams,
we think in moieties,
we think in parties,
we think in race.
We understand the world through our groupings.

We-humans get nervous whenever we feel our existence, or the existence of our group, is threatened.
At that point we will do almost anything.
This is part of our group-based fight or flight routine.
We do not tolerate thinking at this time.

What about having radio stations with fantasy news from an ongoing world that does not exist?
It might be news from a fantasy culture.

What am I doing am I doing out of instincts?

When people say they are people person, they fail to mention they, like all of us, still have a limited capacity for people.
We can reference only a few hundred people at most.
(This is a major drawback for comprehending a world of six billion people.)
We are a limited engagement, a small venue;
we are exclusive.

When you are talking about say sports or games, you know your generalizations are bullshit, but when you talk about your experiences, or your qualia, in a way you are talking about nothing at all. You are talking about a model.
[What is a model?]

Why do I feel the way I feel?

Why do we even have a religion?

With constant availability of the cell phone, little sign of diminishing, we certainly put the pressure on constant talking.
(We substitute our minutia, our twitter.)

You can re-contextualize the behavior, the way you can re-contextualize the run-in with a professor.

Can there be a music of ideas? Could there be a coalitional activity of philosophy or religion? Or is knowledge something that can't be reset to zero in order to play it again?

Just because I intellectually realize the stuff on the news is a sham, does not mean I do not respond to it. But just because I viscerally respond to this stuff does not mean it is not a sham.

"Jargoning" (speaking in jargon) is a way of referencing shared intellectual experiences.

Are we monkeys?
Of course not.
But we have monkeytude, mammaltude, and animality bred into the daily essence of our being. We have monkey elements to the very core of our being.
We know it but we do not honor it or make much awareness of it.
We tend to think we are always being reasonable.

Does poetry describe the poetic mystical absurd nature of reality or does poetry create the poetic mystical absurd nature of reality?

Every man in the store wants to have sex with every woman in the store,
and also wonders what it might be like to have sex with the women we don't want to have sex with.

If you want a philosophical understanding of several philosophers,
you must eventually bring them into the same universe.

In what sense do you see the world by looking at a map?

Knowing that pretending that life is not a game makes it easier for you to play the game does not imply that life is not a game.

What keeps keeps astrology going?

Model thinking: we simplify world and treat model as it is a world. We see how things work.
This does not work for an understanding of the world which encompasses all models of the world.

Models is simplistic or jargonizing, by focusing on one kind of truth that gives a universality .
Cat is on the mat, If the cat's hindquarters in the mat, and front is.
This kind of statement is boring beyond belief to the point of institutionalizing.

Not only are there lots of people in the world.
Our media collects and presents people in all forms of seductive or frightening forms.

One thing is what we are picking up on.
Another things is what are we using to pick up on things.

Our brain is so complex that the structures it is dealing with may be beyond its understanding.
We may be our own Turning machine.

Our sense of smallness protects us from the vastness.

People have their monkey fun: they sit on the deck of a boat, floating, drinking liquor, letching and fucking around.

Pitch, timbre, etc. are good terms to use in talking about music, but they are not a good way of talking about why people like music.

The same faculty that makes me aware of other people,
also makes me protective of the people near me.
This is one cause of inter-coalitional competition and war.
We are hardwired to do this when we fell frightened and threatened.
It can set off tragic chains of events.

The world is not an aesthetic experience, it is a world of action, not a world of knowledge.

There are not like there are 3 parts to the soul; there are not like 33 parts to the soul. The soul, like the world, like the sky, can be looked at a whole other way.
Probably a Gödellian proof that if you could look at it 33 ways you could also look at it 34 ways.

There is an element of shared societal value about anything: We like things because other people like things: horse-raising, word-wide wrestling, NASCAR, Brittnay

There is no test for reading the Sunday Edition of the New York Times, although there could occasionally be an accompanying meta-text: The Sunday NYT in context.
It would explain the appeal of each article and each section.
Unfortunately it would take much longer to write.

Understanding the concepts in the human mind is analogous to understanding geologic processes.
Geology is explained in simple processes, sedimentary, igneous metamorphic,
Uplift, tilting, lifting, mountains worn down built up, sediments..
At end you have a very complicated landscape that does not fit simple elements of geology.

We are processing all the time.
Process events that have to do with our existence.
But more frequently, especially when we are dealing with people, our membership in a tribe.

We don't actually exist in small bands.
Yet we keep up an illusions of smallness by make our world small with friends, routines and our difficulty of meeting strangers.

We humans lack a feeling of being orgasmically happy in a mass. Unlike fish or birds, we can't simply swarm, turning as one.
In a crowd we always pick out individuals:
that one is hot, that on is rich,
that one is stupid, that one is foreign,
that one is dangerous.
We have the concept of "strangers."
We need additional steps to get into a relation-ship with others.

We need new metaphors for what people are,
We have been using homunculus, people in people, actually ideal people in people, as metaphors for people.

We try to understand things by using models in our heads.
We should be talking meta-Models.

What is the difference between the philosopher's position and the outline of the philosopher's position?

What would a language be like where everyone could only speak the truth?
(We take a lot of shortcuts and poetic conceits.)

What would it be like to know 100,000 people?
We will never know.

When people are involved in sports, and you say that "Look, it's just a game," they get mad at you.
Part of the game is not to treat it like a game.

When we appreciate music we are appreciating a human synchronicity behavior, not had to see, it's never their in traditional music analyses.

Why are we uncomfortable with inconsistency?

Why do we all understand the voodoo doll?
It seems incredibly stupid.
But we understand stupidity.
— from personal experience.

Why do we crave knowledge?

(What is an idea?) We can make new art, new music, new poetry. Can we make new ideas? You would think we would get new ideas daily. Does a new idea have to be one that is accepted by a group of people?

A human, like most other mammals, is interested in things all day long.

A lot of conceptual systems are to STOP you from thinking
and go back to your monkeytude.

A sport can be played over and over again.
It's a form of statis in an unstable, changing world.

About the possibility of a universal narrative: Everyone can still look at things, and have whatever the fuck thoughts they want.

Academic voice is a culture of telling, not a culture of sharing or wondering.

All sorts of ways of not having to think: recipes, directions, routines..

Art is an international language.

At our deepest level, we feel that the lives of humans are important and sacred. (This does not make it true.)

Bullying becomes wrong because you are a bully.
That is how the human mind works.

Description is not primary.

Generalizing about "philosophers" makes as little sense as generalizing about "Americans."

Historically the acceptance of the atomic theory ruled out a lot of superstitious mumbo-jumbo.

How do we know if the world is changing very fast?

I find it peculiar that we cannot simply change our interests.
(One might think it would be easy.)
What are the nexus of forces that hold such things in place?

I have found the monkey dialog makes sense of things not made sense of under a reason paradigm.

Ideas die in philosophy by being suffocated by history of ideas

If we find someone who truly does not value knowledge, we think he is stupid — unless he is a Zen Monk,
or a philosopher.

If you spend enough time talking to people who are not like you, you think there does not exist anyone like you.

If you're a "stranger" it means we don't care about you.

In a movie many things are going on at once.
Any theory that focuses on only one thing is false by virtue of oversimplification.

In our inner movies we have pans and we have cerebral zooms: we don't have cuts, and multiple POVs.

In spite of the vastness of the world smallness is where we live.
We have our routines and a few intense relationship to a small number of people.

In the past people needed families to protect them (from other families.)

Interesting pictures are the ones that make me pause.
They interest me without thinking.

It is impossible for humans to look at humans without being blinded by the feelings and judgments that come from their human self.

It is morally wrong to be simple.

Kids don't get frustrated at their failures and disappointments in gaming.
But they do in their studies.

Laws: what is wrong with laws.
Can there be a post-law world.
-How would that work?

Listening to the thinking of academics is like watching a movie:
It is interesting, even when it is not, and time passes quickly.

Most of life has nothing to do with philosophy at all.

Most people are rabid little fans, support groups, cheerleaders for whatever their kids do.
They buy into the idea that the best we can do for our kids is to tell them they are great, and not wonder if they are not.

Most philosophers can't answer in just a sentences.
They answer in books.

One reason we cannot exist in a school or a pack is our need to concentrate.
When we concentrate we lose any awareness we have of other people.

Our mind not only zooms, but cuts to a new POV.

People like privacy and boundaries, it shows they can be an in-group and an out group.

People think that human behavior could be reduced to a complicated mathematical formula? How can we even think that?

Philosophers are bull in the china shop.

Philosophers build up a real pure distracting world apart from this real, important world we have no control over,'
So we don't figure out World of Philosophy Craft — we'll come back tomorrow.

Philosophy is a big-headed butting.

Power speaks to other elements of our personality.
Not reason, but to money.

Reason takes some rough equality of people; it's logic depends on axiom: I am no more important that one in the world. Reason does not like hypocrisy. We are equal. But in my actions, I am the most important thing in the world. Reason is not a competitive game plan You're not being reasonable. Be reasonable. Reasonable assumption.

Replace Knowledge by Humans
Replace Mind by Wired for Tribality
Replace Free Will by Why we Want to Do What We want to do
Replace The self by Ignorance — centerless self
Replace God by The religious impulse
Replace Reasoning by Here is how we actually think
Replace The World by Here is how we see the world
Replace What to Do by What to do — some suggestions

Saying something is not right is not at all as important than saying something IS right.

Shouldn't politicians and CEOs be tested to be sure they are not psychopaths?
(Power) politics aside, can psychologist do that?
If they cannot, then what exactly are they telling us about sociopaths?
Or does the apparent success of politicians and business leaders in their field trump their psychological limitations?

So why not a site that aggregates the new ideas of the day?
There is one problem: What is a new idea?
And what is an idea?

So, you think water is H3O. Who cares?
A lot of our knowledge seems to be a kind of status competition and one-upsmanship: So... you can't spell correctly, your grammar is bad, you don't know there is an election going on in Zimbabwe, you don't know much about history, you don't know where Kazakhstan is located.

Sometimes asking what truth is like asking what America is like.
It is not clear there is one answer here.

The concept of privacy is crucial to keeping information inside our little band.
We must be strangers and we must be intimates.

The pecking order does not fit with our analyses of what the status people want us to think.
Want us to think they are on top because they are the best.
even though it is obvious knowledge that many are incompetent or self-serving.

The polite form of WTF! is W!

The soul has been a pretty good idea, but perhaps it has outlived its usefulness,

The universality of Status and Pecking Order [S&PO] is recognized in the pages of, say, Psychology Today magazine, but it not an integral part of most human interactions where it comes into play. Why is this?

  • Is it because the game still has to be played out. Any remarks used in the game of status and power, even one that draws attention to the game-nature of the game, becomes one more piece in the game.
  • The concepts of S&PO are not part of our traditional religious ethics or of philosophical morality. They play no role in our traditional form of arguing.
  • Psychological thinking has not lost the association with its origin in the examination of marginal people. These are people of low status.
  • The small force of reason is easily trumped by the larger forces of status and power.
  • An analysis of S&PO threatens the traditional legitimacy of those in force and power.
  • Concepts of S&PO does not fit with the self-image that those of high status like to have of themselves. Being of high S&PO they have the power to impose their views on others.
  • People in power like to think it is because they are the best, or, in older days, because they were put into their position by a god of even higher status. Facts seldom bear this out.

There are things you do not because they are fun but because others will approve. (fun status — Broadway show)

They like to rub shoulders with really hard problems, like little cleaning fish in and out of the mouth and fishes of great beasts.

We actually don't know how to think about the world except to have humans be the most important species.

We are human (animality and tribality) it is what we do when we are not being intelligent

We are not only embodied but embedded in economic routines, mostly large bureaucracies and government.
We do not do what we think would endanger these because they would endanger our lived-factic-lives.

We close ourselves off, driving around in metal containers, walking around with cell phones or iPods, all the time talking about how much we communicate.

We know we can't survive without our economic system, even more important we know we don't want to.

We tend to go binary or at least simple.
To say there are 4653 personality types is not that useful.

We tend to identify with the best, or with our favorite parts of ourselves.
This is a problem.

We'll never know what the effect of rape is without our interpretation of rape.
If caregivers all say, rape is the worst things that can happen to you, you will probably believe that the rape is the worst things that can happen to you.
We can only watch these things over time.

What if sexual attractiveness did not stop at the borders of our species and we could appreciate sexy squirrels, birds and dogs?
Would that make a more interesting world?

What if we gave everyone all the money in the world, unlimited credit, how would that work?
What if, contrary to the laws of economics, they could actually get everything they wanted? How would that work?

What is a new idea? New facts, new conjectures disguised as a new facts.
We found this new skull, based on facts, techniques, protect, document,
But theory is that new species
New facts, new discoveries, new ways of looking at things.
Is a Rorschach test a new idea?
Is it like puzzle of five matches and make four triangles with them.
Is that a new idea?

Wittgenstein and Austin showed us the way out of this.
Regretfully. It was the path not taken.

You can count all the people in the cities but you can't know them.

You can create artistic titillation much faster than you can create the understanding of the titillation (the meta-titillation).

Is it permissible to hate a gender? a race?

According to Kant, our experiences of the world depend upon stimuli proceeding from external objects; and they depend upon a structure which we impose upon those stimuli.
We structure incoming stimuli according to certain categories (corresponding to the rose colored spectacles and the fishing-net in the stories). We impose a temporal order on incoming stimuli, so that all our experiences are located in time, occur before or after one another. We also impose a spatial structure, so that what we experience has a spatial location. And we impose a causal structure, so that the things we experience stand in causal relations to one another. Nothing counts as an experience of the world which is not structured this way. These then are the synthetic a priori.

Analytic philosopher have puzzled over the phrase "I believe it and it is not true."
This is good description of religion.

Can you represent the human soul without using the human body?

Entertainment is not communication, it is pulling your string, communication is trying to change mind or point of view.

Gender roles are a part of culture.

I can see why Wittgenstein is inclined to say that.

I have never been rejected by a television set (an iPod, a web page or a book.)
Perhaps I should have.been.

I think this snapshot identifies everyone as a group.

If you give someone your best argument, it never changes their mind.
It was probably not an argument that determined your belief in the first place.

Museums, and our world, place lot of emphasis on culture. It makes me wonder about my culture, like why I don't feel I have one, at least one in which I take any pride or comfort. Is culture given to me from the outside? (Is culture is how you are seen from the outside.)
I am a member of the only culture that is not honored: a white male. I feel I belong to the culture of those who have no culture. Yet I have a number of core beliefs; I do not see them as cultural as much as personal. Time has pointed out to me I am not a member of any avant-garde. or vanguard. I am not sure I am fighting a battle. I am more like the painter of battlefield.
Perhaps my culture is WannaBe

No one can sit with me inside my joy. Nor feel my pain.

OK let's declare essential philosophical understanding and move on

Suppose just before you enter heaven and just for a few days, (for as long as you could stand it) you could wander the world throughout time and space, seeing whatever you wanted to see.
What would you see?
How would that help?

Talking about culture and oppression is a opening a conversation with many voices And a lot of discomfort.

There is a complexity that is the opposite of understanding.
There is false complexity as well as a false simplicity.

We have no way, no plan to get from state of a few poor and a lot of rich, to a more equitable and just state.

We honor people in death because we are "people" people: we see people not as processes but, for lack of a better word, as people. People are fundamental building blocks of our world. We have a hard time when they die.

We like to see that other people are rule-followers.

What about the concept of fighting aphorisms? Three sentences and attitude. Other person comes back with three sentences.

What are some of our points-of-view?

  • religion simple stories
  • spirituality
  • family tribe
  • nation
  • dog eat dog
  • community
  • being nice

What makes us think we can rule out bullying in schools, if we can't even rule out nationalism, and political name-calling by the so-called adults?

Why is it so hard for cultures to live close to each other?

You can look it up, You can check the map. You can check the map again. You can ask someone. You can ask someone else. But at some point, you have to trust something.

No one came to America to wipe out native Americans. It was collateral damage.

Talking is not a sentence by sentence project.

About the nature of Dasein: That word is beyond experience. Always a horizon and is always something over the horizon. It too has an horizon.

Acing in a theater is almost the only place we have to try on alternative relationships, to marry someone else, hold someone else, be it only for a few minutes.

Certain keywords in our human filing structure are important keywords.

Does every culture have smart people?

Feelings come in groups.
They don't come with papers.

Generally we are not aware of the contexts we constantly fabricate. particularly when we are thinking.

How do we talk about something that cannot be talked about?
What do we mean by saying something cannot be talked about? [not described, but without experience words do not mean much sex, vacation]

How strange — people will kill you for inappropriate sex.

I know I keep analyzing the news. You think I would be done by now.
Reality trumps analisysality - x trumps meta-x.

If chemicals analyze into atoms, what do feelings analyze into, sense data? (No.)

In a significant sense, writing is a way of not talking to anyone.

In old days, power was hereditary, another way of not fighting for these things.
Intergenerational tenure.

Let's say we took every picture that could be taken, close, far, all around until we couldn't see it any more.
Nor is all sum of ways of looking at it, still not enough. We can always recontextualize.
All perspectives on flower is not the flower:

Most of us declare loyalty to a small bands, of family and buddies, dogs and grandkids.

Never simply decide between alternative philosophical theories.

Once the world was people, but now it is bureaucracies,
We do not see this. We cannot see our own structure, We only see individuals and small groups.

People accept things historically on faith, doing something and not quote knowing why. Fragmentary thinking: let's say 'save lives'. Moral rules, commandments...

People are scared of meeting predators, creeps and murderers even though the odds of this happening are very small.
People are just scared of meeting people.

Perhaps ancestors did the best they could. Didn't want to think outside the box, people would kill them for thinking outside the box.

Physics is knowledge but it is not all or most important knowledge.

School should be all about running as fast as you can down the halls of learning — because you can.

Sex is a way for people to connect without communicating in words.

The culture is like our culture: hard to change.
Once you get something stupid like Easter egg hunts going, every hard to change. Seems the way we do things. What we do. It is not discussable.

The major philosophical mistakes are made before a sentence is uttered.

The point isn't work as much as slots. More slots, good, more money, Not an efficient rational system, one that works. You appeal to individuals, work as a mass.

The reality we deal with is the picture we have of reality.

They announce the news, as though it is true and it is important.
They are the cullers and the announcers.

Utilitarian has its cases as though it is one theory that can be falsified.
perhaps it can't be judged on falsifiability but truthied.

We can't get rid of the institution of the family because we can't think of anything better.

We can't stop thinking about sex at all except for briefs instances.
Was it all that way?

We could take every nature event as symbolic of something. But it is expressive of how I interpret it, how I am feeling and more. It is not that simple, but that simple sometime.

We do not notice growth of populations.

We examine history of ideas: what other people have thought, You might think that would be useful. But since these are bogs, you will bog down

What is a sacred place, feel there might be goods, feels different and inviting as though someone is talking, maternal breath, breasts, inviting.

What is it to change your attention?

What is the un-metaphorical experience? Is there such a thing?

Why am I affected by Antigone? I do not believe in gods. I find respect for dead bodies fundamentally misguided.
But I can still relate to feelings, pride, and the quick and relentless changes of fate and fortune and the chorus of the community. Antigone is not only upholding the "law of the gods," she is also upholding her deepest moral beliefs and family duties, even at the cost of her life.

You can't get your youth back,
and you can't get your lovers back
but you can still play the music you played at the time.

"I see how you could think that."

A question:
Has the truth about the universe already been said?
Or has it not?

All of our satisfactions with life are based on small group interactions.
we have no idea what large group interaction can be,

Bonding is vital, but we can surely ask: Why bond for life with only one person? at a time? Why limit sex to our bondee of the moment?

Coalitional crap we have to work hard at being a marching band or a team of synchronized swimming.
It is not natural for us, unlike a school of fish, or a flock of birds.

Consider these lines from People as flowers. — Mary Oliver - When Death Comes:
and I think of each life as a flower, as common
as a field daisy, and as singular,

and each name a comfortable music in the mouth,
tending, as all music does, toward silence,

and each body a lion of courage, and something
precious to the earth.

. . .I don't want to end up simply having visited this world.

Everyone knows it is seven years bad luck to break a mirror. Everyone knows this is not true. No one breaks a mirror. (Do you have a better plan?)

Everything happens, and everything has happened, in somebody's lifetime.

I see a book called Plato in 90 Minutes. What about: Willy Mays in 90 Minutes. John Updike in 90 Minutes. Beethoven in 90 Minutes. The Lord of the Rings in 90 Minutes. College in 90 Minutes. Anna Nicole Smith in 90 minutes.

I suppose we are scared to look at force, we are timid and scared and pushed around all the time while maintaining an ideology that claims we are free and independent individuals.

If I am living a myth It is spread out in time.
Time is the storyteller.

If what we do in understanding is fit a context behind the words whereby it makes sense, then we are not describing the world but interpreting as interpreting a role

If you don't bond, you feel lonely.
The un-bonded life is empty.

In many arenas, theory is a myth.

Is it true that unless sex is held in place by very strong taboos, we will get nothing done at all?

It's not that civilization could not have developed in a different way.
Civilization could have been invented in Australia,
or we could have come to earth from a different planet.
But it didn't.
Animals could not have evolved
But they did.
People who refuse to believe science
are simply blowing off the way things are.

Military action encourages and sometimes enforces a kind of thoughtlessness — a lack of thinking. As though naked power, the ultimate enforcer, is too important to be evaluated. (You can see this at work in our current political debates.)

Myth is more sticky than meaningful.

New Word: correctness, as in
"If there is correctness I my theory.."

No large view, say that the world is made of atoms, will help the smaller view.

Other force is economic force, denial of food and resources, including women.

Real love is love of an actual person.

Scholarship is also part of the myth.

Self consciousness is not consciousness of self, but the consciousness of how I appear to others, and my basic concern with it. (Not letting me be what I am and what I am not.)

The ancestors I admire are all the people on earth who were able to do what they had to do.

The human mind may not be able to make me a truly new ritual for the same reasons it might not be able to create a new form of hospitality:
we need to satisfy human heartmind.

The innocence of a child is not innocence but lack of limitations in a world without sex.

The interactive monkey things is what keeps us together

The myriad of people all around me everywhere to whom I hardly speak is like a great shy herd of animals.
Think of fish in great numbers. Only a few swim close enough to be seen.
Most are part of a flowing landscape. Think of the way we look at trees.

The niche theory involves holding onto your niche.

The word "ocean" is metaphor. It describes the force field of our fellow humans' "stranger-behavior," the set of behaviors and eye gestures they employ so they will not be seen or disturbed.

The world cannot be summed up in a mood,
or a metaphor.

There are certain triggers that people have, mess with their kids, defend territory,
Sometimes we are a crowd of stupids.

There are some things we do not understand:
How to get along with each other.
How to work together in big groups.
What it is to be someone else
What part of our behavior is driven by our genes
How to use a common sophisticated philosophical system for thinking about all this allowing for the incredible detail it requires.

There is no method but honesty.

Till the soil, show care, go for long term results, conform, approval of admiration of neighbors, a member of the suburban turf team.

To think you will understand the world by looking at something small and strange, like a line of poetry, a line in manuscript, an obscure text, is living under the influence of a myth.

as in Ironman
shows us things of which we can't even make a prototype.
Thus, in the virtual world we can yearn for the impossible.
This is like religion.
We thereby engender false wishes, false hopes and virtual disappointments.

We can have sacred feelings, and emotions, but not need to be committed to the externality of it all.

We can only juggle so many balls.

We could swarm, pile up, touch and be realized in big piles, but we are not.

We create many worlds, many endless universes, in which we wander and even emigrate.

We hide from each other, through the opacity of the stranger, that other people can kill, touch, sex, and wash your feet.

We like our routines.

We must ignored and over-ride how the mind works with our mind.
How is that possible?
We must re-orient.

We nurture and protective our animals — and then we eat them.

We spread out in the café because we don't enjoy socializing with strangers.
We could after all sit anywhere.

We're not all that rational.
We plan well whenever we are frightened, or off our routines.

What do you need to know about geography?
If you don't know Norway is in Europe, just how do you hang Norway in your mind?

What is the phenomenology of living the mythical life?

When something out the ordinary happens, we start thinking, and fearing.
Fearing is thinking.

Why does not all the creativity, ingenuity and rightness of a good film translate into politics? In politics we usually find the stupidity of a football-coach, unreflective and limited..

Why is combat such a central metaphor? Because we are animals.

Would it be possible to include animals as humans?

You can tune into any level you want: Macro, National, Regional, families, social class, Gender,

You cannot drift too far from the herd.

You could argue that these cartoon super heroes are like war gods, not as good or Christ, but up there with Jehovah.

You won't understand it: And the reason is that even if you have all the facts. You don't know how you would be in different situation. Though you do know the power.
And even if you do know what you would do, you know that others would do things differently.
You don't know how you would react if you were Jew in Nazi Germany after the holocaust began.

Human satisfactions with life are based on small group interactions. We have no conception of what large group interactions might be, such as saving the world or living in peace.

In reading a book of wisdom we are drawn into a myth that someone has the answers. We had people with answers long before we had answers. All societies have them. We have them now.

In the feminist era, the role of woman was a new frontier.

"Reality is not a representation. Reality is a presentation of being."

A cat might distinguish good catnip from bad catnip,
but can he tell us why he likes catnip at all?

Always seeking "status" That is not the word, we have no word.
Admired, dangerous, sexy, smart, nice, hard-working, honest, dangerous,
M-M, M-F, F-M, F-F
Status is a word that unites our awareness for people (prejudice) initial categories — Gender, race
Also broadcasting and receiving 24-7
Even when sleeping: snoring, tossing, bed wetting
Difficulty of talking about this — we are living 24-7
Wittgenstein "unless that has struck someone...:

Difference between a animal painted, attempted animal painted, word animal, and a photograph of the animal.
We respond to animals.

Don't say "Israel," or "America."
Say "the current government of Israel," or "the current government of the United States."
And even these are not monolithic entities.

Heroisms is back-side of status.
Heroism is back-side of sibling competition.
Heroism is being a winner in status.

Humans want the same things:
Humans want love. Humans want peace. Humans want to have babies. They want their babies to have babies. They want their babies' babies to have babies.
(What is wrong with this picture?)

I can navigate around the news I don't like, avoiding stations and clicking around. I avoid news of celebrity, grisly murders, sports, and election gossip. But others can do just the opposite and seek out those kind of things and avoid the things that I like.
We share a common delusion there is one reality, though our realities are very different.

I suppose our power to believe strange things is one with the power of the mind to make sudden adjustment to the unexpected.

Identification with part of you, as opposed to all of you.

It doesn't take much to creep us out.
A simple movie can do it.

It may be right to believe,
and it may be necessary to believe.
But it is not right not to do so without knowing what you are doing.

Obsessive-compulsive is someone who can't change their behavior.

on "pecking-order":
Unlike chickens,
we compete in many arenas.

On the one hand we have the complexity of the world. On the other we have the limited capacity of human mind to come to an understanding of this world.

Our animality is just what we are. It is not something part from us. We fight it, but what guides us in the fight?

Our warrior self, our ability to kill other humans.

Part of being a human is being in false simplicities.

The otherness of the others.

So how shall we talk about status? Receiving, Broadcasting, Processing

Some people think we should follow all the rules.

There are no Arabs. There are no Jews. (Just a huge number of individual people who can be labeled as Jews or Arabs. There are also many who are borderline.)

There are strangers we will help,
and strangers we will not.

There is no value free term for sex, penis, vagina, rape, murder.
In our culture it is impossible for these words not to thrill with meaning.

Traditional values are breaking down.
Many of them were beautiful and many were deeply moral.
All of them proved inadequate.
And all were based and justified on silly reasons.

War has not actually kept the population down.

We are "mankeys."
We are "personapes."

We have so many images of ourselves that we can't even agree on who we are.

What would human life be without striving, fairness, status,
We would not be human.

As we get older we begin to fight with the phantom horns.

A metaphor is a new contextualization.

A useful and philosophical phrase:
"I must have mis-seen it."

Engagement is stuff we engage in and internalize — in behavior.
It does not feel that way because we like to chatter, talk and think along with it. But the chatter can be seen as an aspect of behavior.

Examples of animality and status:

  • fear
  • craving for sex
  • fight or flight
  • ability to work and do without reasons
  • things we do for love.we have humanity (most for noblest aspects) and we have our animality.

    How can we really think about the development of language, when we have a simplistic picture of language?

    If we need a God to establish life, why do we not also need a divine intervention whenever we cook a soufflé or boil a potato. Surely such miracles cannot happen by chance?

    It may be a personal game we are playing: over-arching thing is relationship between individual and the group.
    We do not want to give ontological primacy to the group.
    Why not?

    Must we subjugate nature before we can appreciate nature?

    No need to make sense of the history of philosophy,
    It is a contentious cumbersome path, eccentric bickering losing way and wandering off.

    Physics is a radical simplification of the world. And you get to call it the world. It sucks up all the mindfulness.

    Suppose you were going to die tomorrow. You wouldn't be looking for girlfriend.

    the manimal

    The world permits all sorts of false images.

    Ways not to talk: Logical Positivism for everyday life:
    Generalizations about cultures, race, nations, generalizations.

    We are the animal whose being has its own animality as an issue.

    We can as easily give up philosophy as we give up desires, (sex, food).

    We can say and think we are above animality, just ignore things but no: even our feeling of superiority is an animality thing of status.

    We contextualize not only our words, but our reality as well.
    A house.
    Easier to do it in words.

    We engage in constant oversimplification.
    This titillates us.

    We like to simplify and we love simplifications.
    4 humors. Top 10.
    This is comprehensible.
    What if there were 7434 emotions?

    We make more room in world if we assume all profanities, are personal.
    All feelings of importance are your feelings of importance.
    Of course they are.

    "What are you watching when you watch a film?" "What are you seeing when you see the world?"

    As humans we continue the tasks that have maintained us for years and now seem useless. We quilt to keep ourselves warm and protected. We dig — now in our garden. We hunt and gather in stores, we collect.

    Black holes of understanding: Things not clear we can know that much about and need to talk carefully about

    • how language world
    • Relationship between language and world
    • Culture

    Can you walk through the world with no dreams?

    How would you know if you have overunderstood the world, either oversimplified it made it unduly complex?

    In a different time of experiment than logical positivism the PC crowd tried to limit certain kind of speech.
    This also failed.

    It is not only the atoms in our bodies that are replaced over time, but also the elements of our lives. The record is replaced by the MP3 file. The baby by the child by the young adult. One town, one job, by another. Our young self by our older self. Like summer by winter.

    Language is sound human cattle make as they whatever

    My main understanding is a periodic feeling of understanding that cannot be communicated. This is not an understanding as much as a pleasure in continuing along this road.

    Old people and young do not mean the same thing by love.

    Philosophy books are as useful as self-help books.

    Profound confusion, of the kind we get from philosophy, is not wisdom.

    use of words
    Presentation of ideas
    Leave in freedom — not using force
    Analysis works in troubleshooting, cause and effect, recipes
    Thinking — nice way of not doing anything This is work>
    No one knows future:
    What is the myth of reason
    We are not comfortable if we do not know what is going on.
    What is our understanding of the world.
    Concept of matter of taste: words not really important
    What is being smart: smarty[pants, smart-aleck
    What does it mean to make you think the same things,
    Can only view arguments if live in a sceptical state.
    Analytics: looks at the parts
    Instead of argument you can call it attitude.

    Scientists will do the life-history of a shring-mite but not the history of grain of salt.

    Status is the backside of self-evaluation.

    The illusions of understanding is often the point.

    The limits of language, are the limits of philosophy: Where language ends, and force, leadership, coercion, seduction and trade take over.

    The overly heroic determination of ones petty little life.

    The record is and is not a thing as we are and are not a body.

    The subconscious can be fooled by a beautiful woman.

    The subconscious cannot be another person inside us trying to be heard.
    It would have its own subconscious.
    "Subconscious" is a word to characterize unacknowledged and sometimes repressed tendencies of our thoughts and actions.

    The super ego sitting on top of me.
    Whatever I'm doing, it monitors is this a symptoms as sign of senility, aging, delusion.

    Understanding mechanism of deep complexity. We do not need to understand language, the mind or understanding itself in order to navigate the world in a rich and involving manner.

    We expect the subconscious to have answers when all it has is tendencies.

    What are all these dead people in Halloween symbolize?
    They don't symbolize anything?'
    Everything symbolizes everything
    We have this flight from significance.
    We are allowed to do things outside parameters of significance. Sometimes metaphors are just apparent.

    What does it mean to look at the world without delusions or desire.
    Like the Kantian noumena...
    Without fear, attraction, interest or revulsions
    We tense up
    We have allegiances
    We are permeated by our animality.

    What does it mean to say we think in stories?
    Do we understand our lives in stories?

    What game are we playing? (Humans play multiple games at once.)

    What is the faith of reason?

    Why does rhymes, alliteration, and puns can seem significant.
    This is a fake, coincidental profundity.

    Words hare only gotten trickier.
    Whatever Orwell said, it did not stop anyone.

    Wrong even to think in terms of age groups. A silly oversimplification.
    It's wrong thinking in terms of men and women.
    We see things that way.
    Taboos kick into place.

    It would be cool if a few Christians actually attempted to follow the teachings of Christ, rather than retreat to the black and white simplicities of the Old Testament? If they practiced the do's instead of the don'ts?

    "[The California Indian] lived at ease with the supernatural and the mystical which were pervasive in all aspects of life. He felt no need to differentiate mystical truth form directly evidential or "material" truths, or the supernatural from the natural: one was as manifest as the other within his system of values and perceptions and beliefs." -Theodora Kroeber — Ishi in Two Worlds (1961) 23
    Do we understand this? We make sense of words. We take words at hand and form meaningful sentences.

    A little reason and religion does not prevent us from reverting to the most primitive conditions, are avoiding the built-in effectiveness of the most primitive appeals...

    Are fantasy yearnings (for salvation, for a perfect lover) real feelings?

    Because we cannot cover all the stories.
    News has a group solidarity function
    We are stuck with symbolic or metaphorical news where some stands for all.

    Emotion is certitude in feeling and often in reaction.

    Enthusiasms hold our fears at bay.

    Footnotes give a fake foundation. Maybe go and look up that book. That should all be electronic now. Zoom into that book and boink. Built on layers of perception.

    Force, humiliation, sissy, cowards,.. We cannot fight the power thugs that be.

    From 2008 to 1950, is 60 years, go back another 60 to 1890 and one more to 1830. What seemed lost in a way-way past was not that long ago.

    How can you know how you are going to feel?
    You can't. (You can't feel what you are going to feel.)

    How do you know when you are fooling yourself?

    How easily we humans slip into (the concept of) wanting to kill someone.

    I cannot tell if my depression is caused by my lingering flu, my difficulties in writing a philosophy book or my static life.
    why is that?
    It seems a foolish way to run a soul.

    I watch others to see if they have consciousness.
    Do I watch myself?

    Is it easier to talk to people of your own sex. Is that because the ever-present signals about sex and relationships pollute positive signals that may exist in other arenae?

    It may be impossible to watch a game without rooting for someone.
    This is our curse.

    Jazz: deconstructing of a tune in a nice way

    Machinery of desire is hidden as we desire someone or something.
    Everything is focused on the object of desire.

    Meta is tiring, but you don't need to do it all he time. You can rest in the lower level

    Not just watch television show, common experiences.. Seek the uncommon experiences.

    People are comfortable killing other people, using expressions of violence and force.
    I will kill you. I'm going to annihilate you.

    Philosophy has rules, like sudoku. Arbitrary, pointless, but rules nonetheless.

    Some things are easier to write about, culture, language, etc. Our culture loves to mull on these.
    Others are harder, force, crowd behavior.. Goes against the fantasy grain of our society,.

    Some things must be learned person by person:
    What you can change, what you can't
    What you can do
    Your limits
    How brave you are.
    How smart you are.
    The limits to the magic-ness of the world.

    Some things you cannot see:

    • Intelligence
    • Musicians
    • Money
    • Sexual kinks
    • Education
    • Humor
    You can signal these but because you can signal you can dissemble, dissimulate.

    The best argument for gay marriage is: What if you were gay?

    The legal definition of an act changes our perception.
    If a law is passed with unintended consequences, say, that two young teenagers having sex are now considered a sex-crime, we eventually begin to think that, oh, that must be rape, that must be serious. Whereas previously we did not think it was all that serious.

    The Ten Commandments tells us to honor thy mother and thy father.
    Why is there no commandment to love and protect thy children?

    There is confusion about the things (NASCAR, football parades) that everyone takes so seriously.
    Yet talking things seriously together (even if dumb and harmless) is necessary for social cohesions.

    There is no short list of books you can read to understand the universe. (You didn't think it would be that easy, did you?)

    This is why there is not a great philosophy book. Our activities may not need an über-activity.

    We love simplicities. We call them understanding.

    We may seek an intellectual understanding, but how do we know we are not winding up with a personal understanding?

    We still have all these ritual superstitions: the dream-catchers, lucky rabbits foot, Friday 13th

    What are we saying when we say Kant has shown that...?

    What do we seek in the sentences of others.
    Just programmed to scan and interpret what others tells us.

    When we start of simplistic assumptions ("the mind consist of three parts") We basically start off in the wrong direction.

    (The use of) understanding as good directions: if you want to get to Paris here is what you must do.

    A Christmas tree is a poem (or perhaps, many poems) To bring a tree inside merges the inside the outside Christmas lights as fire Christmas lights as fruits. Christmas lights as stars. Christmas lights as a patterns of lights. A way of signaling that people are here. Christmas light bring light to the darkness. We live in lights. This merges the light and the dark. Christmas lights as stars in the tree (the gods as a way of signaling) This merges the canopy with the floor, the open and the closed. There are presents under the tree. We approach the tree. The tree provides. We must bow down to receive our gifts. A tree is protection String, big and sheltering. A tree indicates water. A tree is fire and warmth. Without burning a fire which is burning a tree humans could not survive the cold climates of Christmas. (Hence the mythical Yule Log). (We love wood. Paneling and flooring can be any pattern at all but we like the pattern of wood grains.) The midwinter solstice is more important and more frightening in the higher latitudes, because it is so cold and the nights are long. The cold and dark brings us closer to our death. We huddle down. We celebrate at the nadir, the perigee. A tree is evergreen We honor the one that holds fast to and still flies the greens of summer. A fir tree has less personality than a deciduous It is interchangeable. Like people, the firs and pines grows in thick stands that changes the livability of a region. An evergreen does not open an umbrella to catch the light. It is a slim rise to the top, through the canopy, to the stars. We don't have to believe the tree is a god. We say the tree is a god because the symbolism of it all: it is subconsciously obvious.

    A loved one dies and we a thrown for a loop.

    A poem, like a religion, lets you stop thinking.

    A proof:
    Even if we reduce the world to atoms, we will not be able to understand every atom of the word the world because it would take (at the very least) one atom to store the information about another molecules.
    So at best the universe would be a model of itself. and this is not acceptable.

    Among things that will not work: False authority of throwing readings at someone. Books prove anything.

    An interesting question: What do I need to know?

    Are there things say among our own race we do not say in mixed race company?
    Are there things we say about race only behind closed doors?
    Do we speak, do we act for our race?

    Argument as combat... Conveying information is the least of what we do when we are talking.

    Art is old as religion.

    Can you make a fake culture? Why not?

    Competition is all we know, the beating of our fellow man in force, women, money, wisdom, beauty, entertainment. If we ever were to start seeking 'Peace on Earth and Goodwill towards Men' we would soon be competing about this. If we were to begin to be , we would soon have a humility competition.

    Do you understand this fact?
    In 1858 there were 20,00 Norwegians in Minnesota, in 1870 there were 400,000.

    Everyone of the six billion people on the planet has a personality and a reason to live. A remarkable achievement.

    Give us rhythm and repetition and it hijacks out thoughts

    Having philosophers answer the big vague questions Is like having mental institutions fix people with mental disabilities, prisons reform our delinquents or school teach the disaffected students.

    How am I doing?
    Compare this to: How is Spokane doing?

    Humans have hundreds uncounted ways of being conservative.

    I let my words go and drift like someone who lets a balloon go.
    But no, in philosophy you can never let go of the string.

    Is our anger more real than our happiness?
    Is a storm more real than a placid surface that reflects the pleasant sky?
    Well it is something to watch out for.

    It is not just religion, but in everything we use the human body and personification. Attributing action, hence will and perception. It is how we understand causation.

    Look at your words with suspicion. These phrases are OK: going to a movie, enjoyed the movie, I like moves. These are problematic: What is a movie? Why did you enjoy this movies? Should I enjoy movies?

    Most people do not play meta. It is no fun. Too damn hard. No vocabulary. Most people look for happiness and fun, not philosophical understanding.

    Much of our help is symbolic. Someone is symbolically helping me, so I feel symbolically good.

    My belief that I will one day understand the world may be like my belief that one day I will meet the perfect woman.

    Not making sense is what we do with people.

    Some poetry intends to mystify the world.

    Some words are spoken and used—passionately—before they are understood. (Later some of those early sentences are seen as inadequate.)
    This includes words like culture, postmodern, language, reason, self and love. They are the land in which we yearn to travel. It holds out so much hope.

    Talking is an offshoot of posturing

    The most common way to understand the word is to simplify it where other things no longer count. World of religion, mathematics physics, psychology, astrology. They fill the mind with their difficulty.

    The 'rules of the game' is a deceptive metaphor.

    The Spokane Tribe of Indians have a history but not much of a culture.

    The whole point of having family is to minimize the larger social group.

    There have no natural enemies so we will just fight each other.

    Unlike say, child rape, childhood bullying has been tolerated in the recent past. Now people want to move the line of the unacceptable. The awareness of the move demonstrates the arbitrary nature of unacceptability which in turn undercuts the alleged universality of the unacceptable and places it closer to a common hysteria.

    Vocabulary — parasitic, epiphytic is our first and easier ways of understanding.
    Classification is extremely useful but equally more, extremely satisfying.

    We cannot help transmitting
    We cannot help receiving.
    We are always on
    with the sensor/process that is always
    checking our status, among other things.

    We clothe ourselves in stupidities and oversimplifications, limiting attitudes and prejudices

    We do not know our reactions.
    We are a black box to ourselves.

    We don't have to believe the tree is a god.
    We say the tree is a god because the symbolic obviousness of it all. It is subconsciously obvious.

    We substitute poetic complexity, for spiritual complexity.

    What does it matter if racism has had survival value.
    We also have a moral system and some control over what we do.

    What is architectural style but a manifestation of human conservatism? I have a rooster wind-vane on top of my garage. Now it's a real house.

    What is the relationship between feelings and thinking? I'm angry.
    We contextualize where a feeling is like thinking.

    You can't ask people to stop making sense.
    You can't ask people to stop talking.

    A commentator said: all sorts of "overlays" on this

    Animal smiles are not smiles.

    Because it is so hard to say the most verbally appropriate thing, we will throw out something — anything.

    Before we make fun of the other media — the grating immoralities of rap, the adrenalin junk of movies, the video games and iPod — we might look at our favorite eyes, the book. Or our words.

    Book speech is not casual speech. In casual speech we do not give footnotes. We are granted the leisurely argumentation. We do not lecture like book. A book is composed speech.

    Consider This!™:
    There are no assholes. There are only people who do the kind of things that might make me call them an asshole. But they are not assholes; "asshole!" is my verbal/mental reaction to them.
    Like all feelings and emotions, my verbal/mental reaction is neither true or false.

    David Hume describe the unbridgeable is-ought gap.
    More common in everyday speech is the is-ought (described-judged) amalgam.

    Do we know why we are or are not religious? Do we know why we are followers of particular political party? Do we know why we study philosophy? I think not.

    Elections today consist of:

    • Putting up signs with your name on it.
    • Catching the opponent in an off-putting moment.
    • Voting along party-lines knowing that the parties are mostly the same.
    • Knowing that legislators, like people, never get to vote on important things.

    How much of what you think about yourself is total bullshit?

    I am not saying this is simple. Nothing that humans do is simple. The inability of our greatest minds to arrive a consensus is an indication of that. (Only our explanations of ourselves are simple.)

    I listen to love songs though I do not love.
    Music is emotions by proxy, as watching football is living by proxy.

    In the early maps of the West, no one really knew what was there between the coasts, so cartographers simply drew in mountains, rivers and lakes. Later cartographers carried on many of these features.
    Philosophy is like that. When we ask what philosophers have thought about the soul, we are comparing the different shades of the mountains as drawn up by different cartographers on the different early maps. [This is an important metaphor.]

    It is built into us to be suspicious and we are as inclined to kill strangers as to deal with them

    It is clear that much of our life is ruled by the unexperienced: by instincts (including herd instincts), genetic predispositions, the structure of the brain and other unexperienced determination.

    Label something as a performative utterance makes it sound like one of say 17 different kinds of utterances. But it is not like that at all. I have taken a snapshot, from one particular point of view.

    May not be beauty, truth, understanding, wisdom, or peace love happiness., enlightenment, peace (except times of peace). Tendency to define that direction What is simplification. Is not a philosophical/learned mistake It's an instinct. A sign of this is that we do it over and over.

    Maybe "understanding the world" is a misleading phrase. The same may be true for "making sense of the world."

    One can take the serious view of mankind, that politics, academic, philosophy and business are difficult ongoing processes and that in spite of puzzling behaviors, they are on the right tracks.
    Or, and this is a spiritual argument, as humans we are hardwired to engage in activities that are not necessarily justified by reason alone.

    Our search for a perfect place (a vacation, a new home, a place so much better than this!) is a conceptualization built upon our animal behavior that draws us into exploring new territory and forming new bands.

    Philosophy is nothing if not impressive.
    After a few paragraphs you are lost.

    Primitives think like: in the different parts of landscape, the gods turn someone to stone.
    That doesn't make much sense. Making the Grand Canyon by dragging an axe. This is not going to work, unless it makes you stop thinking.

    Racism works best by stopping thought when we seldom run into members of the other race. It is like my metaphor of early map-makers sketching in the mountains.

    So what is understanding. One is removal of puzzlement. Another is?

    The archetypes and core narratives are our inner media.

    The calculus of racism: We speak by grasping at whatever symbols we have behind our back.
    (We so understand this shit.)

    The following "final definition of convention:
    A regularity R in the behavior of members of a population P when they are agents in a recurrent situation S is a convention if and only if it is true that, and it is common knowledge in P that, in almost any instance of S among members of P,

    1. Almost everyone conforms to R;
    2. Almost everyone expects almost everyone else to conform to R;
    3. Almost everyone has approximately the same preferences regarding all possible combinations of actions;
    4. Almost everyone would prefer that any one more conform to R, on condition that almost everyone conform to R;
    5. Almost everyone would prefer that any one more conform to R', where R' is some possible regularity in the behavior of members of P in S, such that almost no one in almost any instance of S among members of P could conform both to R and R' (CPS, 78)

    The world is round, but the world in our mind is flat.

    There is one over-arching scenario that explains our fascination with so many of our plots and quests and emphasis on winning.
    As an animal we need to fight to win the a maiden to have sex and have babies.
    After that we can live they tell us without much interest happily ever after.
    This is the ur-narrative.

    Using fuzzy language to deal with a fuzzy world is like looking at fuzzy objects through fuzzy glasses. Although fuzzy words do have a use.

    We all have access to same group of words. We can't not use a word soul because we don't have a PhDs in philosophy. There are no sumptuary laws about vocabulary.

    We all take conscious experiences as an ontological given. Anything else is silly.
    To argue that consciousness does not exist is offensive to consciousness.

    We are engaged in the world in our experience and in our understanding of the world, as we are engaged in conversations, but we are also engaged in the world like the gears of a car are engaged. We are engaged in the world like other animals are engaged in the world.

    We don't know what we are doing though it must be important to think we do.

    We flash deeper and brighter in the media.
    We are smarter in books, more attractive in movies and better singers on records.
    media are humans enhanced.

    We take basic structures that are built into us and we modify them to use them in novel ways. We are completely unaware of this. And we have no simple way of talking about this

    We talk of nations, and men, and women, and sex and death and age and races and genders. We use mental simplifications though not in a simple way. Nothing we do is simple.

    Your feeling about the world is neither true or false, except as a feeling.

    Your feelings about the world are neither true or false

    What is new in grammar?
    How about emoticons, or the acronymic turn.

    I read the results from the contemporary results of brain scans, and I wonder if our analyses are little better than medieval in their ultimate explicatory power.We speak of feelings, emotions, self, thoughts, yet we have no common agreement on what these concepts mean. We cannot even agree on the names of the emotions. They are hardly better than the ancient talk of humors, or of the wet and the dry.

    On our interest in basketball and sports:
    ("We won!")
    it shows we can't stop competing as tribes.

    We can also think with the unconscious part of our mind.
    I do it when I fix computers.
    My fingers know what to do.

    We have an unspecified number of inner processes which do not always talk to each other. All have a vote in what we do.
    Our decision to use reason is of this kind of decision.

    We literally do not see how many of us there are. We cannot literally comprehend this. We can comprehend a family, perhaps a class of 30, but not thousands and millions of people.

    We need another word for bullshit, the kind of bullshit that consists of uttering an unsupported or unsubstantiated point of view with the serious deep unctuous demeanor of stating an important truth that we may not understand. When we are bullshitting yourselves.

    We seek out the arenas.

    What is it to be in a hurry? What is to be on time? How did humans first get a sense of that? How do we get interested in getting there quicker?

    Why does it not occur to us that we are sadly lacking in vocabulary?
    Because we speak successfully with this all the time. We ask and answer questions, we are correct or incorrect.
    We are satisfied.

    Why don't we stop having groundhog day?
    The science is completely bogus.
    Does it survive because it is so stupid?

    All ideas are always someone's ideas,
    always held by a (specific) person.

    Genetically induced behaviors evince themselves through persistent tendencies.

    Ideas come with emotions because emotion engages our attention.
    Emotions are attention.
    They also have an anesthetizing effect on the alternative ways of looking at things.

    It is hard to do justice to the fuzziness of it all.

    People will read a good philosophy book then next week listen to Bishop Tu-Tu daughter and later listen to Dr. Phil. They will make sense of them all. How can that possible be?
    Perhaps it is the nature of language to be seductive.
    Language tunes you in, in the way that music tunes you in.

    We can do brain scans.
    It is not clear we can do thinking about brains scans.
    Brains scan thinking is like: Oh she hangs out in the artsy section of town, she must be artsy.
    Well she could be artsy.

    We evaluate and understand facts with emotions.

    What if earth was not just four billion years old but four thousand billion years old?
    Geology would be far more complex.
    Our understanding would involve more et ceterae.

    What is the importance of etymology?
    Surely we could invent new words for all our words?
    Or do the hidden metaphors and cross-references provide essential subconscious mind-holds for our brain?

    You have, by default, status with your kids.

    Cell phones can increase communication but they can also increase the lack of communication as the provide one more tunneling capabilities for you to stay connected mostly to those people you already know.

    Did anyone know about the [late 2008] world economic meltdown? Either answer is frightening.

    Our economic system is not designed to make us happy. It is designed to make us want.

    Chess teaches us that (1) we cannot calculate the consequences of our actions, nor consider all possibilities, and (2) there is always someone who is smarter than us.

    Educated people are ambitious people.
    (And not all that educated.)

    It is a strange belief that by using certain very specific words, magic things will happen.

    Not only do we have a duty to see our world anthropologically, we have a similar duty to also psychologically and sociologically.
    But academic disciplines don't see themselves in the other disciplines. It as though they are regions separated by borders instead of being different perspectives on the whole reality thing.

    We tend to leave the middle class lifetime unexamined.
    We can wonder, why, when given a lot of money, that these are the things humans do when they get access to resources and possibilities.
    "But aren't we just fed stuff by the capitalist system?"
    "No. That could just be your lack of awareness.

    When we see an shrine, like a home for small beings we cannot see, we are thrown into uncertainty. It is all so pointedly pointless.

    The turn signal on a car does not need to be any brighter. A bright spotlight would fail for this application.

    A secret is something you are afraid to tell someone.

    If the hallmark of a genetic behavior is that we do some things again and again, it would seem that almost everything we do is genetic: we collect things, look at women, shop.
    We cannot say just what it is about these things that make them worth doing.
    We flow along within the parameters of what is comfortable.

    Many people get mad if you disagree with them. What does this tell us about truth?

    On word usage:
    A phrase like "blow your mind" floats down a lazy river of associations, which we process over time.
    Understanding may consist of a number of processes of understanding that do not all take place immediately.

    The will does not exist. There is no will in the brain.
    The will exists only in a world where you start talking as though there is a will — as though the human mind is made up of parts, with functions like different personalities.

    We can't comprehend the world because we are sucked into it so easy and we must navigate it even as we try to understand it.

    Dissatisfaction (and worry) are fundamental processes of our life.

    I find it easier to look at people with a loud song in my ear. Why?

    Why is there is perennial fascination with spells and incantations when there are no such things?

    Education is a kind of parenting.

    It is impossible to look at people without sensing a narrative. Age, gender. attractiveness are all proto-narratives.

    Left alone the mind goes to worry.

    Analysis never catches up with reality

    Sex overwhelms us. Since most people have not had sex with that many people, if someone tells you that you are the greatest lover they have ever known, that would be like a person who has only read ten books say that this is the greatest book he has ever read. But in fact, such a statement is usually overwhelming.

    We want the world to be understood.

    Being decent may keep you out of hell, but it will not get you into heaven.

    All we have are oversimplifications.

    A religion that tells you that you can master it while you are still in junior high, rules out the importance and fails to appreciate the difficulties of spiritual development.

    How to talk about language: If you look up definitions of language, they seem to circle around words like: Language, communicate, transmit, information (or meaning). The etymology trickles out in the desert of weak metaphors.

    • People talk all the time. It is a kind of social grooming.
    • Sometimes we talk and we are but the television program in the background.
    • The basic metaphor is something like this: we are constantly transmitting at multiple levels, we are constantly listening at multiple levels. It is like listening/transmitting to many radio station at once. It is like background monitoring processes in computer, triggered by things we are not clearly aware of.
    • It is not clear we have names for this.
    A list of these processes will include:
    • sex
    • status
    • threats/power relationships
    • the unexpected
    • hunger
    • bathroom functions
    • awareness of situations
    There is no master plan. The system grew, with redundancies and false starts. Occasionally the system is at odds with itself.

    Democracy depends on getting votes. Politicians will resort to racism, xenophobia, and hysteria to get those votes. Therefore, democracy is not a path to progress or enlightenment.

    Knowledge leads away from wisdom when it leads to an involvement in study and small details.

    Many modern preoccupations (like movies, video games, texting) have slipped under education radar.
    Education is always conservative: this worked for me and so it should work for you.
    However when there were rules of talking (etiquette), talking was made completely boring.

    Our celebrity world is based in part on our need to know the vertical story of each person — where they were born, who they married, what they look like...

    Paying attention is ignoring the rest of the world.

    We think in people.

    What does the Wikipedia tell us about human knowledge?
    What are the things we think we know? And the things we want to know?

    Most of the time, our ten foot circle (the arena in which we can make a personal difference with another) is empty.

    Myths are not novel concepts like the corn god, or the anima. Myths are the concepts we use daily to think about the world: the leader, the wise man, the army, god, religion, self, the nation, the race, me.

    The Ten Foot Circle (in which I live): Maybe I can take care of what happens there.

    Today a student has many ways to copy and plagiarize information from the Internet. A simple way of determining what a student knows, would be to talk to them.

    Could there be a community of people who do not misuse language?
    (I do not count those who have taken a vow of silence.)

    I am working on an epistemology,
    or perhaps a de-epistemology.
    Since we understand in misunderstandings and fake knowledge.

    One illusion of philosophy is that you are engaged with everyone in a friendly, supportive agon of wisdom.

    The Internet dumbs us down not only by its distractions but by denying access to the scholarship of the past eighty years.
    I may be in favor of throwing away 99% of that scholarship, but the other 1% is the glory of mankind,
    the diamonds of the mind.

    The reason why we can't analyze our feelings and mood is that most moods are a chemical reaction, hormones, a triggered response.
    It is like a fire-alarm going off.
    What triggered the alarm, one act or many, is not always clear.

    Why if we are bothered by a woman do we sometimes make generalization about all women?
    If we dislike a black man why do we generalize do we dislike black people?
    Why do we so easily slip into (over) generalization of sexism, racism, and all our other 'isms'?

    You will never figure it out.
    And even if you think you do,
    you will never convince anyone else.

    The kind of violence that we see in movies is the quick and unexpected ones, the violence that calls for the heroic twitch.
    Yet in our lives we deal more with the quiet and inevitable violence of aging, retirement, death and the time to let go.
    The violence of the glacier.

    We navigate through our social and linguistic complexities better than we navigate through a wilderness.
    The wilderness is not a good metaphor for this.

    Why is it that with other races
    the blame goes to the race and not the individual?
    Why do we see the race before we see the individuals?

    Astrology may not really help anyone, but it is an indefeasible system.

    The cutting edge of science will never reach the edge of the world.

    We are proud to be a good rule follower.

    Your position is indefeasible but may also be hopelessly unclear.

    If you want to communicate effectively, you should first have something to say.

    As a manimal,
    we are always affected by the opinions of our neighbors
    but in the modern world we are surrounded by strangers,
    about whom we know nearly nothing.

    Humans are rational in a way they barely understand.
    There are a unspecified number of simple rules, but they are played in a very complicated way.
    It is like the endless variety of music that result from twelve notes of a chromatic scale.

    It is hard enough to take a human brain scan, harder still to say what the results signify.

    The human narrative: we are disappointed if we don't know that so-and-so got married, has a new job, or got a baby. We plug this information into a structure that is not of our own making.

    The part of the brain that makes decisions does not report its progress to consciousness.

    We drive around our urban spaces in armor plated conveyances surrounded by hundreds of people.

    When people are desperate, they have little to lose by engaging in magical thinking.

    When we think about things, always lose our way in further problems.

    Why isn't there a law against having blind spots in a car?

    Can there be a poem that only you understand? Perhaps if it involved experiences of your childhood.

    What we learn from C-Span [the televised broadcasts of congress]: They are never there Can't listen to other most not thoughtful

    "America too soft on Iran." we understand.
    "America is not too soft on Iran." we understand.
    "'America too soft on Iran.' is a misleading sentence." we do not understand.

    Doing something not to look stupid
    Even if harmless,
    Is stupid
    But no one, not even you, know it.
    We keep our structure of simplistic generalization by a judicious checking of facts

    celebrity detritus: a glove once worn by Marilyn Monroe, a sock worn by Michael Jackson.

    Contemporary political discourse does not care about truth, reason or fairness. It only cares about votes.

    Is everyone like me? That is the default position of understating the world.

    Is what I need a simple way of talking about the complexities?

    It is silly to apply for a job on line; you lose all personality.
    But personality no longer matters.

    We tend to think of people who don't relate to us as being a little defective.

    You may not have to "serve somebody," but you do have to "trust somebody,"

    All history is fake history.
    There is no way we can know what has happened to people, so we create an abstraction, reduces history to a simple scenario and call that the truth.
    (Still, some simplification better than other ones.)

    Movie give us a way of reading reality. Omentous.

    Multiple explanation
    How do we talk about it
    Triggering twenty things at once

    People talk endlessly about politics, religion and sports, and never resolve anything. That is is their function.

    Sad to say, some Native American students would also be a failures in their traditional society.

    The over-arching problem of the world can be seen as warehousing sheeple.

    They don't love you if they only love the fact you conform to their rules.

    We can't explain language until we understand language.
    To explain language as "communication" is just punting.

    Economists could work on creating a metric for when a country is overpopulated.

    In movies and in TV they throw it all at you,
    faster than you can hope to analyze.
    That's entertainment.
    That's life.

    In this world, not everyone gets the luxury of being bored by their town.

    It takes a lifetime to see how things irritate us.
    It is not a pretty picture.
    And it is in our power to stop it.

    Taboos: todos and todonts General advice (be kind) often takes second place to specific advice: don't use these words, don't act like this, don't touch yourself.

    The moral of solipsism is not that others do not exist but that we make them up.

    To "know thyself" today, is to know the fragmentary and tattered nature of what we call the self.
    And how we use the word self.

    Why can't churches honor people holding different beliefs,
    knowing that as humans, our understanding is limited and necessarily incomplete?

    With the new (intelligent) traffic lights,
    we can begin to talk about stupid traffic lights,
    the ones mistimed, or ones set foolishly, and which do not advance traffic.
    In theory, the ideal traffic lights will make it so cars stop as little as necessary, thereby saving gas and increasing gas mileage.

    Believing with all your mind and all your heart that you are doing the right thing does not mean you are doing the right thing.
    Believing there is a god does not mean there is a god.

    Bullshit is where other people can blow you off and start speaking something equally sensible in their own conception.

    Feminism is an outcry of the enlightenment

    Fixing the world is a chimerical and ridiculous notion. You can't change anyone.

    How can we have a slow thoughtful conversation over the Internet? It is like yelling to someone in a crowd when everyone is pushing each other in different directions.

    How much of what you believe do you believe because it helps you get through the world?
    Nature of humanity
    Nature of world
    What is sex about
    what women want

    Human life is an always an evaluation, status, reputation game.
    What if I did not care if I were smarter or more foolish?

    Instead of family resemblance, how about elephant men?
    Or can always engender more family.

    Philosophy is now a battle is between schools of thought, not people as much as names: nominalism, realism, contingentist, epistemic contextualism

    We are complex animals who need a lot more than food and shelter - mental shelters, playgrounds, places of worship.

    We are probably not capable of understanding ourselves. An example of that would be: consciousness

    We are simple in our motivation and basics but complex in how we work these out,
    And we work them out semi-subconsciously
    We desire things
    We like, we laugh at things without knowing why
    You can never predict how one person will react
    Let alone how you yourself will react
    That makes life interesting.

    We have the feeling of a simple explanation that is misleading.
    It is based on an ingrown desire for simplicity.

    Wittgenstein's family-resemblance is more like a rubric

    Each culture has a huge amount of things for clan/supernatural identity.
    Constant chatter along life's passages.

    One sign of understanding is not using too many words and phrases used by your teacher/authority.

    Philosophy is a constant temptation to oversimplification.
    And complexity
    Also to a view we can defend and others cannot attack.

    We go around world trying to capture world in pictures, cages, photographs.
    We replace its variegated complexity with pictures, or pictoral meta-data that is a metaphor.

    We have a tendency to think we are impervious.
    This helps us get through situations, stops our fretting; it is a kind of decision.

    Music is a kind of hypnosis We sit there quietly, enchanted, and at the end we break out in a kind of applause

    There is only a certain amount of relationship scrip. When it is gone it is gone. (Though having kids may give you more scrip.)

    (As we should know) not all words are used to describe things.
    But most things can be turned into things.
    It is hard to talk about words.
    We are tempted to use words like thing that applies to everything!

    Let's call "consciousness" that part of yourself you are aware of.
    And sometimes the awareness itself.
    Chances are you are not aware of your awareness.

    A flower is needy too: it needs warmth, sunshine and appropriate pollination.

    And "family resemblance" is more like "blended family resemblance", with new people being born every second.

    Concept of the protectors of the subconscious: Why are they there? What is resistance?

    Do we need to expect the rich and famous to be better than us? Do we expect them to be worthy?

    Driving on the freeway you can
    see people's logic
    in passing and driving.
    But sometimes one is distracted,
    and sometimes
    this is not the most important thing in world.

    How is it possible to lose oneself in a movie? Only through some kind of ignorance or sensory limitation.

    How many of our precious private thoughts are NOT tied up with our ego and our FANTASTIC dreams and fantasies?

    I do my best thinking in cars
    It is a certain milieu, just as when a person sits at desk in a library.
    We do not write walking down a busy street, having sex, or conversing at a party.

    I do not mind that religious leaders saying that we are sinners and that we are ignorant. I do mind that they place themselves outside those judgments, and fail to examine to what extent they apply to everything they do and say.

    I have said that humans don't sit without talking to each other, but we do with strangers Though often we engage in virtual talk with books, television, video games, movies or music.

    Instead of the Internet making us more aware of complexities, it has created more simplicities, and seen the rise of a snap-judgment society.

    It may be misleading to speak of the "misuse of language". What we have is an extension of language into an arena where the rules are unclear. (We do not learn the rules from rules.)

    Math is what math books teach
    If geometry no longer teacher proofs, then geometry is no longer about proofs.

    Mostly people hate rich people because of resentment.

    On neediness: I need you. A child needs a parent. A parent needs a child. We all need love.

    Our Simplistic History: The ideal state arose in Western Europe and North America. Yet Western Europe is one of the more predatory societies we know of.

    Religion is reconciliation to the state of the world and, in most cases, its extant ruling power-structure.

    The conservative Muslim domination of women does not only violate the Western rights of women, but goes directly against the root of Enlightenment value that we use reason to make policies and discriminations based on facts, not on tradition.

    The experience of a movie consists of the experiences of thoughts having as you are watching it, and the thoughts you have after you have seen it.

    There are many understanding of the world.

    There is no mountain where you can see all the world.
    World consists of millions of places.
    Let's say each person has a room: that makes for over 6 billion places right there,

    These questions should not be asked or answered:
    Who is God?
    Why does the universe exist?
    What is reality?
    What is the self?
    What is the meaning of life?
    What is death?

    Unless we define the world to be what can be described mathematically, the world is messy and not at all mathematical. True and false statements cannot be made about value judgments.

    We complete our world with bullshit and vague inanities. It is like the fuzzy strokes an oil painter uses to indicate the world far away, a field, a forest. When you zoom in you get a closeup of the vague effect and there is fuzziness.

    We don't even know why we like to read.
    (The right brain reads,
    and the left brain rationalized the behavior(badly).)

    We don't have words about it because words are not intended for these large things. When we talk about the world there is no reason to think we are talking about anything more than our radical simplification of our world. In many cases that is fine.

    We have covered the earth in roads and we don't notice it. But it sure make us get around better.

    We humans are all liars.
    What does that mean?

    We respond to the animals around us, some more than others. (Like the ant.)

    We understand the world in terms of people. That sounds unsurprising, but we are not fully aware of it. Philosophers think we understand the world in terms of things.

    What am I talking about when I talk about the universe? Precisely nothing There is no such thing as the universe Just a catch-all thing. At least nothing we can understand We don't have words about it because words are not intended for these large things. When we talk about the world there is no reason to think we are talking about anything more than our radical simplification of our world. In many cases that is fine.

    What are you teaching when you teach mathematics?

    What is the ego.
    It is not a little man inside yourself.

    Words are meta-data.

    (Among other things) we should not speak of race, nationalism, gender, age, religions and assholes. What other generalizations are impermissible?

    Can one be depressed for no reason at all? (Do you always need a reason to be unhappy, or happy?)

    Can we define a concept of cultural corruption?

    Christianity (like all religions) has a number of metaphors, each with a variety of interpretations. These metaphors can be woven into a beautiful structure, or into an ugly one; they can be made into a weapon, or a mask.

    Church serves many purposes for many people It is many many things disguised as one thing.

    Education is the time we spend forming each other. It is mostly an unconscious process.

    Film is sensory/cerebral overload.

    How is understanding different from fantasy knowledge?

    Jesus did not want to be worshiped.

    Judging is much easier than thinking. It is similar to liking, hating, being boring. This is emotional, but not in the good way.

    Suppose we stop chattering, then what? Would we sit in peaceful awareness of each other? Would we say interesting things? Do we say interesting stuff just to mess with each other?

    The limits of language shows itself in the truths of oxymorons.

    We are a mixture of self and subjects. He or she becomes you, and you become them.

    What is leadership? What is education? What is consciousness? These are among the many questions that should not be answered.

    What questions should not be answered? How do we treat them?

    Why not have CDs on different materials than plastic?: wood, metals, book, bologna.

    Why not stop. and say nothing and let others babble unceasingly all around me.

    Wittgenstein's family-resemblance is an active and not only a passive concept. Words swallows up other realms. Words are extensible: they can all too easily and unconsciously be extended in new directions, and into new media. (Just look at word origins.)

    Words, nuanced and sophisticated, were around long before dictionaries.

    A lack of freedom of speech:
    I will kill you if you say this.

    Clarity is not enough. Here clarity is an illusion.

    Do you think they do not watch television in Muslim countries?
    Do you thing they do not have newscasters? Who seek out the irritating and the disrespectful?
    Do you think they do not have radio talk show hosts and right-wing nut-jobs?
    Do you think they do not have politicians making thoughtless and inflammatory statements.

    Even now our sense of history is far too simple.
    While we are no longer at the simplicities of Hegel
    (Oriental, Persian, Greek, Roman, German and Modern)
    but we still deal with the simplicity of nations.
    We have trouble with medieval period, the pre-national German and Italian period,
    meso-american, Africa, and South-east Asia.
    We have no conceptual feeling for pre-national situations.
    We don't know how to root for them.

    Hearing so many thoughtless and inflammatory statements has made me lose respect for politicians. What would be a good politician in today's world?

    Here the opposite of A is not not A.

    If I tell the world I can't tell the world anything I am telling it like it is? What would I tell the world if I could tell the world something, if the world was able to be told something, if not by me than my someone?

    If you cannot speaking in philosophical generalization (as I counsel)
    can we still speak in moral laws?
    They too must be treated with some sophistication.
    (Which may reduce their usefulness.)

    Inside the limits of language, language works, although always confusingly.
    We slide easily and unconsciously from a cat to a picture of a cat.
    We see a cat in the picture of a cat.
    So a picture is a misunderstanding of sorts.
    But a picture may also tell us something about a cat.

    It is not so much that we have reached the end (of language)
    But that there we have gone non-sane.

    Life moves along much faster than we are able to comprehend it. Life then reduces to entertainments.

    Neither political party, right or left, seem able to stop our current drift away from traditional American values. (There must be other factors at work.)

    New religions often start by using and modifying concepts we are comfortable with.

    No matter its importance,
    it id hard to care about bureaucratic history.

    Obscure terminology (sometimes) holds the mind open.

    People want things to remain the same but have no idea of the cost of things remaining the same.

    Since the 19th Century, the intellectual and artistic community have seen themselves as an avant garde, scouting out territory still unknown to the main body of mankind.
    Today the role of the avant garde has changed
    as more and more we come to the limits of language,
    which may well define the limits of human understanding.

    The "limits of language" shews itself in contradictions, oxymoron's and babble, psycho and otherwise.

    The internet is vast and broad yet shallow — like people!
    Yet most of our wisdom, found in books and magazine, and is not there!

    The Middle Ages should not be called The Middle Ages.
    It makes it sound like part of a great progression.
    Feudal ages might be OK,
    or the times of Feudalism.
    Why does this or any period even need a distinctive name?

    There is much unconscious propaganda.

    We are foolish simple creatures
    easily entranced by a song.
    We buy into the fake complexity of science
    when science itself is a vast oversimplification
    reducing the world to that part of the world that can be described by our mathematics.

    We learn, we teach, we "communicate",
    persuade, research and investigate.
    It may never occur to us there is a limit to this.
    As we may crawl all over the country, buy, sell sniff, move, sleep, trespass without realizing there is an end,
    as we can travel all over America without realizing the land has ends.

    We like to think we are not primitive.
    Where did we get that?

    We think of history as an extension of the present

    We think that cultures without written history have no history at all.

    What do we see at the limits?
    We see the end of seeing.
    We see misguided and faux understandings
    decorated with our animal emotions.

    What then is a lighthearted ritual?
    A gesture of resonance, like a dance?
    as compared with a ritual that thinks of itself as cause and effect.

    When we jump in a talk about, say, religion, it would be better to say "among some or many of the things we are inclined to call 'religion'."

    When we think of Iran and Afghanistan, our picture of them references old National Geographic articles in our mind.

    When you understand something the rest of the world disappears.

    Why would anyone want to parse political ads?
    They are parse stupid things about our electoral process
    and buying into game of manipulation and deceit.

    A lot of the initial thoughts we have about perfect strangers are plain weird and often involve sex.

    A question for old people:
    Would you be a different person if you did (or did not) have children?

    Am I a "boyfriend", "significant other" or a "man"?
    We cannot stop signaling other people about our relationships,
    where we stand and how we fit in.

    Am I saying that history, chemistry, or evolution is not true?
    No, just like religion, it would be better not to say that any of these things provide the ultimate explanations.

    Because it is so incomprehensibly huge,
    we may well think the Internet contains all human knowledge.
    This is not true.
    Most books are hidden in copyright.
    Contemporary intellectual history is wrapped up in inaccessible journals.

    The Internet is a little bit like the Dead Sea Scrolls:
    we get quotations, certain pages, second-hand reports,
    and maybe we can tease a bit or two out of Google books.

    Being stoned is thinking without thinking. (and being a little immobilized.)

    How can we live in a world without understanding it? It seems so . . . animalistic. But living in a world without understanding it may mean we cannot answer this question either.

    How do we make sense of questions and statements that seem to make sense but make no sense?

    How far down can your reduce a book, a piece of music or a movie?
    At some point you throw out the personal involvement and the experience.
    Why is this important?

    How is it even possible to disagree about the nature of god?
    How can we feel so strongly about things we can not know?

    Humans have a strong cross-cultural tendency to think of themselves as special,
    as children or creations of a god.
    What if we did not think of ourselves as special creation in the universe?
    Could we even do that?
    Our specialness is part of the survival instinct of our tribes.

    I Have an Another Idea™:
    A site where people can add their own new religion.
    This would be a moderated site,
    so I would not be auto-inundated by people who do not like this idea
    or takes a completely humorous approach.

    I Have an Idea™:
    A virtual religious service on line
    where you can receive a service from any denomination you desire.

    If we get hierarchical thinking from parenting,
    perhaps we get categorical thinking from animals.

    If you never quite know what the theory says, it is hard to say it is wrong.

    Instead of seeing our choice of Democrat and Republican as a matter or reason,
    we should see it as a matter of temperament.
    Why do you gravitate to this?
    This is more a matter of acceptance than a matter of reason.

    It is one thing to make sense of an Aristotelian conceptualization scheme that claims to cover the territory. It is another to make a claim that this scheme is comprehensive. We do not think not very well.

    Life cannot be examined in real time,
    only lived (or surfed) in real time.

    Movies present us with personae and stories.
    And they work as referential metaphors.

    Naive realism works for certain things
    Rocks.. ocean
    But most "things" we speak of involve our human experiences of them: furniture, poetry (and ocean).

    Once you create a complex theory of meaning, with cleverness you can fit the theory into all many contexts. But just because a theory works for many things it does not follow it works for everything.

    Science gives us a field in which to play

    Some people, you don't even want to talk to.

    The challenge of cultural plenitude: we can't read the books, see the plays, read the poems, see the films, see the actors, musicians.

    The trouble with academic knowledge may be in its aggregation:
    The original might say something like: "Based on the evidence we have at hand, the most plausible hypotheses seems to be that x may well be y, but future discoveries may well change this."
    This is reported as: "According to recent authorities, x is y"

    There is so much baggage
    and so many clichés in Christianity.
    I have personal trouble with king, kingdom, worship, praise, "bless his name", sin, original sin, the cross, and the thorns.

    There should be a word for conversations that reference shared experiences: like most talk about travel destinations, movies, and books, politics and religion. These conversations so meaningless to outsiders are a kind of emotional resonance.

    To make kids conscious of themselves as objects of a stranger's affections may give them an undue sense of themselves as a sexual object.

    To start in talking philosophy about life, universe, god, or emotions is as vague and unsatisfying as telling you about my vacation in Italy

    Warfare no longer solves anything, and war, like king, is in danger of becoming a metaphor.

    We create virtual worlds in the real world.

    We humans can stand in line.
    We can relate to each other and live our small lives.
    What we can't do is philosophy, or politics ans religion.
    And although philosophy is mostly harmless,
    politics an religion are not.

    We like our friends in the form of dogs, and our families virtual.

    We must not hold on to the illusion
    we can understand the whole world.
    Every day I can go on the Internet and find a new band, a new comic strip, a new actor and (perhaps) a newly discovered animal.
    There is not enough time to stay on top of things.

    We speak of logical hierarchy as a parent/child relationship.
    Our logic may have its foundations in the most primitive of notions.

    What are you doing when you read a book about traveling?
    What then are you doing when you read a novel about people?

    What do we learn about the world, when we learn chemistry?
    Chemistry is not learned casually;
    it needs study.
    There is a curriculum.
    One must give it one's full attention.
    It presents the theory first.
    It works.
    It takes upon itself the mantle of being a description of "the world."

    What is it to worship?
    Worship mean different things to different people
    (and many they are not aware of).
    Worship is partly a communal exercise.
    So I attempt to sit with complete acceptance of those around me.

    What kind of decisions must you allow to happen before you click on, say, Star Wars Games Through The Years?

    Words are shortcuts
    Think even of "woman" or "ocean".

    According to there were 29.7 billion web pages in 2007. And according to the great Google there were a trillion! unique URLs in July of 2008. If you gave each page three seconds, and never stopped day or night, not even for food or sleep, it would take you 2,854 years to look at 30 billion pages, and 95,129 years to peek at one trillion. And you would have no time to enjoy all the amazingness.

    An academic should be allowed to explain but not use the "technical terms" generated in the humanities and the social sciences. We should think of them as conceptual poems.

    Another Idea for a Website: The Commonplace Book Following an ancient and forgotten custom ("in the 18th and 19th centuries ... readers habitually copied out passages they wished to remember in a personal journal or commonplace book.") This is the digital version of that (except that we can copy and paste). People write down the passages and paragraphs that means the most to them in terms of understanding the world. People would vote and comment.

    As we age we sometimes lose faith in our ability to learn and to be better.

    Classic culture comes from a culture.

    Everyone feels free to do philosophy.

    From the beginning the Bible was a product production of a church hierarchy.

    How do you manage a growing economy of seven billion people? How do you manage the earth in the face of? What makes humans happy? What is the good life? What motivates people? What is the proper motivation for humans? Who or what is god(s)? What is love? Is it all you need?) How do we deal with historical or cultural conflicts? What is justice? What is the proper education in today's world? What to do about pollution? Global-warming? Human-caused ecological changes? What do we do about crime, the mafia, gangs, etc. What can we do about human disaffections? There is no virtual wind. And a virtual stream is not wet. We would need some kind of body box (think sauna) to experience something like reality on the web.

    I heard that wealthiest 1% of people in the US own 34% of all wealth. At what numbers should we be concerned?

    Instead of using categorical statements like saying 'there are four causes,' say 'a lot of the things we call "causes" seem to fall into one of four categories.'

    It's amazing we pay attention to what we do.

    Jesus is not a friend you watch football with.

    Language is by nature promiscuous. It always has feelers out and is ready to leap into new situations.

    Let us Do The Numbers™ There are almost seven billion people (7,000,000,000). Let us say that 1 in 1000 is amazing, That would make seven million (7,000,000) amazing people, people more amazing than you. You could find one great poet, musician and novelist every day of your life, someone who makes you feel small and insignificant

    Math teachers at least ought to get real. Math is useless or arcane.

    Reading a persuasive comprehensive book (like Marvin Minsky's Society of Mind) softens you up in a way you can't fully consciously comprehend. You know there are great arguments marshaled in the book, though afterward you can't remember many of them.

    Shouldn't math problems come with lots of extraneous data? Just like the world.

    Since you cannot be here at the concert, why can't I describe it to you? (Pictures or movie cannot do this either.) The experiences of watching a live concert include: the many diverse things we pay verbal attention to, engage with the many things we could pay attention to the musicians, and all the memories and associations the things we scan the looking around, our ego – status, desires, greed, the emotional reaction of those near me, the things we monitor, the dance of the things you could pay attention to, the blowback from our personal emotions and remembrances, the pleasant feeling of not having to describe it all, the overflow of experience (like a stream going over a waterfall), the music. Words cannot describe music, yet people resonate with it.

    Some explanations (all explanations?) hijack other explanations.

    The Bible is not written at level of human ignorance. It is not a text written in wonder as to what a god might want us to do.

    We all seek a stage for unselfconscious actions where we are free to be and be accepted. This is one attraction of small kids.

    We are such simple beings. We are ok with frikkin' instead of fucking! and 'the n-word' instead of the n-word. (Thus is the anthropology of our social conventions.)

    We live in the moment at a specific time and place. (What else can we do?)

    We speak in philosobabble constantly side-tracked by the pictures we use to understand the abstract words.

    What do we do when we think?

    What is it to describe the use of a word in a language-game?

    When we listen with interest to Terry Gross ask Loretta Lynn about her song 'Don't Come Home A-Drinkin' (With Lovin' On Your Mind)' what exactly are we interested in?

    Who would think you could write a whole fucking book on King Lear?

    Would you be happier in a different world?

    You could teach a high school physics class based on gaming physics. Today we watch more naturalness in games than we do in the "real" world. We are not that comfortable in the real world any more (now that we have some options)

    (In most cases) there is no we.

    As value is displaced by dollars, and things by mass, so are ideas displaced by propositions.

    Because I am seen (however incorrectly) as an American, a woman, a white person I am representing. I am a symbolic representative an ambassador if you will of my kind.

    Even a regular computer screen has limited information from the depth of books. Almost any history book contain more information on its topic than the whole internet combined.

    If we think of ourselves as a dog we will see many of the dog-like things we do, but we may fail to see the ways in which we are not a dog at all.

    Many people put themselves into a dramatic narrative with those around them. They have a part. They can make their presence felt. They are a force to be reckoned with.

    Not girlfriend (at my age), but womanfriend / manfriend.

    These days, if someone asks a really good question in Newsweek, a newspaper, or on Facebook, if it is not answer quickly/reflexively it floats away on the stream.

    Thinking is taking your time.

    We have in us programs to be alpha males even as we also have programs to be beta males. We have a desire to rule and perhaps a greater desire to worship.

    With the iPhone and the Droid, now there will be smaller web pages on a tiny phone. Information is jettisoned. The foolishness continues

    Actors can play religious saints and mystics. Where is the difference?

    Anyone can shake their head and go no to any rules of linguistic propriety. They will speak shamelessly of the "dignity of man" or of "blasphemy".
    And we will understand them.

    Entertainment hits us at so many levels. Entertainment overwhelms us.

    Everyone has a social understanding, includes ways and places to get more information, and ways and places not to use.

    How can words even have a meaning?
    People mean.

    How should we meta-think about a piece of writing? In computer links? In footnotes? I like simplicity: indented smaller size fonts.

    I am not talking to the alpha males although their assent is a always a deep comfort, I am talking to you.

    I will not use the term bullshit! Instead i will use the term unduly abstract, but when I use it, it means same as bullshit:

    • you haven't thought about it
    • you are talking in clichés
    • you are tossing out a wide general word we have to make sense of by thinking of example in our minds when other examples can easily make your sentence false.

    Idea: Google News Trends: News of world trends, but no news of what happens to individuals (celebrities, murderers, politicians) and no news of politics when it involves changes of people or policies (unless it's a trend).

    If all our conceptions are so false, why conceive at all?

    If psycholinguists, philosophers, and profound thinkers can make up reality, this is a sign that these are not descriptive sciences. One cannot simply make up a animal species.

    If you are troubled by issues of evolution and paleolithic history, just sit with the scientists for a while; see what they do.

    In conversation sometimes people will throw up a different conceptual system, and we do not know how to deal with that.

    In non-fiction we enjoy the story too.

    Instead of saying "You are angry.", say "There are angry vibes."

    It seems impossible to speak with different connotations?

    Language/understanding works so well. We go seamlessly in multiple directions at once without breaking stride. (Think of synonyms, homonyms.)

    NEW CONCEPT: layer-words

    Our most simple language games are complex.

    Perhaps movies are as educational as books, but so many films is are in the fantasy/romance/detective genres, genres that teach us little about real life.

    Religious totalitarianism has a couple of bad sides: (1) you are on a mission from god, and (2) concept predates the concept of totalitarianism.

    Shouldn't ultimate reality be the easiest thing to think about? Like the moon, we see it all the time.

    The basic tenets of OLP are:
    words have a use
    their use is highly complex
    we don't understand how we use ordinary language
    whenever words are used outside of these, it is not clear that words have a meaning
    there is no "essentialism"

    There are many beautiful women taking good care of their men all over the world.

    There are two issues here: 1. What is the nature of the self. Is there a unitary self? 2. What is the nature of the desirable self. What ways of being that are unproductive?

    There is only the illusion of magic, which still gets you through the rough times (until the time you don't need magic any more).

    There was so little of OLP spade-work.
    The field-work was just a blip on the philosophical radar, much like the field work in phenomenology.

    They are not making any sense but we understand them.

    Understanding is done in words. There is no understanding-how only understand-that, although you could say that.

    We live in a world of images and oversimplifications, and prior conceptualizations.

    We should also have our software spot jargon/professional terms.

    What is it to "meditate"?
    There might be many layers that only reveal themselves over time.
    This is also true of words like culture, sex, and truth.

    Between the realization / And the understanding / Falls the Shadow / Of the copyright law. The words and discoveries and insights of our most thoughtful peers are hidden from us.

    Books are a treat that people spent a year creating for you.

    Call of a metaphysical vision: why only these two? The ultimate dualism of Christianity.

    Do we understand the world if we understand the laws of physics? Or the structure of the brain?

    Easy to think of God as self-creator? A creator only comes from other creators, but universe can't create, but the universe can be forever.

    Historicity of the bible is a matter of religious and not historical belief.

    Instead of saying "we" we should say "one" or "me and you" or "me and a number of other people."
    Sometimes "we" should just use "I".

    Interesting we can have a concept of bullshit without knowing exactly where we are coming from there.

    Kids may be foolish but kids are also alive, in the moment and unjudgmental. (Let's play!)

    Oh we'll scan it, but we won't read it.

    Science can't supply much for the following: moksha, enlightenment, the true nature of reality, grace, forgiveness, purity, humility. (1) Philosophically what is the ontological status of those concepts? And (2) personally, what is the personal need of those things.
    Can those needs be satisfied outside of a religious metaphysics?

    Super-people: a group of people pretending to be one person.

    The narrative narrative (what you do, how much you make, what kind of kids you have) is a skeleton for further interests.

    The unconscious does not speak because it does not itself have an unconscious.

    There is a lack of meta-awareness (post-modernism) in all these discussion carried on in simplicities of news, politics and religion. There is no philosophical dimension here.

    There is an straight corruption, and there is bureaucratic corruption.

    There is mystery in our ethnicity: How did you get from Russia/Africa/Asia to here? How did your ancestors survive the plague, the wars, etc.

    We can fall into a memory, or a narrative, and into the emotions that go with it.

    We have four wheels on a car, it is easy to see what happens. But if you have 4000 wheels on a car, or 400000 rivets on a plane, it is no longer easy.

    We live in a confusing world and many of our traditional roles are up for re-evaluation.
    There are no new ideal but the old ones now seem false.

    What are we talking about in political dialog and political words?
    I am sure there is a book on it. I am sure there is a book on everything. That if I find, I will not read, and I will disagree with it.

    What is the right ways to be in today's world? Do we have any duties? Are things any different from 200 years ago?

    What is trivial knowledge? Like knowing the origin of Tonto calling the Lone Ranger kemosabe?

    What objects do you see phenomenologically in peripheral vision?

    What would words be without connotations? Would it even be possible to speak with only personal connotations?

    Whatever religion likes to think it is, religion is still only one part of life.

    Whenever we see a big statue, we think we should honor this! And when we smash a big statue — wow!

    Why do we need a world narrative? Why can't we be satisfied with a meta-narrative?

    "Bond" is mostly used mock-seriously, as in "Yeah this will be a bonding experience."

    Abstract nouns may be a major meta-conceptual problem, but we invent them ourselves – as in affine groups and tribal identities.

    Academic philosophy has moved away from weighing propositions to battling philosophical theories. Which are just a more complicated game form of propositions.

    And our minds cannot see the power of what it judges to be a trivial phenomenon, like fame (but which is nevertheless very strong.)

    Can one take pride in the Exodus or in King David if one does not believe it to be historically true? Is this like cutting down the facts of our culture heroes, like Washington or Lincoln?

    Christian metaphysical assumptions have a negative impact on critical thinking since one must believe they cannot be wrong.

    Does the word overpopulation have any meaning?

    Does the word superstition have any meaning?

    God is a puppet explanation: a humanoid explanation.

    How many textbooks have been made worse though all these biennial editions? Many are now in a 10th edition. It makes little (non-financial) sense.

    How much intellectual dissatisfaction is caused by personal dissatisfaction. This has not been investigated. One could argue that personal dissatisfaction is how one arrives at a point of view, and it is good to have a point of view.

    I don't have a need for everything to be run through Jesus.

    I have never been to a church where they give alternative exposition of the Gospel, or an exposition of alternative denominations.

    I see so many use words unselfconsciously. People speak as though there is an answer to 'What is religion?' or 'What is reality?'

    If you find you have an emotional investment in a fact (missionaries winding up with wealth of Hawaii) you should, at the very least, double-check it.

    It is too tricky when you need to define a new ontological theory in order to talk about religion. What we understand best are things.

    Monsters are characteristics of people (and animals).

    Poetry is all around us. Metaphors abound. We can no more see the world without hidden meaning than we can turn off our consciousness.

    Poetry is not meant to be understood, but to confuse you in a meaningful way.

    Religions are often spread by conquering states.

    Right-of-way trumps first-come-first-serve. There are things (like this) we humans can do and there are things we can't, like remember 10 numbers.

    Some parts of reality are more densely constructed than others. Perhaps real is a comparative, like heavy.

    The eastern religions have a half-nothingness about the afterlife to them.

    The right thing to do is something you do. Not doing something is not doing anything. You have not acted morally just because you refrain form doing egregious harm.

    There is something called contacting or experiencing god.

    There is a desire for the truth to come out a certain way

    There is the stuff you learn that isn't hard to learn.

    Today a person's existential feedback comes from so few actual people, if any. Instead we have a virtual personality, based on the fantasies of advertising.

    Watching the tsunami, I wonder if a modern army should first of all be responder.

    We cannot understand the world overall except with a ridiculous oversimplification, whereas an explanation of the world should rationally be the most complex.

    We constantly make shortcuts of complicated decisions, cannot stop thinking if this small decision is the correct one. The one we have cemented in.

    What is the right Christianity for me? (Church as taste.)

    When our conscious minds take over they make things too simple. they confuse risk with avoidance.

    Why isn't being simple (like a mother talking to her small child) enough?
    Calling on all skills in socio-evolutionary useful and also a way to gain status.

    Wikipedia is not a weak academic system, more like a common summary (missing anywhere else)
    The English Wikipedia today contains 23,473,155 pages, which is 2,347,315,500 words. At 250 words per page, this is 9,389,262 pages. At 250 pages per book, this is 37,557 books, which isn't really all that much.

    You could also give personal testimony to the importance of your imaginary friends.

    A question for the thoughtful: what are Inappropriate prayers?

    A supernatural being who is not god is one we cannot get into a relationship with. Like the weather.

    are there true meanings, or just strong sympathetic ones?

    As humans, we must not only remember to do something, but also remember that we did something.

    can you be educated without books? You can be uneducated with books

    Fast cutting and quick repartee gives no time to reflect.

    If the heart is a part of the mind, is the mind a metaphor as well?

    Is there is a dharma? Is there a way to live?

    Let's face it. Most philosophical debates very quickly go way beyond our comprehension.

    Make the NY times paywall like NPR payment plan. We want there to be NYT reporters.

    Our culture has now outgrown itself. It is aware of, and can communicate with, people outside it, and it's artificial boundaries an its fake tradition and facts.

    Sexual images and thoughts simply ARE immorality. They are a middle finger from the mind to itself.

    The ego is a false self.

    The fact we live in a monastic world shows us we don't know each other at all, not well, and we have defenses against each other. Avoidance is just one.

    The people in video games are and are not people, depending upon a lot of other things. There are killing games but not rape games.

    The trouble with religion is that we talk mostly with people who agree with us. Perhaps religion is this kind of agreement.

    There are many ways of growing old. (Not caring. Waiting, Becoming inoffensive Or more appreciative. Being content. Or resigned. Or grumpy.)

    There are market forces, but that is only one part of the picture. There is also dealing with market forces

    There are no words for the largest concept of the world. Why would there be? We think we can make these words. Perhaps we can, but the other hypothesis is that we can't.

    This monastic life of intense personal judgments, this virtual life

    Torturing vs. disrespecting the Koran showed me the limits of my moral intuition, in particular the limits of utilitarianism.

    Walking around, I make judgments left and right.

    We are capable of believing almost anything. At the same time we are programmed not to trust our minds.

    We are healers, dealing with those around us. Since there are now less acrual people around us, there are now less chances for us to be human – and less people to be beholden to.

    We are no longer providing work for the people in our community, but competing with slave labor across the world.

    We are so ready to believe almost anything. At the same time we are programmed not to trust our brain.

    We avoid people, we avoid learning and we avoid being open.

    We can all be are healers, as we deal with the people around us. But in our monastic lives there are now less chances for us to be human in this way. There are also less people for us to be beholden to.

    We do best in a predictable atmosphere.

    We have no gender free pronoun for God.

    We like to be befuddled. One way through things on which we cannot get a handle, another is via impenetrable jargon.

    What are some of the morally offensive/objectionable parts of religion?

    What is difference between loving God and loving your spouse?

    When we do interface with actual (as opposed to virtual) people, it usually does not work very well. How do people make their peace with that?

    When you get to know someone, no matter how learned, you will still need to catch up on what their kids are doing. You can call that stupid, but you can't not do it.

    Why is television so popular? And so incapable of being spoken about?

    Why not write a Cleverbot Internet app as a Jesusbot? Or a place you could text Jesus with your problems? (Of course, there is no agreement on what Jesus would do, or say.)

    Why would I judge all say Russian people by this one Russian person being late or not late.

    When I touch this object with a stick, I have the sensation of touching in the tip of the stick, not in the hand that holds it. [ Wittgenstein, PI 626 ]     When I touch say a Pepsi can with my finger I feel the cold, moist smooth metal. I do not feel nerve impulses, or the data entering the brain. I do not see my perception untranslated. Language is like that. It is as invisible as our nerves.

    Are there stupid people? Are there ugly people? Are there evil people?

    Early man could not get his mind around death either.

    Fiction and nonfiction gives us privileged information

    Having so much knowledge at our fingertips, it is easier to look something up than to think it out. Thus we read in the Wikipedia that there are five kinds of prayer: Petition, Intercession, Penitence, Thanksgiving and Adoration. That sound understandable and definite but is it true? Are we missing the word that would be a sixth kind of prayer. This is not easy to discover. We need to be trained to do this. The short list, the top ten, like the metaphor, illuminates as they obscure.

    How long would it take to explain the world?
    How long would it take God to explain the world?
    What is it to explain the world?
    What do we want to know about the world?
    It's not knowing the chemical reactions.

    I need a philosophically nuanced theory of religion that ties in with a philosophically nuance theory of language. I am not comfortable with the simplistic world views that historically delineate it.

    If I tell you about anything (chemistry, demise of western cultural spirit) I am not telling you about other things.

    It irritates me I can't understand the world. Why does it not irritate me that I can't understand chemistry?

    Just because we may not know the exact current border between the US and Mexico somewhere along the Rio Grande, that does not me that we cannot use the concept just fine

    Keeping Ourselves Occupied™: gardening (as fake farming)

    Looking at brain and thinking you understand the brain is like looking at the parts of a CPU (and nothing more) and thinking you understand it.

    Many of these simple pictures that we have are deeply comforting. Knowledge, information, sense-data, food

    Once get to certain complexity of behavior, words become stand-ins, words become only symbols for something that cannot be instantiated.

    Our large scale projects, (solving the population problem, transitioning away from oil, even keeping our supreme army) is our version of the irrigation projects that engendered civilization. It results in a change of culture, governance and the human condition.

    Philosophers take the central essence of language, its constant allusions and illusions, and make it secondary to its use as factual description (which has it's use(s).

    Racism will end when people no longer feel discriminated against because of their race.

    Religion is the conservative elements in society. It holds out against undue change and human ego and independent rule making. It also holds out against progress and reason.

    Religion provide simple views of the world, where simple is not the term. But many ask you give up other ways of looking at the world.
    What makes you jettison such knowledge.
    You don't. You don't stop going to the hospital.

    Science get its validation of its procedures from the community preoccupation with such procedures.

    Some answers have multiple causes, even unrelated one. And think here of Aristotle's causes.

    Sudoku is a way of dealing with systems where one part affects all the others. It is a kind of solitaire chess.

    The charge of hypocrisy is an ad hominem.

    There are whole subjects where they don't tell you what you want to know, like the study of language, or of philosophy. The academic fields have hijacked the enterprise into something perennially unsatisfying.

    There is nowhere to start.
    And the tools we use to think, the words, are illusions. They start off with oversimplifications.
    And not just seen from a distance simplifications, but distractions.

    There is the illusion is that there is a history leading to progress, but it is equally an illusion that there is NO history. Lack of change is an illusion.

    What has changed in the world of a child growing up 1940s, or the 1910s, or Thoreau in 1830s? The American environment keeps changing. Populations keep moving and growing.

    What is not on the internet? Obviously, the things in books. The Internet lacks the depth of anything in non-fiction book.

    What is the difference between reading a book and reading the Cliffs Notes? How far down can we simplify a book? a novel?

    What it is to be bored?

    What it is to plan, to think: let's do it tomorrow?

    When testing speakers we can adjust a lot with the various audio controls. Perhaps human beings are like that as well. What is human nature? What is reality?

    Why do I think that language is the key to Understanding the World?

    Words are like cookie cutters
    Simplify in many dimensions.
    Something that engages at many levels need to be described at many levels.

    You actually cannot get your mind around concepts like capitalism, religion, philosophy, banks. There are too many things that fall under these words, so you often take hold of a nice poetic confusion and you go, yes! that's it. (The difference between understanding and truth.)

    You have the tools you need; a little imagination, your cultural tradition, and symbolic objects surrounds you.

    You wouldn't go too wrong thinking that every person walking around is carrying a little drama, or two...

    30 year-olds are not in their spiritual prime.

    A river is not scaled to man. That is part of the grandeur of nature — it makes us seem irrelevant.

    A Test for Old People™: How long can you walk?

    America seems incapable of making sensible regulatory changes. It is not clear our politicians even inhabit the same world.

    As there is a godhead (ground of all being) so there is a personhead.

    At first we fill up the word love. So you start out: So this is love; it sucks at time, but hey, I guess love is a bitch. Later on you say: no fuck this shit; this isn't love, it's something else. I am not feeling love, I am not giving love.

    At some point the world has to get serious. Religion is good at getting serious, but not at being reasonable.

    Christianity has instant salvation. Improvement and maturity is optional.

    Community, like family, is not based on being interesting. It is based on being included in spite of not being interesting.

    How can I think that I am a template for the world?

    How is it even possible that we listen to one song and really like it and listen to next song on the same CD and we don't like it at all?

    I can see a female flight crew guide the plane away from the gate. And I wonder subconsciously about her sexual suitability. mostly unconsciously, for you know what. We have spent thousands of years trying to suppress such thoughts, to the extent of keeping women away from the men. Time for new ideas.

    I could never have an art conversation with my mother. And if I cannot converse with her, what chance do I have with strangers?

    I look down upon simplifications, even while I want to simplify capitalism, philosophy or simplification itself. What then is the difference between a simple deep thought and a bullshit simplification?

    I rail against philosophers who do not take a stand. To answer a philosophical question means to state your opinion

    I traveled to New Orleans and Albuquerque and did not talk to anyone I did not know. There is nothing wrong with this, but think of what it implies about our ignorance of other people. We should not overlook it. This is a way the world is de trop.

    If you had every book available to read or to hear, you would still have to know how to navigate such waters.

    Inside all these cool metal cars around me, there is a chubby warm little human, with all their emotional dramas and fears.

    Instead of a new theology, we need a new andrology, a new study of man.

    It is almost impossible not to believe in a god.

    Jesus does not need to be worshiped, praised or loved.

    Knowing one's way, landscape knowledge is also a thing of past except for metaphorical

    Most interactions with other people are behind the wheel of a car. We have elaborate rules for this. We do not know the effects of seeing each other always driving around in cars. It becomes an unconscious metaphor for human interaction. Living in a hard candy shell, we are mask-like; we are simple data. There is limited potential for interaction.

    My neighbors have limited but nonetheless expensive dreams. A big trailer to go camping in a state park. Kind of a covered wagon.

    Of the scientific knowledge we say we know at the present time, what can be altered by further discoveries?

    On Fat People: It's not that you consume more than your fair share of the food, it's that you consume more than your fair share of the medical system.

    Perhaps the world cannot be put into words — O.K., but we still live in simple scenarios, though not simply.

    Philosophy books should answer the questions. That all parts are complex with people hopelessly disagreeing are just part of an simplistic understanding of the world.

    Philosophy is at the beginning of every chapter and book. Not important, can be skipped, but should be put into right words

    Philosophy is no basis upon which to found a relationship. It is a competitive sport. Has offense and defense. Chess, martial art.

    Philosophy must ask the simple questions, the ones that have no simple answers.

    Should we even speak of the universe?

    Shouldn't they be able to kiss any other person in the world and return safely to you?

    Simplicities are important. It is a problem when the major aspects of the world require a college course, only to come to an indeterminate conclusion

    So why can't a cat watch television?

    That we shall all be saved is almost as fantastic as a fleet of spaceships will come down and carry us away from this mess. Their food will be very good.

    The bad thing about television is the unexaminedness of it all. There are no moral or even self-reflective discussions.

    The common narratives: house family, nation,

    The different parts of your body speak to you, and often to others.

    The first point of all academic disciplines that pretend to describe reality is to point out that we have no words for it.

    The use of words is highly contextual

    There are a lot of things that surround love that are easily mistaken for love. The way weather is related to global warming. Or celebrity to human excellence.

    There is a deep self-centeredness in religion. We must accept that.

    There is never a shortage of data to process, just less effective and less speedy processing. Data flows by.

    There is perhaps nothing new to think under the sun. There may be no new riff on God. But the erudite people who go everywhere and remember so much, are never free from distractions and the love of novelty.

    This sexuality game: we don't know what we are doing and our theories about it are all over the place.

    We are carried forward in confusion

    We are free to play our silly games of liking, hating, plotting, hurting and being hurt.

    We do not recognize the crises as our own, or our understandings as misunderstandings.

    We wear clothes both to cover up our sexuality and to enhance it.

    What would be the entertainment I would applaud, or at least crave?

    What you think you know about your fellow Americans mostly depends on what shows you listen to.

    Who doesn't want to be taken care of? It's the human condition. A community does it but the personal part disappears when the community goes in.

    Why do I go around seeking understanding and insights about the world. I suppose because I don't understand it. Why is this not a problem for everyone else?

    Why do we not know we are dreaming? Where is our sense of reality then?

    Words talk about one thing in terms of another thing.

    a new look at history: ebb and flow. In spite of our stated moralities, we are capable of cruelty as the Inquisitions, slavery, genocide of old. We are not held in check by reason or morality, but by our culture. Of better, our culture pulls us and we stay in the safety of the pack.

    Behind the attractions and the attractiveness of the young are the whispers of the DNA and the biological imperatives.

    Being kind is not only a moral commitment, but a skill, if not a talent.

    For really, (truly and actually) is it the adjective that wears the pants. (how does that phrase mean?)

    How can we think about religion when we cannot even talk about it?

    I see a student bent over under the weight of the books in his backpack. This is so point challenged. He could have those exact books on my computer and they would weigh nothing. The mind too does not get heavier with thoughts.

    If personal narratives occupy a "privileged position" in the mind, they would need privileged processing and storage.

    It would be a nicer world if people took a little time to interact in a pleasant way with those around them. Is this even possible?

    Looking around™: We live more and more in a virtual word: nerf life. Sports are replaced by safe sports. Adventure by travel, or rides. Our bodies, the existential being, is taken out of it.

    More people are shot in Spokane than are killed in automobile accidents. So why don't they make people wear bulletproof vests like they do seatbelts?

    One mistake is to think that words in our language have a clear and consistent meaning, and therefore that words like "thinking," "religion," "god," and "soul" are peculiar screw-ups.
    Another mistake is to think that if a word does not stand for a Platonic form, or a supernatural entity, it still has to stand for something, like molecules, or brain patterns.

    Perhaps we must relearn to live the chaste public life, and not try to make the world conform to morality

    Perhaps™: Big corporations often only pretend to compete.

    Philosophy is the non-starter, the way to not-get-it-off-the-ground. So when you do want to start, where do you turn? You have to go to something else.

    Science is common sense elaborated

    Television without words is so non-educational.

    The world is not made up of subjects and predicates but of subjectizing and predicating.

    Watching television we are invulnerable.

    We do what is comfortable.

    We live in surveillance society.

    When they are single, men are skinnier and more fit. Do they also think a little better?

    Who wants to take over the world?
    Well, who is building the biggest military?

    words you should use, things you shouldn't say or think, like love. we have had thousands of years using them the way we do and it's time to stop. They are overly simple. Perhaps, but there are better phrases, or verbal elocutions.

    After all, we don't know the meanings of our words. We are lost without our dictionaries. Still less know the use of our words.

    Do you want modern life with or without fantasy? If without: open your eyes, read, travel and think.

    family are among the small subset of people that you meet, and know.

    It's a shame society makes everyone work. So many flowers do not bloom because of this. (We do not need to have so many people "working,")

    Just as selfishness defines an individual's world, religion is the side in which one is a self.

    Most understanding has nothing to do with philosophical wisdom.

    parenting throws us for a loop. Suddenly you are a teacher, a chaperon, a tour guide, a security guard.

    Perhaps all we want is to f**k each other, and enjoy the presence of the desirables.

    post-modernism. [container/growing word]

    Religion is having a hard time articulating itself because philosophers have a hard time articulating language. We are still held in thrall by the old point of view that words stand for things.

    Religion is presented as truths about the way things are

    Social scientist put the world into overly simplistic concepts. Our herd instinct is reduced to a metaphor of a herds instinct, and not seen as a very complex overlapping orchestrations of behavior in many diverse areas. We follow the herd in groupthink, loyalty, religion, status, normality, etc. (It's the things we are describing with the simple concepts that are complex.)

    The stories in the Bible resonate with meaning worthy of study and interpretation, not just factual understanding.

    There is no need to believe that the phrase "religion is" is the beginning of a true sentence. It is the beginning of a truthful sentence.

    We do a little dance with our eyes so we won't engage with people. (It's so hard to engage with people.)

    we don't have one word for all the deities in the world

    We would know so much more if we lived longer, and watch our grandkids have grandkids...

    What is a human's relationship to the world? There are several including a material one, a subconscious one and a religious one.

    Candidates for the List of Words We Do Not Understand™: heart, dignity, soul, love...

    How can we assemble persons from the minimal information provided in a novel?

    Idea for the religion class: Proofs of god from non-Christian religions.

    In many areas, especially the more abstract areas, words are almost useless, or at least dangerous...

    In response to the calm apathea of the Buddha, Helen says, It's ok, I will take the bad with the good. I am comfortable on this rollecoaster. You have to believe.

    Mistrust all abstract nouns.
    Mistrust the mind that thinks and uses these words.

    Myths work in bad and partial translations. We know how to fill in the blanks.

    Religion consist of the most profound metaphors. Objects of deepest contemplation. Good news. You can attain peace if you really want to.

    Religion deals in reality wholesale and we live in retail

    The cosmological argument that all creation testifies to the existence of a god, is a way of organizing one's whole world around god.

    We can only speak of slippery, deceitful words, in slippery deceitful words.
    But we must speak of slippery, deceitful words.

    We understand Freud's structure the only way we can as though there are three people inside us, the ego, the superego and the id, with different personalities as it were. But whatever they are, these entities are not people. For example they have no subconscious or supergepo. The ego is not like a selfish person.

    We understand the meditative value of worshiping the supreme being. And we also understand the meditative value of living in the now and realizing the nothingness of it all.

    Who's got the right of way is another complicated algorithm we do not pay much attention to.

    You can't just pray to Big Bird. It just seems silly.
    Can we pray to ourselves?
    Da they have to be supernatural, a superman. (You could pray to superman.)

    Because bureaucratic procedures are subject to societal norms and expectations, they are not fully reasonable.

    Can we give a percentage of knowledge, certainty to our propositions.

    Corruption is built in to our current capitalist political system. Could it be not?

    Every direction we think. Every subject we like to talk about, we substitute simplicities, words and their images, for something beyond words.

    Naming rights are a kind of status, justified as commercial improvement

    Psychology makes a strange assumption that we have similar superstructure inside us, "consciousness", "your sleeping self", "the human mind", "our hidden desires", "your social ties" and "personality."

    Psychology work with huge oversimplifications. Can reduce them to brain regions, buy then pattern of light lighting uip. Pinball machine.

    sex taboos - 1. diseases 2. basic modesty 3. patriarchal

    There should be a filter for the world, and you could turn off, say, all celebrity information and information about people you have never met.

    thinking 1. any thought that comes into head 2. mental/neural activity that results in speech or action 3. reflecting, not acting 4. thinking well - according to

    What do I really know about say subatomic physics, string theory, dark energy? What do I really know about international finance, or what will fix the economy? (Never mind that I am in no position to do anything.

    When we talk about Palestinians and Israelis (for example) we tend to take sides. Is that because we can't be both? We can't be a Dodger and a Yankee at the same time. Perhaps we need to invent sports where we are on both teams.

    "One system doesn't map on to the other"

    We tend to massively underestimate the number of people who are fundamentally not like us. — (Jason Weeden, an evolutionary psychologist at Arizona State University)
    How would one determine this? What is it to be "fundamentally" not like us?

    Because herd behavior and pecking order come from animal realm (negative associations) tendency to see it as something to be overcome, whereas it's something to be admired: as a flock of birds or a school of fish, or a quiet herd of animals surviving in inhospitable areas.

    Do the Math™: Suppose I were in the 99.9 percentile, one in a thousand. In a population of seven billion, seven million would be smarter than me – the population of a small countries. We can write a book on the Missoula flood, decipher cuneiform,

    Guiding concepts (inner) vs external classificatory concepts

    In late 20th century our factories need a different kind of worker than they needed before. The burly strong man is out; the woman is in.

    In many tentative fields of study (like parts of archeology and history), we staple in knowledge with staples of evidence.

    Instead of talking about the self, we might talk about individuality.

    Is the world chaotic or our understanding faulty?

    Is there always a right thing to do? Not if you don't know the future. When would Jesus not do? Is there a time to be indecisive?

    It is difficult to state in words, for there is no point. We are not quite impressing anyone else, and we are not quite impressing ourselves either. Impressingness is built-in.

    No field is all that interested in how it fits in with others. Often first few paragraphs of introduction,

    Status is more important than ever, because now we don't have family.

    The slipperiness of language: how unconsciously we slide from one frame of understanding to another.

    The smoothness of the surveillance society lies in the doors that open, the cards that get your car.

    The superego is not a person, a super-self, because then he would have his own super-ego. A super-ego is a number of programs or processes situated at an unspecifiable number of level.

    There are so many things going on at once: the authority thing | age thing | education assessment | personal history All these have own "censors." or governors, on it.

    There's a part of your personality you are not controlling.

    These day we are living in our avatars, as I am now to you. (In some sense our corporeal self is also an avatar.)

    We are individuals, but we are also a species.

    We are under constant surveillance. Cell phones monitoring, pour chase, texting, location are all monitored. ONly now do we realize how free we were in the recent past. And we did nothing of the many horrible things we could have done. We were great citizens, and got no awards. Now we cannot be good citizens anymore, since our society is resting less and less on self-control.

    We build our knowledge-based society at the limits of human capabilities.
    And attempt to modify this through using rules.

    We do have procedures to interpret if a conclusion is warranted.
    Less so for a perception being warranted.

    We get our knowledge from society with attitude, often of reverence, respect, mystery and complexity.

    We have a program, where we can go into battle and die, lay down life for kids,. It's all in there. [concepts of largeness of people]

    What kind of person wears boxers to class or a bathrobe to Walmart? You could wear miniskirt or tights and no one would have to guess what you look like naked, but these would be appropriate. This is not about vision of what I see, but about the category I place it into.

    When we speak (or write) we always use a large passel of socio-conversational tricks, or gestures of significance.

    Today we are asked to solve problems that are not ours, like commenting on surveillance sleepy town in Australia. We are invited to comment on things we know .nothing about, without any due diligence.

    Drug high without drugs and life peculiar aspect of clear consciousness which can only be compared to a high.

    Humans are incomprehensible. so we substitute little pictures, images, scenarios, plays. We declare understanding and go home.

    Less on form texting people have a huge excess of chattiness

    Lesson from texting: most of our activities, including talking to others, can bedone with partial attention.

    News is another kind of coalitional behavior, and we love it!

    Take a page in the dictionary or two. Count how may abstract nouns.
    Or list of common nouns

    The meditative aspects of the great religions. Lord is thy shepherd.

    There is a time for sentences, a time for taking it all in and making it simple and true.

    There is an enforced distance between humans, almost a natural force. Without this distance we fall into an intimacy given to a very few people.

    We live in a small intense subset, with status and attractions.

    What did we not learn from Wittgenstein?
    (1) To stop asking certain questions, or at least hesitate, listen to yourself, and examine them
    (2) To see the complexity, the language game, not the question.
    (3) What to do after it gets off the ground?

    Why do people let their kids watch television all the time (like in a van)?

    You cannot go outside culture. Cannot say this is sheer follishness. People love crap.

    In academics unlike theology, we can talk about places the Bible was mistaken.

    It is an important part of reading a book not on Cliff Notes that you do not know completely what is happening and that YOU have to figure it out.

    Kids don't know you are fat, overweight, or old, but almost all older people do. And it is a status thing.

    Music is hypnotism: it shuts out the rest of the world. (Studying the world in detail is also hypnotism.)

    On language: "work" : (the changing nature of "work") This is family resemblance, but with extended and blended families.

    The physiological basis of being moral is not rational. It is the same for a correct moral decision, a cultural decision and a personal taboo.

    The problem of imaging the future is that our imagination is so limited. It only depicts one or two things at a time.

    We are in some strange way not aware of our desires. They just seem perfectly natural.

    You can't pick your words on any basis. Out they come, adequate or possibly now.

    A woman walking with a bouquet is religious. A woman cleaning and arranging a room is religious. Purity is a transitioning concept. Washing/picking/selecting /arranging...

    All this being upset at people's driving and parking. Is this a form of territoriality, or a space of freedom and expectations. (it could be both.)

    An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Works well for eyes and teeth. We pay lip-service to this, but never put it into practice.

    Daoism is a religion that honors spontaneity.

    Displaced meaning is not a problem if you have an object to point to, or keep as a focus. But with abstract nouns all you have are instances, instantiations, and they have little in common.

    Even if you don't call it "torture" it Is still torture.

    Fantasy is a big part of sex, and so in symbolism. Actual physical pleasure is often forgotten.

    Free will the back-side of holding people accountable.

    How do we paraphrase Heidegger into something else? How do you draw Heidegger.

    If actions did not have consequences, everything could be equally zen-like. But can there be a Zen of spraying pesticede, a Zen of pollution.

    If you can look it up on Internet, why teach it? You should teach how to look it up.

    In my ethics class, we have looked at all the main theories. I think of the Jain/Buddhist parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant. I would think the thoughtful blind man would feel all the parts of the elephant. Faced with a moral problem, it would be good to apply all ethical theories as filters: consequences, duties, virtue ethics and the ethics of care.

    In the primal days of mankind, one had to explain to humans why there was death in the world. Why would you have to explain that? Is the default belief of consciousness to think you will live forever?

    Math problem: You are driving down a road. There is a red car on your left. As you come to a stop-light, the red care, slightly ahead of you, makes it through the intersection while you have to stop. There is another traffic light 100 yards down the road. Assuming each traffic light is controlled randomly, and each red and each green last 30 seconds (ignore the yellow), what is the probability you will catch up to the red care at next traffic light?

    Older people are hard to see. They have a life, disappointments, children, grandchildren, spouses.

    Our mind's privileged access to stories of the hero, also underlies a form of leadership.

    Part of our world we make small. We call up the phone company, our banks and our doctors. In huge stores you are a commodity. If they can hire you for less, they will, Decision made at a macro level. There is no personal involvement.

    Sex, masturbation something we don't like to talk about. Shy about. Defines us. How much money we make... Defines us in eyes of others

    Since the number of signifcantia we can hold in our mind remains somewhat stable even as the world enlarges. So the number of insiginificants is growing.

    Teachers plagiarize in their own way. They too read the synopses, search out the questions, find the answers on-line.

    The paths of philosophy:

    • the historical
    • the great topics
    • the path of inscrutability
    • the path of those who make sense
    • the many paths of the clueless
    There is also the philosophy of obfuscation.
    There is the philosophy of paradoxes.

    Things everyone do easily: Directions.

    We are good at scoping out the opinions of others. but bad at evaluating reasons for those opinions.

    We are offended by subservience between husband and wife, but we do honor subservience between parent and child. So subservience is not the problem.

    We do not know what is built in to us, and how we will behave in every situation. We can be an alpha male and we can be a beta male.

    We have so many things that small our world(s).

    We tend to form relationships, through common courtesy.

    What do you have to believe™: not to believe in democracy? (There are probably several answers to this question.)

    What is it to watch a TV series? There are different (sets of) answers for different people — and for different TV series.

    What is that in us which understands (and loves) fairy tales?

    Why give equal pay for one who has a family and for one who has not?

    A basic theory of human nature: Many explanations working together. We are constantly transmitting at multiple levels we are constantly listening at multiple levels It is like listening/transmitting to many radio station at once. It is like background monitoring processes in computer, triggered by things we are not clearly aware of. It is not clear we have names for this. A list of these processes will include:

  • sex status threats/power relationships the unexpected hunger bathroom functions awareness of situations.

    Although they may no longer have a religious base, there a countless piddling rituals and taboos, keep us busy. (how to brush our teeth, eat, sleep). We can do taboos. (We cannot do love.) And we cannot have sex with a doctor, dental hygienist, teacher or therapist. Taboos encrust us all.

    At some point in your life you will remember when we were texting and Facebooking. (Those were good times.).
    Because something else will come along: a mind-sharing, or a drug-like experience, or a communal lost-in-the-ozone feel: potential human ways of being are massive.

    How can all the good a person has done be annihilated by our knowledge of an abuse, or even a racist remark? Why are we so quick to exclude?

    If you pick something up then we need a metaphysics of who we are. If "we are" an undefined number of somewhat separate programs.

    Instead of speaking about four causes, perhaps we can speak of four (or more) understandings.

    My mind could easily handle a young body, and the comcomitant ambition, adventure, regrets, future, dreams, fanatasies, and fantasticness. I don't have these aspects now. I have an old body.

    One response to the decline of learning in society, is to hang out with only those who still value it. What we fail to see is the demographics of this.

    People lie. Isn't that interesting. You cannot ask people for certain information and expect them to answer truthfully. They can't or they won't. They don't have to.

    Philosophy has a big lesson in using big words.

    Sometime the moral step is just the awareness that this is a moral situation (and you can and should think about it).

    The lack of interesting conversations doesn't matter. We like being engaged with others.

    Think about: the peripheral vision of the brain. What is coming at you?

    Unless you have devoted some time to thinking about why people like to talk about the weather you will have nothing interesting to say on this.

    We are mostly unaware of why we do and why like the things we do. We are simply drawn to it. Would it be possible to create a simple vocabulary to talk about this?

    We can talk meta about aspects of word, but with language game no compulsion to over-abstract into one over arching narrative.

    We cannot track all the judgments we make in real time. Our minds are multitasking while tracking is but one task. We make subconscious judgments.

    We need to become clear on the nature of historical research. Cannot simply be read. Primary, secondary and tertiary overviews.

    What are you doing right now? You are doing many things. You can take the frame that feels most comfortable.

    What do we get to vote on?

    Why teach art? You can justify art on status, tradition, conservativism. But once you get it, you don't need to answer that question to enjoy art.

    (One kind of) philosophical thoughts are a wrapper around the world, an ultimate metaphor.

    Examples of failures of the invisible hand.

    God says different things to you than to me. (He loves those you don't.)

    How can I convince anyone we don't understand language? Just because you have to study and learn a difficult topic does not mean you are not ignorant.

    I am working through basics of psyche: Hypnocognition / Tattered blanket / supreme selfishness.

    Idea: what's new in sciences in the last decade or so. (And what don't we know)

    In The End of Faith Sam Harris asked us (facetiously) to "imagine a world in which generations of human beings come to believe that certain films were made by God..." (p. 35). But if movies are now the new books, what would such a movie be? Can we ask all of God(s)' minions (from all gods' religions) to make such a movie?

    In thinking about family resemblance we tend to get a bit pretentious. We conveniently forget our grandparents fled homeland on a boat, Aunt Alicia had to work doing laundry, Uncle Bob is a drunkard.

    It would be good if we could click onto the sources of Wikipedia to evaluate their overviews.

    Some thought are called feelings. Not visceral.. mu mother is failing and my sister is taking care of her, Will she die, am I guilty that my sister. Will it impact my teaching. How do I know these are feelings?

    The genuine mind/body problem: We are an animal but we think we are a mind/self/individual/ accidentally trapped in a body.

    The genuine problem free will: what am I free to do? Why do I have a sneaking suspicion I am not in control?

    The genuine problem of others: who are these people who live in the world who do not think like me. Why do they seem like they do not exist.

    The Internet, unlike a book, does not remain. People pay to post it…

    There has been an immense amount of death in the history of mankind. Death is a scandal now.

    We agree on the rules of thinking yet we draw different conclusions.

    We learn about other cultures from our culture.

    What can you choose to believe? Are you free to believe anything?

    What is corporate culture. Neo-corporalism?

    "Generally speaking…" (What kind of speaking is generally speaking?)

    Can we give "parasite factor" for each person in the world?

    Everybody's got an ego. (Maybe we all need that.) No one is aware of it. We are all smart enough,.

    If you are jealous whose fault is that? Is that a moral question?

    Kids only see kids, Resonate at faster rate and can only see that resonance,

    One could be much more aware of each other. Problem is we get tongue-tied. NO simple programs to think and communicate like we have for not communicating.

    Religion is not the only cultural that is now free. Cultural roles now free and open. What is a dad?

    There are we ask each other, things ask each other only in special circumstances (friendship) and things we don't ask each other.

    Watching the two kids (one one year and one two-year) can see Minsky's Society of Mind in action. But instead of saying the child is doing it, we say the program is doing it.

    We flow unconsciously effortlessly from the physical to the conceptual. Build in blocks, building in concepts. Example:

    What can't be said in a sentence or two?

    What do you think when you see a pretty girl walking down the street?

    What happens with a number of rich people are inserted into an economy who can get whatever they want?

    Why must there be only one theory of ethics? Indeed, why must there be any theory of ethics? Why must our moral choices be run through a theory?

    You want a girl, a friends, generic concepts in your life. People fit into these function. What are these social roles?

    Are you conscious because you have something called consciousness. Whatever makes you think that?

    You read Herodotus and remember what he said about say the Phoenician circumnavigation of Africa, or you read in Wikipedia in that Herodotus said.. You do not pay your traditional dues.

    In virtual life we substitute a picture for the thing.

    Perhaps the modern equivalent of Natural Law is to think that your religion is rational.

    Some questions have no answer: Is America safer because of its military. Let's err on the side of bankruptcy.

    We have the horse race, the Monday Night Electionball, the personalities, the talk of strategies, the because:

    1. Future is unknowable, at least to humans, distracted by the slightest
    2. Each change has huge vested interests
    3. System is corrupt
    4. Time of no optimism, of holding on, of denial, of please let me finish without changing

    "What is the world like?" This is not a good question. At best it is a bad question.

    A landscape is not defined by its topographical coordinates, or a lists of plants.

    Can you get outside your culture? How. In what ways?

    Did they not know something in 1999 they know now in 2012?

    Not all philosophical problems are linguistic problems. The nature of God ,and Zeno's paradox not language problems. The problem of motion pictures (Do they move?) is not a language problem.

    People are never honest in conversations. There is too much going on and what we do express is filtered through other layers.

    Philosophy is the role model for giving reasons. But we cannot think that rationality will bring peace to the world. Each opposing side has its own reasons. How can this be the case?

    There are areas of thought, many of them, where reason does not decide the issues but each side uses rationality to decorate your points of view: politics, religion, morality, philosophy…

    We receive and process with multiple processes. Hence the appeal of ambiguity. How can we understand a duck rabbit. Or shaman.

    What is an abstract noun? What is a noun, gets you back where you started from, is a noun a thing, what is a thing?

    What is cause and effect? What has causes. What does not have causes.

    Why do I study ancient Israel? Is it working through my shit. Has it become just a hobby?

    Why has information become devalued now that we have more, and now that we arguably need more. Most people though don't. Is it because it has become too accessible?

    You don't feel a picture of a dog pictures of dog food. How do we know that?

    American politics is a net of stupidities: how we elect a president, what choices we have, what choices we get to make, the electoral college, the gridlock in Washington, what issues are presented to us, the ways bills are passed wholesale, the ways laws interpreted by the supreme court.

    Learning is not learned.

    Nouns and verbs: a thing | does | is done to ] is done by. There is an animal=like structure built into our grammar.

    Wal-Mart does not homogenize us, as much as it keeps our experienced world small.

    What are the world's greatest feats of phenomenology?

    Although we use the terms that way, culture is not something we visit.

    And our ignorance and change make thinking about this difficult. Our fall back position as an animal is disagreement.

    Humans are not good at shutting up. It's a status thing.

    Hypocrisy: A certain kind of statement should be backed up with personal action. Speaks as a status animal.

    If my theory of consciousness is correct phenomenology must fail.

    If you are describing something concrete, a rough adumbration is a step in the right direction.
    If you are inventing, designing or building something, an adumbration can be dangerous: you get off to bad start.

    In education there should be an explicit differentiation between the things you need to know as an educated person, and the things you need to know you need to know to work successfully in the field.

    It is important at a personal level to keep life as a project.

    Language cannot be summed up in an aphorism. (What else is that true of?) It cannot be compared to anything. There are so many parts. It developed and evolved alongside our behavior and our brain

    Language is not exactly something out there. It exists in a society. We can lose it. It exists I human interactions.

    Movies are like a mirror. And you see what you can see.

    Our theologies say all sorts of things the Bible does not. Theology says the Bible is clearly saying this or that, but the Bible isn't very clear on this or that. Hence the diverse theologies.

    Sentences of accommodation: it is what it is, that's the way god planned it, it's a mystery.

    Some thing practiced by religion are deeply healing (humility, morals, care, shadow of death) while others are clearly divisive (doctrinaire, megalomania, the things that matter)

    Sometimes it easier to bypass the brain and simply learn it with your body.

    The other part of multi-input version of reality is that we can't analyze it in real time.

    There are all sorts of limits to language. Limited in many directions. Animal thinking

    There are no science wars. No wars over Eastern vs. Western science.

    To think a book is about its plot and characters is highly limiting.

    We cannot fix our communities, because of our individualizing isolation. We don't know what is going on. An individualism bordering on species individualism: we have defined ourselves against everyone else. Where do we ever get together? When do we talk? Do we even have concepts for our malaise or ennui?

    We confuse what is provided for us all around us with the things that are necessary. Our minds know this is not true but we literally cannot imagine life without it as anything but crude, incomplete/ or missing.

    We love novelty. We are animals of understanding so we like making sense of changes in our surroundings.

    We need a new nose for wrong directions.

    We need a word for: the totality of what you are doing collectively.

    The old way in Philosophy would be to present various disparate points of view in complex, challenging essays.
    A better way in theory at least is to sum up relevant points of view fairly, and then adjudicate between them.
    To do so you would have to describe how one would adjudecate such a thing.

    "I don't know but I can easily make up some reasons."

    "That's a liberal argument." is not a conclusion. Or, in most cases, an irrelevant one. It shows you cannot listen to thoughtful people who differ from you.

    All points of view are points of view of something.

    All words are suitcase words. Extensible. We reach for words blindly. We cannot say how or shy.

    Bad language is not only a problems for philosophers, but for anyone who ventures into large-scale thought. Politicians, religious leaders, academics of all stripes.

    Big-thoughts: Stores are a complex design trap where all sorts of things have been pre-thought out. A store is NOT furniture and stuff. We don't understand the complexity of our stores.

    Can our academic thinking can adapt fast enough to change to cultural/populational conditions. Can they ever change? What is the flywheel?

    Confuse reality with our representation or conception of it.

    Contextual understanding is not philosophy.

    Diversity is how we traverse the world: physical, temporal, media plane. We live in contexts.

    Every serious non-fiction non-entertaining book should have a conceptualization. What are you doing here. What are your main thoughts. We get lost in your interesting story. an outline. And a list of the main points as well presented as possible.

    Fish have limited language because of limited capabilities. Limited ability to process language. Limited behavior. They can't for example write a book. Or apologize. Or need to.

    Funny is that they eyes see integral. Yet blind people can talk coherently about the world.

    History has its own concepts: Nations. Virtual realities embedded in multiple narratives…

    How can there be so many words and phrases in common speech we do not know the origin of?

    How is language not like a game?

    Humans are complex being s in a complex world.

    I too can shake my head and start in afresh. I can fool myself.

    If we describe the world as circles, triangles or square, and then start talking just about circles, triangles and squares, forgetting in the process they hardly fit the phenomenon.

    In the future: we may have more complicated hand signals. We will distinguish between the middle finger gesture that means 'that is so your fault' and the middle finger that means 'this really upsets me, but it's me, as much as you.'

    Instead of basing morality in religion, or reason, can we base it in the complexities of societal behavior?

    Instead of what is language, how do we talk and think about language.

    Is there a real self without social self? Don't judge? Namaste.

    Keep this in mind as well: Remember your ignorance

    Metaphors are basic but so are metaphoricality.

    Most of our talk, serious of not, serves other purposes. THAT is why we cannot stop.

    One cannot theorize about the origin or development of language if one is not clear on what language is.

    Our history is our lack of forgetfulness.

    People listen for a lot of reasons. People speak for a lot of reasons.

    Personal knowledge – things you know about yourself. Much of religion is personal knowledge.

    Picture a universe we know all the facts. What will we still not understand?

    Points of view is an visual metaphor. Can it be done aurally?

    See consciousness like a movie in the mind and a person sitting there watching TV.

    Some part of philosophy is co-thinking. Asking the next question, the right question. A good philosopher does that by himself.

    Somebody painted columns on a mountain and says that that is what holding the mountain up. Both faith and reason are virtual foundations for reality., Although they have their roles to play.

    Taboos: what are good taboos? Why and how do we run our lives through taboos?

    The Remover of Obstacles is a clear helper. In monotheism things are not so simple. The remover of obstacles is also the creator and permitter of obstacles.

    The things people seek in religion are often found outside religion.

    There are some positions you flip between, like hope and despair. Like your varying opinions about mankind.

    There should be a new field: sociophilosophy

    Thinking is like a reverse prayer. The answer comes from inside you. And it takes time. It is cinematically uninteresting.

    We are stuck in our role. And our roles are so conventional. What do you do? Work…

    We are the template for humanity. All people are like us. Part of group consensus. Human fellow-feeling Little me's running around.

    We care more about virtual people than actual people, those lumpy bodies all around you. Virtual people are much prettier. And never disappointed in you.

    We do not necessarily want to understand it; we just want an explanation.

    We do not notice the contextual aspects of language.

    We do not understand the rules of the language game even as we play it incessantly. How can that be?

    We don't have words for how words are used.

    We have to step back and talk about the unseen fluidity of language, that enables us to talk about one things and then seamlessly unconsciously be talking about something else.

    We live beyond the limits of language.

    We reach for words blindly. We cannot say how or why.

    We tell each other stories of what happened to us. Why? And perhapos more important, How?

    What does world look like without processes of being seen through our eyes and the processes that guide us, and our eyes, through the world.

    What is art? (What kind of a question is that?) Avoid experiencing art.

    What is left of primal religion in today's urban world?

    What is morality? Desire to attitude as our fellow man, and fellow man as us? Social cement. Know what is acceptable and what is not. Helps us be in the same world.

    What is news? What do you need to know about the world? Science needs slow reporting. Not lurid stories, celebrity births, weddings and deaths.

    When we speak of philosophy, what is the appropriate behaviors?

    • paraphrase
    • use appropriately
    • tie in with other views
    So this is cheap primate behavioral sociology. Sure.

    Why do we hate fat people? Like gay people. Fat people are not pulling their weight. Hate them. Not as people. Why not cigarette people? Why do we do this?

    Why does evolution seem like intelligence? What questions does evolution answer?

    Why exactly is science taken to be the supreme number one kind of knowledge?

    You lose something in perspicuity. You can get too involved in the context.

    Don't confuse comprehension with understanding.

    "we" is a tribality,

    Cannot know what to do about texting, realize similar with TV and then with books been with us in 2500 years.

    Facts are not small things. Facts is an abstract term. Maybe all words are.

    Facts are one of those wet-noodle words: seems so sold but is used contextually

    Funny so many people spend so much time shopping for clothes. They have so many clothes.

    How can the virtual seem more real than the real. It is certainly more desirablke.

    How detailed do you go? The world is full of facts, people poetry. Is there a privileged position? What details are important?

    I am not interested in metaphors but in metaphoricality

    I have railed against sitcom and the glass wall. Easy to look good if someone else writes your lines for you. But we now do this with Facebook. Our funniest moments.

    If I love Oregon what do I love? State, people,

    If I quote Wittgenstein now you will be misled. I am adding authority and you have hear this before. And you think you know what it is. You substitute recognition for understanding.

    In addition to personal knowledge and experiences, we also have personal ignorance, or hope. Some things we don't know. Some things we can't learn.

    In books we get to learn about lives of different people, though thay are not real. We sympathize, empathize, and understand. Actual lives are seldom known, even by thos who live them. So what are we surrounding ourselves with?

    It may be diplomatically correct not to understand things.

    Jobs have their own way of talking:: acceptable, appropriate.

    Learning about something involves wondering about the details. Interesting stuff we want to know more about. Early growth of church. Fall of Roman empire, slavery in the south: things that interest me.

    Linguistic fluidity may enable us to accept historical change.

    Metaphors are not stackable.

    One way of not making sense is thinking we can see what we are not capable of understanding.

    Philosophy is saying it in words.

    Substitute self-esteem or confidence for intelligence.

    The virtual is not the real.

    We can approach this in several ways. We do know what people are. We do not know what people are. People are idiots. People are not idiots.

    We do not see the limitations of our brains, any more than language.

    we don't always think in words. Some things we call thinking are wordless. Decisions, musings, daydreaming, etc.

    We fall back into our narratives. Who we are. Our personal stories.

    We judge, simultaneously objectively and emotionally. We have slots for all those things. Things go for a ride in this things.

    We like it when words go on vacation, as we like vacation. We like the fantastic and amazing and unexpected over the safe boring normal and expected.

    What can you say without comparing something to something else. There is your problem.

    What is the world apart from our conceptualization of it? Well you can walk around in. You can be in it.

    I thought people were just too timid to be brilliant and interesting.

    The world we can understand. It's people that confuse us. The unintended consequences of our actions are usually the reactions of other people.

    Atheists have fall back position for there being a God. (God will let me into Heaven anyway. I'm a good person.) A fallback position for religious people is Pascal's wager.

    Conceptions lead to a false picture of the universe

    Love makes us small.

    More personal vs public: knowledge,

    • dream
    • what to do with life
    • who am I
    • raise a family
    • self: me
    • warrior withinAre whatever roles we adopt
    • have a need for decisions about myself
    • intuition
    • certainty
    • I can do it
    • I am a hero
    • I have responsibilities to my kids, to my country, to morality
    • To write a book
    • Love
    • The narrative
    • The mine-ness of my life.

    No I don't want to talk to you. The pleasures of writing a book is that I am not talking to a person: be they too much—or too little—attractive, intelligent or powerful.

    On Family Resemblance:

    • Not that much overlap
    • Also strange ancillary concepts
    • Can drop almost any aspect
    • Not notice that aspect has been dropped. Understanding is a positive correlation
    • Can come with almost any aspect
    • Ties in with considerations

    There are 20 famous jazz players. Five great composers. World of people. No we live in small world. Much smaller than you think.

    We live in particularity, resonating with abstractions, because we live with thinking and putting our life into words.

    We look at the world through our limitations of understanding the world.

    We travel in comfort. we drive warm cars to our destination. We don't have to get warm; we don't have to take much time. Consequently we show no gratitude for our travail. We do not have to work our way to each other. We now have to work our way away from each other.

    We use the same words speaking of fiction as we do of non-fiction.

    Atoms give us security. They are stable. We can't pollute them. And we certainly can't fuck that up. . . can we?

    A denk way of talking.

    As manimals, we have no conceptual handle on overpopulation. Religions do not address it. We do not fully see it. Our dreams encourage it.

    Christianity makes you the big issue... with a very important Dad. Your drama and what goes inside your head is suddenly very important. Not what you do with respect to others or but inside your mind. Express gratitude in a conventional clichés.

    Cities of the future were a rejection of actual cities, with good reasons.

    Context is FR word. It can mean many things.

    Contexts as something we are dimly aware of but not consciously aware of. How do we determine this?

    Contexts: Necessary to: A way of understanding. Context changes and we are not aware of it. Normal conditions apply.

    Contexts: We adopt to new and changing contexts. Adaptation | recontextualiztion is built into word-use. FR

    Delete. Think. Human real-time is too overwhelming, creepy

    Do not talk blithely about the economy, world America. For god's sake you should know this by now: Deconstruct these into the complex oversimplification they are..

    Don't let the idea that we use words in different contexts fool you. What else can we use? There is no universal context. Word + context. .

    Governments like people to be in state of nervous cowardice.

    How is the sense we get in philosophy like the sense we get in knowing our way about?.

    If etymology is unresonating we ignore it.

    If I want to take drugs, stay drunk, watch television, amd live off the dole, why is this a problem?

    In the old days you concentrated on making wagon wheels or whatever you did. Now you het to vote on the future of the nation.

    Intentionality is wrong. (above phenomenology is wrong.) Intentionality implies we are aware of something..

    It seems we had to take this unknown | unsayable human existence | mind and speak in analogies with our body parts.

    Linda thinks we should take religion as something we choose to believe. Allied to choosing a church.

    Most education is not rationally defended. It is tradition.

    No way one way of writing a philosophy book. That would be another philosophy book. Unless you think philosophy is a subject matter.

    Our minds are butterflies; our cultures are the trees, the earth and its flowers.

    Part of being a university professor is to demonstrate a sophisticated multi-culturalism.

    Perhaps you are sincere reader. Like a defender when the offense is coming down the field.

    Philosophy is a context.

    Purity is taking things off.

    Speaking is a unique human interaction. Subtle as they come. Contextual: standard conditions apply..

    Surroundings is a metaphor.

    The experiences in life are magical. No one is immune. That is how we survive: on varieties of magic.

    The fact philosophy book is a journey is a metaphor. There is no need from our conceptual investigation to adopt that one.

    The overflow of the world. The unseen, the incomprehensible. The people, the places, the pasts, the futures.

    The rich and powerful will do what the rich and powerful can (and want to) do.

    The rich have assured us that if we destroy them we will all die. Mutually assured destruction. And order of obedience.

    There are many senses in which we use a word and we understand them all at once.

    There are more people but less interactions.

    There is entertainment on the Internet but there is also magic, mystery, down on your knees beauty and things to worship and things that peels back the layer of your onion hearts. How can we seeks this out?

    There is no normal, as though we are a complicated being dropped into the world. There is no human nature in a way we all created by Gods or dropped onto the world. Why not remember we came into this valley. Or we have always been here? Or Joe made them up?

    There is no reality. Things are differently real.

    This is part of what we mean by saying knowledge is contextual. The context only fits part of the understanding..

    Travel.. . . Is a part of the hero quest.

    Using a word as an affectation is also using the family resemblance aspect. Aren't we the little gentleman, or a prince?

    Verbs can be nominalized. Prepositions not so much.

    We are as sure about philosophical truth as about something being "mine". Cock-suredness cuts across personal and physical knowledge.

    We can imagine a god being the wind, as we can imagine ourselves being the wind, with purposeful behavior. But we cannot imagine blowing intentionally over tens of thousands people at once. Our intentionality is personal, or raging.

    We can imagine a number of different kinds of people, but not imagine we can imagine all different kinds of people. Kinds of people is culture dependent.

    What makes something mine? This is My house, my land, my wife and kids. It seems so solid.

    When we talk in metaphors and oversimplifications about the big issues there are no consequences. So you mislead or overlook. This is how "language is on holiday."

    Where do we live? Do we live: phenomenologically. Conceptually. Narratively. Unconsciously, or physically.

    With 8 billion people. How do we reduce this to 4 billion people? Disaster or planning..

    Words are metaphors. Or, better, we understand words through their metaphoricality..

    Yet we are isolated and do not want to share a wall with another.

    You can't talk people out of almost anything.

    You must keep everything in the air. Thinking is juggling.

    Look around. There are so many people all around us we scarcely meet any of them. (For then we would have to say "Hi!") Yet we signal incessantly and loudly with our wit, our up-to-dateness, our sexiness and cleanliness.

    One of the things we are good at is playing with kids. (Though we pay a stupidity tax.)

    We do not know the frames we have available to us. This is useful. Frames themselves may be fluid. And this may be very useful.

    You look for your keys where the light is best. You understand the world in ways easy and simple.

    Metaphors come with the culture. "Spin one's wheels." How did we express this before cars (or maybe trains)?

    Sometimes the best thing to say is to say something that does not further confuse the issues.

    Idea: Sometimes when you are writing about difficult concepts you may not want to decide on one word, but use several. With computers you can have "flip words" in the text that can vary randomly as you refresh the page.

    Talking to people is often not that interesting because we never talk about what we want to talk about, and this is often because we do not know what we want to talk about.

    Science has demonstrated the existence of a word that remains outside us, but it has not bridged the gap between that physical world and our experienced virtual worlds.

    Perhaps we can try thinking about language (like books and movies) as a virtual worlds.

    I have evolutionary and no doubt cultural programs that have never been tested or triggered.

    There can be no canonical description of words any more than there can be a canonical description of America. Of course we could take a gazillion photographs of America, and wind up with a map as big, or bigger, than the world.

    Language-contexts are different than environmental context. They are metaphorical contexts.

    While we love lists (top ten, four aspects) we are terrible at evaluating things that are not on the list. We unwittingly conform our understanding of the world to the list.

    It's not about my theory (contextualism) being true; it's about my theory working in this context. It's about understanding.

    There are academic philosophical conversations and ordinary non-philosophical conversation. But there are also ordinary philosophical conversations.

    "I am not afraid of super-surveillance. I have nothing to hide."
    Hmmm. Are you a foreigner? Do you dress funny, or badly? Do you like things others don't like or hold unpopular ideas? Are you a geek, weird, strange, different (without being harmful)?

    Most problems in the overly-concerned security state is not the event but the response to the event.

    We talk about the big bang but of course the real interest is what developed in the 14 billion years after that, and how life might have developed on the earth. It is like being deeply interested in human conception ("The bang") and then be not at all very interested in the growth and development of the child, and the child itself.

    Hunter gatherers can no longer survive.

    We have no guidance; we grow the way plants grow — to fill the spaces where we can exist and thrive, or at least live for the moment.

    Inability to fathom the number of people in every category all around us.

    Why do we speak in generalizations?

    If we have an active family-resemblance, the world is always fuzzy as these words are always inconclusive, looking for things to understand.

    Education is so traditional. Things are flung ahead of order.

    Two intelligent people reading the newspaper. If these people are not fit to understand the world, democracy means very little. If we do not have democracy, what do we have?

    Some things are religious by being tied in with religion. E.g. meditation.

    Reason can take us to the door and reason can throw out the old. but reason cannot replace it.

    Virtual realities make possible greater human densities.

    The Golden Rule is the rule of reciprocity, a rule with no diversity due to status.

    You can know all the nuances of Hegel or Kant on the Golden Rule, but you still might not have anything to say about the Golden Rule.

    We participate in a religion for some of the same reasons we watch the same show or root for the same team.

    There are so many words we use to describe existence — and we understand them all. "Understand" is one of those words.

    And of we are, no matter how many years we have spent in the monasteries, we act no different, pulled back into pettiness, superficialities, and tribal rongs.

    What if in our dystopian future, smiling becomes a hostile intrusive acts as making eye-contact in New York?

    We eat, sleep, watch televisions, read books. Since nothing happens, we need stories and adventures. We input a virtual or semi-virtual reality.

    If we need new ways of thinking speaking in (in books) we need new ways of being with one another. New ways of speaking to each other.

    To enumerate not the phenomenology but the process-ology of each act.

    Probably good to start with "It's complicated."

    You can't tell from looks who is an actor or not.

    The word context is probably also not just one thing.

    Actors have a job: to memorize and present lines credibly with appropriate bodily and facial gestures. Their job is to fool someone. (But not completely: we still recognize the actor.)

    Can we assume there is one perspicuous view of what we call "reality"? The physical world, energy use, household incomes, ethics, crime. IS there a UNIQUE view? There are better views

    Landscape, clothes dresser as a filing system

    Call the extension of a metaphor with connotations

    It is always an open question if a linguistic analysis of a philosophical question makes it disappear or not. What kind does it make disappear?

    Philosophy blends with ordinary thinking. We philosophize in ordinary words.

    There are two large metaphors for philosophy: (1) perspicuous view (2) tour of city

    Cannot speak of the multi-processing (except in metaphors). We talk about many things in words that talk about many things.

    I didn't realize how much culture can change. When I was young I didn't think that gay marriage would be culturally acceptable, we couldn't change to metric system, torture was something we wouldn't do anymore, a person was innocent until proven guilty, "blasphemy" would still be a useful word. Now I wonder if there will be a time when it is wrong to smile at someone.

    Religion substitutes silly small things for deeper sins. Substitute Do not not go to church, do not cuss, do not have sex outside marriage, for the deeper sins like: lack of compassion, lack of love for one's fellow man, lack of caring, failure to attempt to be better person.

    Reality is gritty. It has both pushback as well as traction.

    Life is corporal

    Our racism hold us in place. Bring it up to feed it. We see it. We fear it. It is our inner racism that distorts our thinking.

    Since we do not know how to relate to each other, we relate through attractiveness, and a few simple symbols, as limited as our hand gestures. Like | or not like. But the snap judgments are more complex.

    We must go through words one by one to see the specific connotations. A metaphor works in the particular, like a melody. It is not enough to know it has a pitch, volume and timbre.

    The world we live in is so safe, and predictable, and boring, that we can walk around with loud music in our ears reading texts and typing on a small portable typewriter.

    The idea of the unconscious opens us up to the idea we may act and react without recognizing the full import of our actions.

    Delineating the multi-processes is a new kind of phenomenology.

    What is the difference between talking about justice, freedom philosophers talk about the words "justice" and "freedom"? Compare to the word number, or the word atom.

    Talking about philosophy in general is a mistake.

    Talking and thinking are not the same thing, or more better, not the same word.

    The words we use are important. Why? Words are not always important in music.

    Easier to argue against the philosophers, or against Wittgenstein than it is to stay on the greater task.

    Words are used in many contexts, as we are part of many contexts.

    Appeal in many ways. Said for many "reasons," understood for many "reasons." Used by many people.

    Not everyone can have as their task to write a philosophy book, as this depends on other people being less-enlightened than they are. So what can they do?

    Human kind takes care of itself at front end (nurseries and education), middle end (police and ministers) and back end (nurses and doctors)

    Culture, language nation and self: Though we see it in the distance we cannot approach it without being absorbed in the very activities that constitute them,

    You can find a new good writer to read every day of your life.

    The fact we use the same word for a thing and a picture of a thing, shows us that words are contextual.
    And just as we use the same word for reality and picture, we use same words for reality and the concept.

    Idea: Sometimes when you are writing about difficult concepts you may not want to decide on one word, but use several. With computers you can have "flip words" in the text that can vary randomly as you refresh the page.

    When we think about metaphors, we need to distinguish between

    • the specific metaphor
    • metaphors in general – the ways we think and talk about metaphors. The concept of metaphors.
    • metaphoricality – the ability to make and understand metaphors the way we do.
    Taking this rather simple scheme and generalizing it, we get:
    • the specific big word
    • big words in general — the ways we think and talk about each philosophical words. The concept of the philosophical words.
    • philosophical wordicality – the ability to make and understand {the philosophical word} the way we do.
    Thus we can talk of:
    {a metaphor} | metaphors | metaphoricality
    {a text} | texting | {texticality}
    {a freedom} | freedom | {freedomicality}

    He who sits around and tries to understand everything will be left behind. There are are hundreds of things happening in ur mind every second. We are in a nexus of these things. Putting one or more of these things into words is a time-consuming ptocess, during which the nexus of a thousand things continues.

    It is impossible to argue against evolution of you don't know what evolution is.
    (But that won't stop anyone from trying.)

    It is impossible to decide on the development of language if you don't know what language is.

    It is impossible to decide on the origin and future of mankind if you don't know what mankind is.

    Reason is not wrong as much as it is useless. Non-reason masquerading as reason is not the answer either.

    Sentences come unbidden in a burst of words.

    The essential fuzziness of our abstract words lets us talk about things we can't understand with a modicum of comprehensibility.

    Just because you know how to use the word does not mean you understand the word.

    You can't say a certain concept of mind is fuzzy and yet assume the word "mind" still makes sense and has a non-fuzzy meaning.

    Prepositions are spatial metaphors that we can extended (another spatial metaphor) in all sorts of directions (yet another spatial metaphor) .

    Among other things, language is used for normative checks: Are you playing by our rules?

    Metaphors are not essential. Note how much etymology is unknown.

    It is a common metaphors that philosophy is laid out like a town. A town is a construct of convenience.

    Abstract thinking should employ a little exploratory poetry. The mind connects the words and see if they will beat her weight of considered thoughts.

    If it moves, we look at it.
    If it makes a noise we hear and we listen.

    Regretfully, the mass media are not strong enough to hold us together. And they had their chance. But like politicians, philosophers and religious leaders, they took the easy way out.

    The big words in life have a sense but not necessarily a reference. There is a grasping, like bad sketch.

    According to the old school, you cannot "Like" if you have not compared.
    The new "Like" is not so much about the other person but more about you.

    If I want to talk about movies or your pet, I must keep the discussion within limits of a certain contest. I can make gestures of recognition. I can say "Ha-ha! That's funny or cute." I cannot say "what is a movie?", or "How has something as trivial and foolish survived for so long?"

    Talk about "the universe" and soon we are talking about astronomy, and huge distances and big planets, leaving the humans far behind and insignificant. The discussion about the universe now becomes a matter for the specialist, and of small concern for the great majority of manimals. Well, that's one less thing for me to think about.

    Hard to understand the world because are caught up in the buzzing confusions. Chemistry, hormones,

    So the patch cobbled together is reality. It is just not real.

    Generalizations are simplification of understanding. Does 2 (the generalization) have and influence on 1 (the things generalized about)? Yes. The first level (a la MTV style) is recognition, the second is recognizing the context.

    We must make room for the private selves, the selves of narrative, self-image, the willed self.

    Words may or may not trail cloaks of etymology.

    Reality is also the place where we keep our stuff.

    To make an assertion is to commit to something being the case. Words cannot define a case.

    As a thing with properties. What are properties?

    You can talk of poor people, races, but don't think you know very much.

    Things are a little like color naming.

    Some words are mostly emotions. What are you unamerican, unpatriotic Don't love your country. Don't worship your creator. America first.

    As someone said, science does not search for truth as much as answers to scientific puzzles. Solution is like climbing up to a mountain ridge and seeing the next ridge ahead of us.

    Culture depends on our ability to have culture.

    Obama talking points on the economy. What is this economy? As though some large beast and entity. But there is no economy.

    EXAMPLE: The unemployment rate is at its lowest point since September of 2008. It's dropped faster than any time in 30 years. This morning, we found out that in the second quarter of this year our economy grew at a strong pace, and businesses are investing, workers are building new homes, consumers are spending, America is exporting goods around the world.
    So the decisions that we made -- to rescue our economy, to rescue the auto industry, to rebuild the economy on a new foundation, to invest in research and infrastructure, education -- all those things are starting to pay off.
    - speech by President Obama. July 30, 2014 Kansas City

    How do we choose our sides / who we are? Our teams? Sometimes others choose it for us.

    What if there were no emotional content to our reaction to texting, pro or con, We like to support these with reasons. Is it good bad or harmless, It is a change, and change makes us nervous.

    What is the difference between punching someone in the face and doing it. Wanting to do something, saying you will do something, Unleash a set of behaviors, we cannot calculate.

    I would guess most kids know in kindergarten how smart they are. Not what kind of sexual being they are.

    We know these people, like robin Williams. Nothing wrong but... Again the process is unconscious. We get intimate details. We can pi k up any of number of magazines books magazines song movies and I get involved.

    Many people get joy from things I personally have problems with: celebrities, pets, texting, facebook.

    Family resemblance vs objective resemblance: height weight, sex. Each aspect of resemblance is also a family resemblance word.

    We are not aware of contexts. They are not part of definition. (We are aware and not aware.) Contexts is that of which we are not aware. You don't do that here. What is it we are picking up on, The building, the atittude of others?

    Can we understand the universe? {fragenfeil} Will the future be conservative? {fragenfeil}

    So you want to know if the world demands a creator. Do you have prejudice?

    More meta. More hesitation. More time to understand. More awareness of the many things at work. It's complicated. Some awareness of difficulties of words due to their shape shifting nature

    Uneasilyanswerable questions: what is vacation? What is democracy? Why all this modern technology: texting, Facebook? Why family? Why do we like a sunrise?

    Academic philosophy itself must be explained.

    • collegial politics and
    • conceptual
    • confuse the model with the reality
    • tend to stay in the abstract/flavorless words
    • constant reference o previous philosophers
    • as though philosophy is a field of results. (most philosophical constructs are mistakes and/or clichés.)
    • And many of them are formally inconsistent (though they hardly feel (intellectually feel) that way

    Why generalize about philosophy or politics? Why not just say what is wrong about this or that particular exposition?

    Instead it is subsumed as something perfectly normal, I can watch TV without having to explain why, (Is this nature of low-brow entertainment?) (It is difficult to speak about without love or rancor.) Indeed that is a calling, or a quest.
    Are you saying I have no right to watch it? No you do. Your obtuseness is boring and unhelpful for a thoughtful soul.

    We erect walls of conventionality in facebook. All is good times, achievements, accidents and kittens.

    Although the word "environment" or "context" can be applied to the sum total of the conditions that surround you outside and inside your body, some of which are not perceived by human beings, it is also useful to say that the environment | context is not something out there, but is rather is all the processes that have input in your actions at any one time, some of which results in decisions. There is no "context" as much as there a large number of inputs that determine your actions and reactions. But let us say that contexts are all the processes at work at any one time: good for music, or religion.

    We can speak of a matrix of inputs. Many of which it is best to assume, cannot be put into words.

    The very words we start out with will change meaning in the course of the discussion. As they should. They are not what you think they are. The sentences you think you understand at first you will need to understand differently. You are being fooled and taking things for granted you should not take for granted.

    Nomenclature won't solve all problems.

    We go effortlessly from talking about cars and coffee and timetables, meeting in paces, to talk of society, art and religion without any anguish, Not like going from ambling, to walking, to running.

    What kind of object is a rainbow? We think a words is a material thing. Hologram? What can you not see on Mickey Mouse? Cells, grade…

    Some things are done for no clear rational reason but are still right: trans-rational.

    Think about: the peripheral vision of the brain. What is coming at you?

    A little noticed fact. Perhaps no generalizations can be made because of family resemblance.

    Landscapes of discourse. Always keeping in mind they are not landscape but only like landscapes. NOT like landscapes in many other ways. They are much more NOT like landscapes than they ARE like landscapes, but we cannot intuit that.

    Morality works well in small local situations, but hardly at all in the larger political situations. Why is that?

    What is wrong is that someone make 50 million a year or wons a billion dollars. Too much influence, control. Can do what others casn't. Not clear this is reasonable.

    We need to connect the contexts.

    Human body has:

    • Pointing event
    • Moving event
    • Orientation
    • Propositional actions

    The question is how can this basic animalistic behavior be extended in words? Not one way Instead of extending an arm or spit Send a signal Control other people. Controllable people evolve.

    Don't build a city. Build the parts. The houses, roads, parks. And then there is the fires.

    Why do you do things and not be able to talk about why you do those things?

    Most of life is spent living. Can fall into one of thousands of permissible activities (or non-impermissible) behaviors.

    Religion is a major conceptual system that stands against new understandings. It gives conceptual absolute primacy to certain conceptions and to some of the consequences of those conceptions.

    Science carries no allegiance.

    The best way of speaking is clearly.

    It is not enough to come up with a word that only sounds good.

    Judgments blur the line between objective and personal reactions.

    Among our own race/culture, people remind me of my cousins, my relatives and my neighbors, and by dpoing so have a special acceptance.

    Everybody thinks they are such good understanders. Except in those realms where there are clear criteria: like the higher maths.

    Is the forest the green carpet shown in satellite photo? Or seen from afar, petering out at the treeline, and descending into the valley? Or is it the seel and sunlight walk through it on a glorious hike?

    So everyone is equal. Is that good? Equality of taste. Quality is \”like\” just entertainment. The playing field is equal. All can have an opinion But not all can express their opinions.

    Sometimes best things are not likable, or immediately likable. Have to work at it.

    Why is _____________________ (Chopin) great?

    I asked a respected professor why W. passed out of favor, and said, facetiously, we would all have to quit our jobs. This is a bad argument. It is like saying that if stealing is wrong we would have to stop stealing.

    How do we describe a context for religion AND politics AND science. Context is inside as well as outside.

    We need a world anthem, a world hymn we can all share and sing. We need a religion of religion, religious songs we can all sing together, hymns for earth. (And it's not going to happen.) We need a world prayer, one that can be said and is sanctified by each religion. Our snap-reaction is that this will never happen. The question is: Why the fuck not?

    TBTEAB -- The Book to End All Books -- Tibbytab

    Taking fuzzy pictures of fuzzy words.

    We can "communicate" in language. But we don't all that much. And much of what we communicate is outside language. Non-triggering activities.

    We are easily sidetracked by scholarship: when he said it, first editions, typos, where he said it, who thought of this before, etc. Random associations of scholarship none of which matters.

    If we decide with one part of our mind that mind is brain, yet fail to understand it with another part, who decides?

    What can be understood? Pinker says a part of our mind understand science, while another does not.

    Can we talk about what the word stands for without using the word?

    The mindlessness of humans. No awareness of things they simply do, or question its innate stupidity. Especially when it is so artificial. Showing someone a camera picture. As though it is all so natural.

    On Facebook, if you can't say anything nice about someone, your can't say anything at all.

    Some realities come from brain. Social realities. Conceptial relaities. You don't see reality.

    "What is real?" is not a real question

    Some questions are not questions, no matter how much they seem to be questions and how much you want to answer them.

    We cannot eliminate TELEVISION!! The very idea seem absurd.

    Some concepts are morally wrong.

    What is wrong with racism. Spell it out. What is it? Why is it so wrong. Not spelling it out is wrong.

    Must we have an overly simplistic dialog to effect political change?

    It is equally important to recognize that it is the humans who create the sacred spaces in a landscape. It is humans that make them sacred.

    How can the natural landscape be a metaphors for so many things?

    You see real things? Do you see physical matter? Do you see readiness to hand?

    Have there been culture with more concepts than us and the concepts have been forgotten?

    Why, if we are such sexual beings, do we pretend we are not? And why is this embedded in all our traditional moral codes?

    A philosopher cannot be satisfied with a clever, arresting or deep phrase. There is always something more to say; there is never a final word.

    Anyone can use these words, and they will. For who can prove them wrong?

    Christians limit their understanding to one book, the Bible, seeinkg wisdom in guidance in its nooks and crannies in all sorts of ways. Still little agreement all who call themselves followers.

    We believe in poets, in the arresting phrase and itriguing metaphor. It is also a very poetical thought, that someone can sit down and attain a breakthrough.

    What is the Interent? A bunch of links, hyoer-text. Movng to a new context.

    Movies appeal to our fragmented mind.

    Things stand there at a certain distance, and disappear up close. Picture dissolves into pixels, forests into tree, and a mountain into places. There are also those things where you must stand in a specific place to see the illusion.

    There is not much art of defecation.

    Since there is too much to watch, what do we watch? This is a question we do not like to consider.

    We are enticed by the enticing, captivated by the captivating, entertained by the entertaining, and seduced by the seductive.

    Being by yourself is a skill not many have anymore. Who has time to be alone?

    What cannot be good in 140 characters? Or in a show me on the phone? Or on fb? What is expert knowledge?

    Are no forests only trees. Aggregators

    How can kids with bad teachers turn out bad?

    There is a whole reference world of movie characters, lines, attitudes, actors, situations, etc.

    I can see people or I can see americans , women, blacks, Economy,

    How can we reward people for NOT having kids?

    "Ryle has drawn the focus away from science and toward trivialities by wanting to analyze the concept of mind rather than mind itself."

    What is that true for?

    Metaphor of words as: a warm of birds; they are constantly active.

    plot vs. routine. Why do these words take over from particular plots and routines? They may not for animals. Which are also in situations. Language.

    Metaphysical indeterminacy. Metasemantics

    Words are fuzzy. But is the world fuzzy? Words hide the fuzziness of the world.

    The trouble with talking about language as communicating information is that you soon depict language as two people sitting down and exchanging information. People do exchange information but so much more. And information covers so much. including bad vague false trivial and silly information. Humors, sarcasm, imitations, repetition…..

    Let us say world is linguistically indeterminate, as long we talk unconsciously about determinate things we gain very little than an argument topic for advanced seminars in philosophy.

    What is it for something to be mine?

    See is a metaphor.

    Why can we not say why we like a kitten video on a Facebook page?

    We cannot shut off the active fluidity of our words, specified or not.

    There is not a single thought in here you cannot find in another book,
    but look,
    you didn't learn it then
    and you may not learn it now.

    The question is not only why we like so much constant texting and messaging, but also how this is so easily possible. Is modern life far too simple and we want a kind of hyper-vigilance and group behavior?

    I can speak of a wall of thoughts. Many understandings and many thinkings all working as one.

    I am inclined to say. Here on the incline this is how words roll out of my mouth, I am inclined to say and you are inclined to understand.

    World today is neither bad nor good. NO. Not bad and good aspects. Compare with this and that.

    Do we seek answers as a Pavlovian response to the high pleasure of understanding/comprehension, of the world fitting together, free of the pain of being confused and having to puzzling things out. Of course both can be true.

    We watch and understand figure things out, make sense, now what's happening, It turned out this was a simple psychological fact we can manipulate.

    Thoughts carry judgments.

    Language is first of all something we teach to kids. Kids can learn it so it can't be all that difficult. It's a common tool. So why does it seem so sophisticated?

    Games. Soduku: pointless activities only makes sense in own context.

    [Linda] – why does it write so fuzzily, The point is so broad.

    It is rare to see intelligent people on TV ebing intelligent.

    Hits at so many levels at once. The trouble is the rationality of this. What is good multi-hitting and what is not?

    Wall of thought: in movies, in kittens.

    Philosophy is the non-starter, the way to not-get-it-off-the-ground. So when you do want to start, where do you turn? You have to go to something else. Or is there something we can do after it gets off the ground?

    Philosophy considers those things there are no answers. Perhaps there should be answers but no, and here is why.

    The very words we start out with will change meaning in the course of the discussion. As they should. They are not what you think they are. The sentences you think you understand at first you will need to understand differently. You are being fooled and taking things for granted you should not take for granted.

    The bifurcation fallacy. Easy to think of examples, many examples, but that does not mean everything is thus bifurcated. Our brain is somewhat blinded to this.

    The spurious clarity of words.

    In changing contexts much comes with the word. If we call up-skirt photos as a form of rape, we bring along many of the judgments we make about rape. Which is usually the point in so doing.

    Look for everything in bible, strange passages reinterpreted as though must make sense of it. One book, and its commentaries, rather than all books, and their commentaries. Obvious that bible contains a lot of chronicles, stories that have Not claim to be from God.


    • Salvation - personal peace
    • treating others – morality as affect other people
    • sex, personal taboo just do not for others or for conequeneces but taboo, purity, will of God.

    Wall of thoughts is why there is a hidden meaning of novels, and the imporatnce of ordinary language uses

    So many ideas are just wrong: the specialness of man

    Thinking point: many things can be called world.

    Self-evidently true is not the criterion of truth.,

    Cartoons are fuzzy, indeterminate.

    About words: (1) each one is different, and (2) we are able to respond to a whole variety of words.

    We can say a lot in simple identification. Ugh. We think primitives speak like that. That would be an assumption. Complexity predates language.

    We are not only inclined to say, But inclined to conclude, to judge,

    Perhaps humans will destroy themselves, The things thst make them most happy are bad for them: family, life, tribes, war, self

    Fuzzy as indeterminate.

    In multi-process thinking, we do not further the thinking by counter-examples!

    Sometimes concepts become hard and will not move: God, ego, atom. We want to explain everything in terms of them.

    The one things we can agree on is the value of a human life. Those who save human lives are heroes. Medicine and lawsuits are based on this. It is a value and a strong visceral feeling. Fetuses should be protected. Suicide should be against the law. But as usual we are inconsistent: war, where killers are heroes and collateral damage in innocent civilians included fetuses are easily shrugged off

  • those who are different. Bomb the Middle East
  • hunger in Africa
  • capital punishment.
  • and it is a value without thought.
  • It is nearly impossible to keep having more life

    Fall into a groove of thought and you are under the spell. But you need not glorify that understanding of yours.

    The human that fills its head with pictures of the universe.

    The point is not to provide the perfect exposition, one we can chisel into stone, but to think better about these things.

    Fiction films (dystopic) speaks in allegory. This is an interesting experienced fact.

    Evolutionary processes have proven their worth, but not to you. You do not evolve. Your capabilities persist.

    With all out gadgets, and sounds, and cat videos and silly tests, we have wandered into a high-tech nursery, made worse by the fact that this is now the expected common behavior of adults.

    What is a question?
    What is "what is"?

    The multi-processing mind demands multi-answers.

    Not only are a great variety of linguistic signals called word, but words flow between its use and its meaning.

    The intelligence of a musician. The right voice, phrasing and accompaniment to the meaning/mood of a song. NO impressing anyone about yourself.

    We wear clothes partly to surround disguise, hide and signals something. Protection of the ego.

    Funny that perfumes and make up go way way back. (Flamingos do it. Evolutionary advantage.)

    We do not have to answer why we do something. ON a multi-process there can be multiple inputs.

    If multi-processing mind then reason, not considerations. Reason implies words are logical, and they are not. Must appeal to multi-tasking mind.

    It is not that we are not answering the question, but that the question is not a question and should not be answered nor asked, except as a confusion. True, it is a grammatical question. And a traditional question. Should asked.

    A question is a challenge.

    We tend to think language is a deep and complex structure that mirror the complexity of the world. We forget that even children can use language.

    Words take on their meaning from their use. We create new meaning with new use. We can call some of these poetic. How is this even possible?

    Multi-processing is somewhat indescribable. Thinking in rubrics. Both our stupidities and our glories use these features of words.

    Some people would rather solve the world's problems through disasters and our responses to them, then using human reason, delayed gratification and engineering.

    We think in animals. It is the part of world we need and that need and threaten us. So what is an animal?

    The active harmonizing of words is called “understanding.”

    I use the | (the "vertical bar" on the keyboard) when I want to use several words at the same time.

    Words are misunderstandings. Or, better, not about understanding.

    Mildly original thoughts: not only do we not understand, we cannot understand, not only nature as it is but nature as we know it.

    The ding-an-sich is not something behind the things we comprehend.

    How do we get from happy people to happiness?

    What is it to own something? It's not a metaphor.

    Thinking with different parts of the mind. We like sex, violence, people, stories… different contexts.

    Is our inability to get along a linguistic problem?

    There are no criteria for believing firmly in God. No degrees, no certification is required. This is stupid.

    Some people would want us to live as hunting bands in the wood, a kind of primitive survivor.

    When we say someone is tall or old we are not giving a height but a nexus, a conglomeration. But we are also acting at the same time. These are some things we cannot see.

    Is the active fluidity of words merely a psychological mistake where we are mistaken (thinking wrongly, fooled) while the truth is out there not properly recognized by us? No. The illusions of truth. There are no heaps. Just a way humans perceive the world. No mountains? There are aggregations of sand – or rocks.

    Just what IS the world? Tendency to think of stable parts of world, or atoms. But the world is a constant interaction. We might talk about the world apart from humans … or animals … or energy?

    I do not like the pretend group thinkers, the unhesitating ones. The one who assume that we are working on the problem. Who use words casually as though they are the pre-existing building blocks of the world.

    Do not think you have said anything philosophical when you have intimated something or asked a question.

    What is an animal?

    We can and we will in the future, give names to these processes just as we have some names now: trinalism, self-preservation. (We do not have all.) That mean we know what they are. Disparate names with not mean disparate processes. Nor that we are hardwired for these processes. Each process is itself a number of processes.

    What is the meaning | appeal of “Turtles all the way down”?

    We can go from a particular to a universal, but not so easily the other way. Think of an examples. Or even good philosophical ideas like category mistakes and social constructs : we go back to the ones we thought of. It hurts (my brain) to think of examples of a universal words. Often defined from specifics to universals. Our brain kicks out an interesting generalization from an interesting example.

    I hear theory which results a striking or paradoxical statement, "Language constitutes reality." We must fight the simple understanding, Language does not constitute reality, But what other word can we use.

    Topic: yes and no. To ways of talking in philosophy. World is real and not real. Can be best explained by aesthetic.

    Citing authority has a very primitive function of tribal association. It is also the relaxition of obeying the higher status. It is also a well of inspiration.

    Slippery words mean we have many understandings and in the background we actually change the meaning of the word.

    First step it to recognize you are moving into dangerous territory, and become vigilant. So few writers show any real awareness and puzzlement of the abstract words they use. Vigilance, hesitation – then what? Awareness that surrounded by pictures, paradigms and metaphors.

    There are situations we can speak casually of "language", as we can speak casually | informally of "America" but not as we enter into a state of truth. Trouble is that "truth" is an equally bad word. When can we not? Aware of all possible meanings and the flow between them. Language (1), Language (2) language (3) as we can speak of America (1), (2) etc… Also false associations with each. By default we speak with connotations and denotations. Language (pure) with no connotations. We relate. That is how language works by default.

    Any theories about the origin of language must be prefaced with discussion of the word language.

    The glove worn by Michael Jackson : Actual glove worn by Michael Jackson, glove from Michalee Jackson's house but never actually worn, a glove nought at the same store right after Michael, a glover that looks like Michael Jackson;s glove, as say by a costume store.

    It's a fair question what is a scientific fact. Is human at contraception. Designation and connotations and right. Yet we understand these easily without meta-understanding them. We like music without being able to identify why.

    Let us go with statement that our science and our moral values are "unsupported." The earth is unsupported. But they are not unsupported the ways that false statements are unsupported.

    W. uses logic as the description of the language game.

    We do not see that understanding changes the use.

    There are so many singers singing so many songs. There are so many places in the world where you can sit down and enjoy the sun, the air, the birds, the time you have on your hand.

    How about a book of the world's greatest (short) self-standing philosophy papers that do not reference other, larger philosophical works. For behind the understanding stands the tome and its reputation. Demarked as much by its walls as by why is contained behind them. Or even the world's best paragraphs. These are not world's most striking understandings.

    A philosophy is a nexus of words and thoughts. An interlocking web where words are gradually given extended meanings.

    What (and how) will move in a nexus of belief. Grounded in each other. In what we have read, in who we believe. Grounded in cultural universals, each of which has own roots.

    Language is a useful tool, not a descriptive

    (Understanding takes place in contexts and those are not understandable except in terms of other contexts. This is the nexus of understanding.)

    We like to see we can zoom up | distance ourselves We can get onto a descriptive state and park some of our connotations, but that state, whatever that state is, is neither final or free from contextual limitations.

    Flow of words means our tendency is to misunderstand.

    There is no firm line between connotations and denotations.

    Cannot encompass the consequences of our "actions." Cut welfare. Increase the military. Like being on a mountain, bomb Iran.

    Many have seen the elephant. No one can describe it.

    Be suspicious of

    • high level abstraction
    • most abstract words.
    • words that stand for many things (since our mind and has a small field of understanding | attention)
    • Statistical conclusions masquerading as facts.
    • Self-reporting
    • Taking my best shots

    What will you not believe?

    It's like we are created by a creator in his image. Why is that so easy to believe, and not its opposite?

    Can we talk to Muslims about the correctness of the Quran? (Keeping in mind that to most of them we can.)

    Can I look at the people in the airport and make no judgments? No. People come judged, or categorized.

    Too much emotion is the death of thinking. The goal is not to feel clearly. This is often an impediment to thinking.

    Is not knowing why we humans function like we do similar to not knowing how our cell-phones work?

    We can speak but we can't speak about what we are doing when we speak. But we think we understand.

    We substitute the pleasant relaxations of awe of celebrity for the challenges of participatory creativity.

    What opinions are you allowed to have and why?

    Just as we now have to defend evolution, or science itself, and in the oversimplifications of the attack and the inadequacies of the defense, the rich texture of a traditional culture is replace by a shallow simulacrum, we now have to defend literature, as an antiquated conceit of white males.

    Movies and graphic novels appeal to a set of more primitive mental reactions thereby replace (great) literature.

    "Everything in this room" makes sense. "Everything" does not.

    We think with many minds, and with simultaneous processes.

    You think "I have hit the nail on the head" when there is neither nail or head. You just feel good. Feeling good about your thinking is wrong. The game is ongoing.

    The vagueness is nor in the world our in your mind, it is in the nature of language, of how we speak | think about things.

    If you want to do philosophy, do not begin at a (assumed) high level discourse. With words that need a lot explanations and hand-waving. [compare "word-waving"]

    One thing is the ability of anyone to think about the larger aspects of existence. And who does not think themselves capable? You do not need to get a certain score on a test.

    Another is the way intellectuals, stepping out from their discipline and kudos, to climb the highest peaks of truth, almost never mistrust their tools ("the words of their language")

    So I dismiss such writing, which makes my life much simpler but why. Surely you can understand what they are saying. Yes, I can, in the way I learned to enjoy classical music and then atonal music. The appreciation is genuine. But is it aesthetic and impossible to put into worlds.

    Vagueness is not in things, nor in our perception. Vagueness is inherent in the active family-resemblance of our | human language. Vagueness is in our conceptions.

    Why do we care about future generations, because they are our children? Our blood? How primitive!

    Nexus of situations | processes.

    The world cannot be understood by humans, or by anyone. Can that be understood by humans?

    We make organizations and tribe with loyalty programs.

    We see what we see, or look at, but we do not see what we see in our peripheral vision.

    The MTV experience: flashing new images. The MPO experience: flashing new metaphors

    "You can't talk about the origin of language if you don't know what language is." You can't talk about language with all the generalized simple words we have in common thinking heritage.

    Don't make your statement subject to a common sense refutation.

    We cannot see, we cannot go beyond, what we cannot see.

    We go through life with a number of well-tested mantras. God loves us. Acceptance makes you happy. Perhaps these change over time.

    Oh you can write a tome, but you can't express it in simple words. Read a quote by a great philosopher. You will needs a tome to understand this: no I mean this is an impression, you redefine a whole bunch of philosophical terms.

    There is no tradition of conceptual skepticism.

    What can't you say? Well that is a mildly dumb question. What can't you see? Well when we use that phrase in every day life, we can see it in other ways. What can we not see in any ways. What is the world like apart from our perceptions of it.

    Our minds are multi-processing, and we have no words for that.

    There is no privileged descriptive access of the world. How can I prove that? There might be for parts of the world. The mathematical, or the descriptive, but it hardly follows that all things we call the world are capable of such a description.

    This is called "understanding," and is based on the fact that people do not utter random information. They are trying to communicate something. A person who does not understand is a stupid person.

    One can summarize Wittgenstein without understanding Wittgenstein. (One can know the ten commandments without following them? One can know smoking is bad for you and still smoke. You can know the rules of baseball without being able to play baseball.)

    It's like we are playing the melody and the harmonies and the chords all at the same time.

    Moral issue: Always a balance between what is right and what is fair.

    We can handle homonyms, and we can handle different meaning and pronunciations. Cannot handle the panoply of meanings.

    Speaking in abstract terms is like speaking only of Americans. No granulation. Could speak of American here, or an American there. Nothing we say of American is true, except maybe an American is a citizen of the US. Why do I think that our everyday philosophical words are not granular? On American we have words for individual Americans.

    Language cover many things: ability to communicate in words, contexts of appropriateness, different signal systems

    Every word demands its own study. Words have a personality, like well persons.

    Not about word social reality but about social realities.

    Finding a counterexample or a borderline case are not deal-breakers.

    We have a tendency to categorize things. Bad to think the world was meant for categories, rather than the other way around.

    Humans are a puzzle to us. (Another thing we do not know.)

    There are more aspects to human life than we can enumerate. Cannot enumerate the words we know, directions we know.

    Our manimality, both conscious and nonconscious, is on all the time. We cannot turn it off.

    We shake off what others say and babble on about about the nation, the race, the god. We live in a space and do not miss other spaces we might logically possibly occupy.

    The trick is to stop thinking that there is a real word out there, clearly describable in our words, as though our words supply a basic clarity to the world. All we have are fuzzy categories. We see forests. But we think we can visit them. We are in a plane that will never land,

    We speak in celebrities, movie clips, bits of music, possessions, clothes, facial gestures. How? That is not so clear.

    Do you criticize to dismiss. That does not seem thoughtful.

    We need better skills of "questioning." A bad book is one that leads to no furthering questions and a wall goes up.

    Thinking you can make a difference is making our world small.

    We have made institutions of most everything. We hand down skills that are bad.

    Philosophy and the history ideas fosters the illusion that one can change the world in some general way.

    Could imagine a world where people would simply get up and dance with each other. But in our world it is so complicated; all of our get-to-know-you apps will kick in.

    We like vague philosophical/religious/political questions without answers, because we can't be wrong. Everyone is on an equal footing, as in sports

    The assumptive stance of philosophy is that there are answers. A Wikipedia assumes also there are answers. But are there always?

    A word has meaning all by itself. There may be nothing to point to, it does not stand for anything. Except that we can use different sounds in different languages.

    Understanding can mean

    • a feeling of understanding
    • understanding with does justice to the complexities of a situation.
    • Traditional pseudo-understanding

    It is not enough to write it down in arcane terms and vocabulary. Sometime has a use, but in most philosophical contexts, no, just causes puzzlement: it is not understand by outsiders, and it fools insiders by thinking they are talking about something: words-create-things, this is the foundational metaphor

    We talk with all the meanings of the words.

    Family resemblance: n1, n2, n3, . . . nx, This makes a number of mistakes.

    A heap of sand is a heap of sand. If you look at it it is sand. A nation is a heap of people. Much more complicated. And people are the very entity that create the concept of a nation.

    If we start using words early, and unreflectively, perhaps we should institute a-language (adult language) which we must use by say age 35.

    Nonconsciousing – things we learn contextually

    What does a graphic add to a newspaper article?

    Instead of "answering" a question, we should say "responding" to a question.

    Nonuderstanding } Unsense

    Self-esteem, not some mythical quality bit the basic belief we are good as and smart as, and equal of all other people on earth - when clearly we are not. I am not as smart, handsome, rich, kind etc. as so many other people in the world. But I should get some rights and respect

    I just hate the idea of using these words and dredging up contexts of understanding, without going further.

    If it not done with a heightened awareness to the simplimitations of words, especially at this time, the explanations will be best misunderstood if it is not seen as conceptually inadequate.

    We can share associations of words.

    What do we lose by being more meta-aware? And more nuanced. Perhaps the meta-awareness loses a bit of the intensity.

    The fact no one talks meta is bad. We cannot rise above our entertainment,

    Why don't the media do it the other way. Surely not because a lack of intelligence.

    How would the media present it if they were interested in truth?

    How do we compare our experience of the world with the world?

    Humiliated the United States, Iran, Greece. Deconstruct this. IT is a metaphor. Surely some things are wrong in truth/

    Multi-processing mind means death of linear exposition. One path, One way, One proof.

    We do not see the associations, though we feel them. No we se some but perhaps not all. We feel something is apt but cannot say why.

    We learn to use words appropriately, but appropriately is not philosophically. We have learned to generalize.

    The world cannot be understood, only misunderstood.

    We do not see clouds bit we see animals, rabbits, cow.

    We are hidden from truth by our understandings.

    Let is see alternative societies. Not just dystopias.

    Left to its own devices the mind will wind up saying the most stupid things.

    How can we divide a single event into so many ways. How can we look at it so many ways?

    Thinking points about consciousness

    • If you had a satisfying answer to the question of consciousness, what would you have?
    • Why is it hard to decide if an earthworm is conscious?
    • We can imagine anything to be conscious, Why is that?
    • Why do we feel consciousness demands an ostensive definition? Consciousness is this!
    • Are you conscious because you have something called consciousness? Whatever makes you think that?
    • Is this consciousness something I have or is this consciousness I am?
    • Since we endow each other with consciousness, is consciousness a social bond?
    • What is the conceptual dance between consciousness and the self ("me")?
    • Why do we give a superior ontological status to consciousness, and not say, to pains?

    What can be done to fix the world? Everyone working together. Everyone doing his or her part. The earth is our temple, our pyramid.

    Can anyone appreciate art? In some sense anyone can appreciate something legitimately called art.

    The multiplicities of reality worlds come from multi-processing mind.

    All i have are fresh metaphors. We lose old ones and get new ones. That really means there are different fundamental understandings of the big ultimate thing. We understand it in many, and not necessarily one way.

    We will need a lot of art to get through the future.

    Taking away people's philosophy is like taking away their playing cards, or chess pieces. For what then would we argue about? It is not much fun to argue about facts that can be looked up.

    Truth is a word not a fact.

    Facebook takes into account social calculations.

    We keep the world as suitable simple as we can handle.

    Philosophy does not come in movements, unless we are talking of symphonies. To speak of contextualism vs. skepticism, is oversimplifications, tribal and wrong. Translates into a set of simple or complex sentences but truth cannot reside in sentences, or at east in sentences used and understood by humans relative to the complexity of the world.

    Academics show a concern with the minutia of the world, especially the wondrous, rare and otherwise noteworthy or of interest. And this includes many things.

    The morning task: using words. The afternoon task: Analyzing using words. Night task: not using words, using words in the most intellectually uncomplicated way in a comprehensible vision. Presenting the most fruitful oversimplification. Using words better.

    Contexts not determined by surroundings but if you will our understanding of our surroundings,

    Plato's cave. We see images on the cave walls, While things happen outside, far away and we are in a safe cave. We interact with peoploids. Harmless, behind s screen, or living on a page. We like them more than we like actual people, who can be quite annoying.

    OK so I am on an airplane watching a mildly engaging movie and magically I am no linger here.

    Who can you now meet? All have the same helmet and are staring at their screens. We can only handle, and only have so many needs, for new friends.

    Provocative answer: The world and the future cannot be depicted. Why? Depiction is a metaphor? Very insidious.

    Provocative answer: Language is metaphors and not names. Why not give it a new metaphor free. It cannot be ostensive. What as a metaphor?

    Sorry but your consciousness is an illusion.

    The guilty pleasures of ISIS

    You don't have to do philosophy. Any more then you have to do model trains or crochet. Nothing hinges on it.

    If you remove all barriers by selective demolition, you can see there is nothing out there. But you do notice strange machinery.

    No one understands the world. we are doomed | condemned to invent fantasies, misunderstandings of the world. Some basic fantasies are built in.

    A law about rape connects to a word
    which connects to emotions
    about rape
    which connect to contexts
    where rape is not to be done
    instances that indicate rape
    how to talk about rape.

    This is all perceived by a contextualizer.
    With various levels. Not free reign.

    A contextualizer, being a metaphor, is same as active family-resemblance.
    It is built by the brain.
    Brain is the contextualizer. We can explore the contextualizer as an agent/

    Replying to Austin: Things are constantly getting off the ground, or better, shoots are constantly sprouting even after the tree has been cut down.

    Is America a thing? Of course, the requirements for being a thing are extremely vague. everything is a thing. But to say this is also meaningless because the requirements for being a thing are extremely vague. It is like a thing in these ways but not like a thing in these ways, or not like these things we call "things."

    In the deep an honored halls of philosophy There are doors that should not be opened. Words that should not be used, spells, They work on the foolishnesses of mindkind.

    How did art (as in "________'s Got Talent") get to be a competition? Voted on by anyone? How much this art appeals to everyone at all, regardless of training and experience and knowledge?

    We love the Aristotelian categorization.

    Ask provocative thoughtful questions… and answer them.

    It's like we go around with a set of say simple geometric shapes and try to fit everything in it. Some things fit as circles, triangles, squares, hexagons... many things don't. Words are not as clear as geometric shapes. Their shapes are shifting. It's like the geometric figures change shape. And they carry lots of emotional baggage

    In refining our speech we start with ordinary words. And their connotations.

    Religion: Super fuzzy word as it covers so much. we hear no word for religion, but we do this. This is how we worship. We worship. Of course we worship the way we wash out hands, or take a poop. Or dress, or follow linguistic or social conventions.

    We don't know what we don't know. We clutch our magic talisman, diplomas, answers to trivial questions. We are socially accepted. But if society's not healthy we are not ok.

    "what" exists is the wrong question. Existing exists. it is partially yours, but limited ways. You have no control over where you were dropped in and when. You are a drop in a nugget swirling.

    We pay attention to many things at once. The personal narrative, societal swirling and (I for nothing)

    Reality Is a perfectly useful word, as is world. But there are many realities Here we are comparing realities to ... reality.

    Healthy evolution is a sign of health. The species that evolves faster wins. So evolution evolved intelligence, and puzzlingly put it in bunch of apes.

    Our heads spin thinking of more than 3 dimensions. mine too. More of a herd. We have to put extra directions in one plane. Because we have run out of dimensions.

    In a vivid but unexplained metaphor, J.L. Austin ends Sense and Sensibilia by saying that what we should "... go back . . . and dismantle the whole doctrine before it gets off the ground." This is a military / aeronautical / ,missile metaphor but it might be better to think of misleading ways of thinking as shoot and roots that keep coming up from the stump. They need constant pruning/

    There should be popular sitcom with a Muslim character, as there was with blacks and gay people. It would help as it did with the other groups. The character shoud be someone who can integrate and relate on many levels, though aware their own, and who acts without personal animosity or predjudice, but who will also be a foil for others predjudices.

    What can be done to fix the world? Everyone working together. Everyone doing his or her part. The earth is our temple, our pyramid.

    Facebook takes into account social calculations.

    We think in metaphors and analogies with associations.

    Is anything gained by settling the great philosophical questions? Suppose we were all to agree? What would that settle?
    What then would we have to disagree with.

    If the person you are speaking to cannot say that what you just said | wrote is a good argument, then you are not having a discussion.

    Is it better to have a clear but mistaken map, or to have an awareness that all our maps are mistaken?

    Do not assume there is a model for the world . . . with parts . . . that you can name.

    How is it we can talk about things that do not exist (truth, justice, beauty) in the same way we talk about objects in the material world?

    We live in a world of metaphors. Like "world".

    I admire anyone who can write a page, let alone a book. And there are so many learned books on all things philosophical. And no one can read them all. Let alone consolidate them into a narrative. We consolidate our learning the way we consolidate our knowledge of the world by assuming there is a reality out there. Be it even that abstract one of time and place, sublimated into Newtonian/Einstein working off our cognitive manimal psychology.

    But all thinkers fall back into the same new|old|timeless mistakes. To think is to fail.

    To think about who has said this before is no guarantee you understand what is being said. An advanced degree, and erudition, and the ability tow write coherent fat books, is not guarantee of understanding.

    Christian thinkers start with conclusions and work back from there. I don't like the look of your conclusions.

    Why can we not convince? Because it is a multi-grounded conviction | intuition expressed in a metaphorical statements.

    How can all words be metaphorical? That is not how we use the word metaphors. Metaphor is a metaphor for what we do in words.

    We read a person for the asides as well as the main ideas. Silly to reduce a thinker to his truths, Sentences that get you an A on a test.

    We do not know how little we know.

    Nuanced complexity does not make for good leadership. Both sergeants and football coaches should be somewhat stupid and determined. This is sad in todays complex word. So far beyond our words.

    Why don't we just use God and reality and justice and talk like we always talk, a rich tapestry of misunderstandings. OK. But can we at least drop the delusion we are talking about "truth." Isn't this like playing a sport and not caring about winning, or even the rules? Yes, but at least as it translates into politics, or politics aided by religion, are dangerous games.

    If my philosophy is sceptical, not in that we cannot know but that we cannot understand.

    But mistakes in phenomenology, or metaphysics interest almost no one. What difference do they make?

    Do we have a blind spot in our minds? We have many such blindnesses in many important aspects of our mind,

    You cannot help giving of an impression of who you are, as you can't speak without saying what we believe.

    The word consciousness has no application.

    Oxymoron shows recontextualizing

    Three-body problems also works with multi-conceptual networks (context) of understanding.

    For some people, the fact that a philosopher was a member of an extreme political party or abused his wife, may be enough to turn away from objective consideration of his philosophy, no matter how brilliant.

    What kind of process is attending? Many kinds of proecesses are called attending.

    A delicate process with many very complex nodes, especially since we cannot see processes as they taper off. (but this, as anything else I could say, is just a metaphor

    Would that be a good thing? We can go back to the Middle Ages for a while, until we are ready for something more. We survived the middle ages, witches, heretics, people on the wrong side of conflict.

    Using fuzzy words is how we navigate. Yes. Regretfully. We have no other way. Can we tweak this a little bit?

    We are not free in so many ways. Our culture binds (freezes) and frees, us. Most social-religio-historical creations.

    We are not prepared to explain science, mathematics, atheism, or religion, as we flowed into these. Tendency to see them as natural.

    We have no words for use. Not learn by rules.

    Why are not all name proper names?

    Much thinking is done without words, but by obesrving, This person is old and I am not attracted. I do not know why I am attracted. I like the kitten.

    Maybe like a spider's web. One event triggers messages throughout the net. Three dimensional net.

    The thing is we use these words for some wonderful edifying things. Calls to goodness, betterment, cultured mind, education person. And we use it to talk, intelligently and not, about things like science, evolution, government, the earth, the future.

    You may think a person does something BECAUSE a human decision has a complicated web of interrelationships, but you would be unwise to think | assume that. The simple explanation may be the reason with the most wetght.

    No one does not think they understand,

    Sees we are separate: but even without rational communication we are intertwined at so many levels.

    All our understanding is in concepts, but our concepts break down unable to hold the reality.

    We can make up words and we can understand them

    If you ask that question you have not begun to understand. What? You put it into a context.

    You can wonder about yourself all your life.

    We follow rules. Aware of many contexts at once.

    We are inclined to say, and we will defend what we are inclined to say. So why are we so inclined?

    When we say that something is information, that is useful, and determinable. When we say information is, we tend to get into trouble.

    I am not inclined to say I am inclined to say that 2 + 2 equals 4.

    Linguistic usage is complex wirh great variety, as a forest is complex. Many places. We think it is simple but oh no. (think if walking through a woods, brown and green, Mighty pleasant experience.)

    Language, after all, deals with a world we do not understand.

    We live in a complex world (we are evolved to live in this world) and we have made it for a more complex with out ideas, finxtions, social constructs and philosophies.

    The "world" is a unifying principle. We can put all of our worlds-of-involvement, fields of sense into this bag, as well as our limited coneptions, and say haha it's all in the bag. But we cannot comprehend this without using our fuzzy concepts.(Reasons why I call them fuzzy: flow of all this.

    Words melt under klieg lights of reason. And that is good know we are dealing with a melting soggy concepts.

    Culturally we orient ourselves to the culture, or not. Culture which you may also call morality keeps the others away from you. Judgment and the corporal judgment of prisons and police.

    Reason vs. presenting a case.| considerations.

    What is a world without nationhood? Without ancestry Or homeland?

    Metaphorical description is all we got. Wehave no words to describe it.

    comforting beliefs | hero, love, god, spells, magic,

    We share environments. Fun to know you have been there. Italy, movies, books Hard to know what this is.

    The rocky path of aging, as we transition from one social category to another. Old, too old, Sexy, desirable, Kid to adult.

    Art is not competition. We understand competition But not art (writing, poetry, painting, philosophy) And less, existence.

    Refuting another person is not enough. Unless you refute with a better vision.

    ! If it is the context that creates understanding, we will need to describe the context.

    We understand competition better than we understand understanding.

    What is it to enjoy someone with peripheral vision. Or even awareness they are there.

    There is a theory of language. Unfortunately a big part of that theory is that we will never know because we cannot have words for this.

    We cannot escape our tribality.In academic discourse as well We cannot escape our illusions, Some of which are tribal.

    Lawyers present considerations. This works. It is more encompassing

    Knowing as seeing

    Yes we have a manimal sense of fairness: don't hijack it for your religion. Religion gives an answer. You do not need an answer.

    We like fake | safe fear: roller coaster, scary movies,

    Don't let them kill anyone == not me.

    How did people live before the Internet? Even people who lived through this cannot answer this question. How did people live before the telephone, the car, the radio?

    1. This shows we did not miss things we "cannot live without."
    2. We are probably living this now.
    3. No one knows how they live.

    The paradigms we use to tell a story are, well, a story, which is usually organized over time, or something like Euclid's geometry, where we move from certainties to certainties, building a coherent stricture over time.

    What we want to wind up with is a sentences.

    The tension in our relating to each other. The unknown,,the fears, the possibilities.

    We ourselves need "to get off the ground."

    Weltgeist can define as the sum of cultures in place at a time. It is a result not a thing. World cultures more interconnected now.

    Since other people exist in us. We exists consciously whether we are conscious of it or not. Cannot always be conscious of it. Sleep or engaged in sports.

    We can pass a psychology exam and still be terrible at relationships.

    So no more illusions of life. No. Just a little less.

    We spend our time understanding and we love this. Flipping from contexts to contact. Educated man rings our own education referencing Bauhaus vestal or phenomenology.

    But we have no other supporting story. Emotions stop us from thinking, So do our philosophies.

    SIDEBAR: racism. More prudent to keep thoughts to self because anything short of marching behind the flag can generate a virtualk twitterstiorm of objections and emotions. Race: we cannot not see race anymore ethan geneder, Or less controversial, age, power, 88

    Fuzzy as unclear.

    Our answers are multi answers.

    New spin on things.

    • separate emotions / connotations from facts
    • an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning. "the word 'discipline' has unhappy connotations of punishment and repression"
    • opens up idea we are cross-poetizing
    • is there a mystical vision in here?

    Why are we touched by a gift?

    How can something be mine? What is it? I can do what I want with it You can't take it,

    If philosophical discussions not true or false, what are they? Arguments, disagreements, contests,

    We see through a glass not only darkly, but small and flawed. This too is a metaphor. Philosophy is metaphorical thinking. This too is a metaphor.

    Often don't know what to think until we think it. How is that even possible?

    Situation is a metaphor. Context is a metaphor.

    False metaphors:

    • knowing as seeing Seeing through a glass darkly.
    • knowing as truth
    • knowing as propositions
    • concepts as clear pieces of the world: molecules. Ingredients.
    • Not as pictures we hold up to the world.
    • We are in control of our concepts
    • We CAN create concepts that adequately interpret the world.

    Lessons from MPM:

    • no simple explanation
    • understand fluidity
    • mind does not stop thinking
    • understand so many things

    Do not bring education [ propaganda story of rise of America, of George, Abraham, martin. Do not share local upbringing, sense of place or local history. Do not expect immigrants to become Americans any more than you would be a Hungarian or a Bolivian if a crisis forced you to Bolivia. Grateful yes. Patriotic no.

    We keep score in races and cultures. The actions of a black rude person may easily reflect upon all blacks. Though our intelligence may battle this thought. In a way it does not do so for a white asshole. We have more or different categories for delinquents of our own group. This may be altruism but it is also a problem.

    There are more people than you can possibly process. More places. More rooms, more surprises. More activity.

    Humans are the only beings

    Communication is limited and has many other purposes than knowledge. Enter into a relationship.

    Writing is virtual communication.

    We can enter the hurly-burly. Living in the culture, Or we can go for authority, or hip|worthy, Or family, Or personal hero, Or perhaps live in fictional universe. Where is the line?

    Personal knowledge is only "knowledge" by analogy.

    Body-centric: Up down, propositions, directions, seeing!!

    Swarms. Metaphor for the future. Yet as swarms in space: obey laws, cannot be annihilaited.

    The suicide bombers change everything. War against the common change everything. No noble war, of warriors attempting to kill one another. Not a video game.

    I advance in words. Not in intuition, poetry but simple meaningful sentences.

    Knowing something is not the thing you know.

    Culture: You must live fuller in the culture and exhibited dhows itself, or better, is itself, in many situations.

    Living in the culture, you have an obligation to get outside the culture and think about it. Do not get confused by the two meanings of culture. They are not the same. There are things we can change and things we cannot.

    Do mot think our thoughts are only thoughts, even if this a venerated thought. Look at fiction: it has intimate and usually unconscious ties to action.

    A philosopher could be given a question and perhaps resolve it in a month or so, by which time there would be a new crisis.

    Terrorists pluck the following strings. The mind is a nexus, leading and channeling our thoughts and association. This may be too complex for us to understand.

    Limits of grok.

    Human nature as biological nature. Interrelated and complex. It cannot be eradicated though many have tried. Turn man into a "man"chine,

    But values are not set by a god. But it hurts our minds to recognize unfounded values. It's much easier to understand laws, fiats and commands.

    We are wired for simple pleasures, and also simple terrors.

    How can all cultures best live together?

    If religious leaders had any decency, they would join together at the top and let their followers, if followers they are, join together in example.

    Perhaps the futurings are the pipedreams of an man of no influence, imagining that if only people heard what you said, they would fall down and repent their silly notions. But let me ask you: Can you convince your mom? No? And she loved you.

    Better to be ignorant than deluded.
    Better cock-unsure than cock-sure.

    On News, I don't need | want to hear about:

    • killings in world
    • irritating or salacious stories
    • Twitter outrages
    • Lawsuits
    • Spats between nations
    • Celebrities
    • Movies | TV shows

    Is my only contribution to add an "s" at the end of things?

    Speaking of words or concepts is itself misleading. (How so?)

    There are specific words or concepts, with own contextuality and own possibility for poetry and creative uses.

    The world cannot be translated into symbols or a model.

    One can become an expert on things that are not true, like astrology, or the details of Hamlet or StarWars, or doctrine of universals. One can write a history of universals as one can write a history of phrenology.

    Scientific method(s) is applied with less than sterling results in social sciences.

    Oh the thoughts that go through our minds! (Metaphore alert.)

    All these scared lives, these children of God all around us, and yet we barely engage them. We spend much time just placidly avoiding them for less sacred beings (cats, dogs, virtual characters)

    We say Earthling, not Germanling or Americaling (Earthie, or an Earthan).

    Little people, peoplets, like me: a peopling.

    How does a book differ from the person who wrote it?

    I know I am ignorant and yet how good it is to rest at the feet of a master. I will let the master do the heavy lifting enlightening.

    Words cannot define world because they are fluid. The flow to fit the situation, and release hormones of understanding, in both speech and in understanding.

    So many philosophy books. Tell me why you cannot state your essential insights? Legitimate answer would be that truth cannot be expressed in insights.

    The problems is to take all the things we are said to "know" and group them into knowledge, and believe we can think about them fruitfully at that level. Mostly we prove what if anything we can say about the general concept of "knowledge" which though occasionally complex, (i.e. completely involving), is not much. No way to generalize about truth.

    The topics of philosophy are a problem, though not a problem to be solved. There is no truth here.

    Fake models in our heads when truth is we have regions of fake models in our heads. Some things are ture in a different way than facts.

    We have given up magic, spells, divination, though not prayer.

    Up and down; also big and small.

    News is excused from intelligence.

    Can the world be contained in concepts. Represented? Not the reality of the world?THESIS: the world cannot be described in words, There are many kinds of words, and there is no world. It may be a pleasant illusion there is a common world in common danger. TV plays on this.

    Nationalism. How do the Dutch think. React as a group. As a government in variety of ways, a united nations vote, as a voter in their government, as a person. As a bureaucracy with powers.

    God damn media for puffing up people. Thinking they have a right to an opinion on all the major issues of the universe.

    Meaning of life seems so important, though at the next few minutes a lot of other things are equally important. Driving, going to bathroom.

    Compare: How we use our eyes and using our eyes? How we use our words and using our words?

    We can look at the human conditions and say, it s not what you pretend it is, It is a game. Nationalism is not serious.

    What is truth. What is meaning of life? Bad questions without an answer. More like sports. Hallowed by tradition Philosophical games.

    Philosophy is like listening to classical music, or politics: an interest. It jangles other thoughts. It drAws up references. (References are just associations. We can follow them, but they are Not necessarily thoughts.)

    We are addicted to meaning as we are addicted to seeing animals and animal shapes. We understand meanings.

    You need to re-understand. Understanding a new way, but not understanding.

    What you see is not what is. You see a mountain that looks like an elephant, or a chair, or a person you are not seeing the truth. You need to see your seeing.

    What makes a meaningless question? What makes a meaningless answer? Could they agree that no one has the right answer? Could they agree on why? Could agree that this is wrong or this is ,oimted.

    There may be a privileged state apart from our manimality but it is not clear what that would be A world without judgments. A world without iprtance, or things woirthy of attention? Significance?

    Cannot name processes. Compare: cannot name a complicated figure. Cannot name most clouds | colors. All sorts of intermediary things.

    Eschew the simple words we use to make up our conceptual world: Truth, knowledge, economy, language, understandings,

    If we don't know shit, how can there be libraries full o dense and interesting books on philosophy.

    We have a Feeling of Understanding FOU A social acceptance that I can giv a=skme words where Each context must know the truth value of its language. When to turn away form a literal interpretation..

    All the things called "time" do not fall under a unity.

    Most of what we do is neither here or there philosophically. Get up, make coffee, tasks for the day, do one's work, watch a movie, read a book, eat, defecate…

    Life platform. Things we can constantly take for granted. Safety, food, relationships to others.

    It is much easier to accept a person from another culture if they speak your language fluently. It is the power of audio like the background music on a film. It also means, well they are not from another culture.

    Human rights

    • eat other animals
    • created by a god
    • supoer special
    • only animal with righrs
    • in battle between animals andumans, humans always triumph.
    • Ok to pollute, not so ok for other animals
    • Opinion on everything
    • Family and friends most precious
    • Right to destroy orhr animal
    • Rught to have right to

    we can leave the philosophical understanding to experts who we know cannot agree o nthis, because these issues are unimportant and irrelevant for most tasks at hand. You do not need a tru understanding of the world to live your life in that very world.

    What is the nexus of thoughts. Each neuron may be connected to other neurons. But the neural net is different, it is a creation pf the neural net, and not necessarily an analagous one.

    We strum out brain. In thoughts of blissful attunement. I indulge the thought atht all this. probably makes lovely neuron pattern in my brain.

    If you think you understand Wittgenstein, you don't understand Wittgenstein because you don't understand "understand."

    What would it be like to have a different history? Isn't history just something we have been told?

    It's organized but you cannot comprehend it. The truth cannot be put into words. Or into a sentence. Of course it can be said. Anything can be said in words.But words are not the truth. | reality. Stream of consciousness is a river, rivers of consciousness. Make the Multiple things going on: partial things.

    You can say it but you can't understand it.

    The meaning may be the use, but we cannot describe the use.

    We substitute knowing how to find the answer for the answer.

    We think something thing is like something else that is many ways isn't like that thing at all! Why is that? How do we do that?

    Topic: We think, we can describe everything.

    A metaphorical adumbration that gives the mind some peace, also known as understanding

    Three levels: language, lived life, social life and individual life and momentary life, the brain. There are no doubt many similarities between these three levels of thought. They are occurring simultaneously.

    "With all the complexity of the modern world, all we have to decide between democrat and republican."

    How are words they slippery? We lose our footing on them.

    Because we naturally make sense of what someone says, we change contexts without us having any awareness thereof.

    Do we have to talk about words? Only if we talk in words.

    Fragenfeil | antwortfeil | verstehenfeil || Speak | think | understand

    Processes themselves cannot be named for it is what is communicated to the language center before there is a thought in words. I should consider what such a description is like. There are no two. There are twe kinds of processes.

    We talk if the state as us. A person. Turkey has offended Russia. Threatened.

    Time to do the metaphor of a swarm.

    Reality attempts to draw a line between us and something else (the world). This is as artificial and misleading (and as arbitrary) as the line between the mind and me.

    The line might be drawn between what humans (and all our social constructs, whatever they may be) and is outside us.

    We picture: a picture. What other ways can we apprehend reality? Metaphor of apprehend,

    First came political power and authority then came religious authority.

    We give better alliegance to virtual people.

    As animals we evolved a sense of place. A necessary thing for a traveling animal. And a sense of time. Different situations in the same place, Different place with same things we do

    Ego blocks all sorts of things by asking how am I doing?

    Situation AND environment branch on different thrust. In situation we conceptualize the situation Environment is the unconceptualized parts of nature.

    Metaphoricality can be called family resemblance, as we extend things forward without thinking about it.

    Being-in-the-world is being in context. Can flesh out context phenomenologically.

    Presidential debates take our minds off the problems actually facing America in the world.

    Mind can fool us all the time. Dreams.

    Not that philosophy is dead, but why philosophy is dead, and how can we be aware of that?

    If philosophy is therapy, what is the disorder?

    Philosophy is a suspect word. “Was W, right?” - The fact philosophy is not true or false does not mean it is nonsense, or at least that it is nonsense and therefore simply to be dismissed. Not irrational. Too strong. A-rational.

    Know everything there is to know. If we saw everything we would know everything? What can we not see? I see?

    Here are eight mysteries of philosophy that we'll probably never resolve.Why is there something rather than nothing?

  • What is the meaning of life?
  • What is real?
  • Can you really experience anything objectively?
  • Do we have free will?
  • Does God exist?
  • Is there life after death?
  • What is the best moral system? How should I live my life?
  • What is true?
  • Not everyone is normal, but everyone wants to be thought normal.

    How does one change a philosophical point of view? Some terms way of looking at it are emphasized, other de-emphasized. But words cannot be killed. Concepts cannot be unconceived.

    You cannot understand all that much. Homo ignorantus.

    Different Aspects of Our Minds:

    • family
    • country / patriotism
    • daily life

    TOPIC: fuzzy Venn diagram

    TOPICS: quotes by Wittgenstein you assent to but really don't understand:

    • limits of language
    • if a lion could talk
    • Language is a form of life

    Words are no longer a set of boxes The world is no longer a place composed of things. Not only is man not the center of the universe. There no longer is a universe. People are never one because the word person is multimensional and actively moving.

    Subtract all concepts aimed at furthering social realities

    Words change even as we speak

    What are people? Fluid word:

    • Bodies
    • cells
    • Self-awareness
    • Societal overlays: family,
    • friends, strangers
    • appearance
    • voice, behavior, caricature…
    • extension of self in photos, books, writings…
    • (you threaten someone)
    • Someone who feels like me
    • actors

    Not truth but philosophical responses, Not good because they are not false, but because the widen the wisom or understanding of the issue.

    ot have a philosophic, a set of philosophical responses, some rehearsed biut also an attunement to false notes. But be quick; the world values quick response.

    With all this texting among friends, we are living more the synchronized life. Working more as small units than individuals.

    Picture the fuzzy Venn diagram circles as moving and changing. Moiré effects between the two. Now put them in three dimensions. Or picture them as you can't picture them

    We distract our minds with news, music, whatever else we pay attention to. Our mind is a distraction machine.

    I would like a media channel, written pershaps sound as it takes a new level of genius to add visuals without distracting, of intellignet, thoughtful, unpredjudiced people trying to llok at the problems and to think of possible solutions.

    We spend a lot of time choosing what to spend our money on, managing money, increasing our money.

    We need to take more personal private responsibility for our understanding of the universe (OUOTU).

    Facebook we are the happy smiling person. Not the confused angry stupid person.

    We have a small world of private silliness: sports, projects, decorating house, shopping…

    Most thoughts stop our thinking. Especially true of philosophical thought: meaning is use, cogito ergo sum, zeitgeist, history on horseback. Treat people as means not an end. Bang the big gong.

    We do all sorts of things, semi-consciously .

    "what wears the pants"

    Different criteria of knowledge in the sciences and in bible.

    We grew in a social and an worldly environmentds. Not separate us out as individuals. Just landed in this planet.

    In particular not cut off human mind at the individual, or even at the culture,… extend into ecology.

    Walk around and don't know unless someone parks a candidate for "knowing" in that slot. What is this parking? Why make up explanations? Common gossip? Is this a function of words? For example we do not know what language is. Yet not only do we have commonly accepted explanations (“the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way.”) but even departments devoted to this. Language is the conveyor and not the creator of knowledge.

    The purpose of language is to communicate? This is the simple-minded story of language. It is just a way of not thinking about it, and moving on to the next paragraph in your linguistic book. "Communicate," another abstract noun, adds nearly nothing to a description of language. "Communication" covers as much territory as language. What does a novel communicate? And besides, although language may often be used to communicate (for facts or statements about a generally accepted world) it is also used as a kind of noise behavior

    Mencken channels my inner republican.

    • Tired of multiculturalism.
    • sterilization of crimnals and mentally defective
    • looking down on a class of neer do well
    • eugenics
    • dolts
    • most people do not think
    • superior vs average men
    • Immigration is bad

    Words need to be treated individually. We do not understand the world, in anything like we think we understand the world,

    We cannot see man as he is.

    The mind is not the smartest organ in the body.

    To change philosophy is to traverse everything in the universe and reevaluate, understand, accept in the fundamental understanding.

    Philosophy suffers from a personality cult, or more creatively, the multiple-personality cult. Aristotle. Kant. Wittgenstein.

    Great synchronicity is also world in which we find ourselves.

    Metaphoricality || permits AFR active family resemblance

    We text because the world is not worth watching. We enter the text world.

    There is no way, and certainly no canonical way, to speak about WHAT IS real. So which of the metaphorical way is the best? Best for what? Why do we even want to talk about reality?

    Can't see the forest for the trees, can't see the tree because of the flowers, can't see the flower because of the specimen of dirt and organic matter under the microsope.

    What am I trying to say when I talk about the things that cannot possibly be said? Who am I trying to convince? My fellow delusionals? Are some delusions better than others? Better for what?

    The people have spoken. What a cacophony!

    We are not insects. That is just a blanket | a concept | a determination | a mask over it.

    Current virtual reality is not only that it takes our attention away from actual reality, mostly community but also from the older virtual realities of books and deeper kinder thinkers.

    Of course it's all be said before, It wouldn't be so true if it hadn't.

    Slice of knowledge: cat-scan part of body. Even though it has organized activity can hardly be understood apart form whole body. But body not understand apart from society, which in turn is part of the world-puddle.

    Defining yourself as separate from reality is easy for humans. Why do that?

    In texting we play slow stupid games with humans.

    How can something be "like" an abstract word like god or justice?

    Philosophy does not solve much. It is a more respite in land of big simplifications, where we argue and think about which big simplifications to use. Not help us choose a president, face the problems of the future,

    Hesitation. I want you to think you do not know this.

    We think in misunderstanding.

    What shall we call ordinary space, now seen as intermediate between macro and micro. Ordinary life.

    What would a world of interactions where gender di not come into the equation voice, size, gesture, interests, activities,

    Know deep down you cannot understand the world, in spite of all the understanders around there.

    A really complex elephant. And that is just one elephant.

    We are more-comfortable with humanoids.

    The mountains can sing because the world is animated by our brain. We hallucinate animas.

    Opposite of placebo — harmless things that make us sick.

    We are blind to our own overpopulation.

    We have many contexts of understanding we don't know what it is, the way we simply understand things e jump between this and that.

    How much we don't see the people around us.

    Look at the picture dictionary. Point to things with names, but not party itself or celebration or disappointment. Although we can make emoticons and pictures to represent that.

    Not reality but realities. Not culture but cultural situations.

    Situations do not fit together except that we can travel from one to another, but as we do so, we fail to notice the many adjustments we make (to our situations)

    We sit around watching | judging | explaining | understanding | emoting. We are processing machines. We are judging machines.

    We do not think we should remember. We just remember.

    Look at a person, any person around you, and try not to make any judgments at al. Cannot not see gender, age, race, danger, Lots of others. See what they are.

    We are more danger from genetically engineered humans than robots.

    With the constant social connections of Facebook, Our opinions and reactions are solicited from early age. We no longer have time to remain ignorant and involved in out studies. We must have opinion on everything.

    Idea for a website: Sitting and Thinking in America. People are invited to sit in public spaces and share their thoughts about America, their community , what they think, and where (we think) we are.

    We live blindly.

    We can shine a flashlight of consciousness and onto our inner machinery, but we still have no idea how all this works.

    Language is used to communicate. Unfortunately language is used to communicate among humans, with all their excrescences and foolishness.

    I like to think I can think

    Suicide is a very late term abortion.

    As robots become able to drive, they will drive better and be highly coordinated. Humans will not be able to keep up and will be excluded from the Robots-Only roads. Another skill becomes a hobby. The interaction on the road is a real part of my respect for my fellow human beings. It is certainly not from reading the comment thread about politics.

    Concept of simutextual: fits and evaluated in many contexts at once. And we must keep several things in mind at once: multi-understanding.

    I read threads where they talk about West, America, Christianity, secular, Muslims, We belong to teams. This lowers our individuality, but gives us a sense of belonging and a mission, and substitutes competition for thoughtfulness and individuality

    Understanding is as vague as seeing

    We understand limits but not limits of understanding.

    To say we cannot understand the world is also an invitation to laziness. We cannot understand that we cannot understand the world.

    Join the peculiarity. The specificity. not the singularity.

    Opposite of news: olds, nows. All the things we have in common.

    Philosophy is like a free topic we can all riff upon. Like a jazz tune, or maybe a set of chords.

    What would a world without sexual attraction?

    • looking at men and women more similar
    • still judgments
    • not lost in thighs, breasts.. eyes lingering
    • no getting horny (I rest my h…ness on
    • reading this (thinking impartially about this) is a sign

    We spend our time understanding and we love this. Flipping form contexts to contexts.

    It is one thing to say philosophy sucks, another to engage in non-suck philosophy.

    Isn't the problem impossible: how to think about the things we cannot think about.

    Be suspicious of things that make the world so simple you can understand it.

    We live in contexts:

    • situations
    • physical
    • mental
    • not aware of complexity: some places not seen and may be seen
    • impossible to describe factors at work,
    There are too many, simultaneous, unaware, and of small influence. Can do this without reflexive thinking

    To say something is false sounds like a marvelous discovery, though it can be akin to discovering your lottery ticket does not win.

    Of course authoritarianism is coming.

    It is always sunny at thirty-two thousand feet.

    Do we work together as Americans or as earthians?

    I have no great fondness for Muslims except as victims. Do they extend that to me? I am sure most of them would. The good Muslim.

    What makes me think I can sit here and think.

    Japanese women here look ready for a good job or a pleasant wedding. Americans women look like could be a hooker if it came to that.

    Our minds are weak slogan driven little bimbos of thinkings.

    How can we walk around together sharing a common world? Mostly by leaving each other alone and ignoring one another.

    What can't you look up in Wikipedia?

    But what s true religion? Where does religion fit in in civilized life.

    What is an educated man cultured man in todays multicultural world?

    Age makes us grotesque; we inhabit our crumbles with grace and inventiveness.

    Should we all know a little about the Merovingian kings?

    Could we have a noFacebook, with no face or body to get in the way? Common face

    Questions that should be answered vs. those that should not. List them and say why? (We can climb this scamper around this with poetry or at least intuition.) Right answer is not a correct answer.

    Idea for a new business: The Splendid Spud, NuPotatos nooPotatoo: serving primarily boiled potatoes. Look for recipes. Cheeses butters spices. Some of a bar for this. Custom pressure cookers to speed the process. Buy big bags of small Potatoes.

    Yet we can be affected by many things at once. We are constantly affected by things we do not understand. The arts are so much this.

    We can judge without understanding.

    We must redefine multiculturalism -- and not be afraid to ask the difficult questions.

    The trouble is we make concepts out of everything and we loose the fluidity gradients shades of gray blendings and ! multipurposings of everything.

    On a book we lose ourselves. We are no longer our bodies. Location

    On art: that it interesting vs. why it is interesting.

    Understanding is not a feeling of understanding, as pleasant as that feeling may be.

    Things we cannot Google: wisdom, understanding, what do I like?

    St. Peter, I have not coveted my neighbor's donkey.

    In dressing appropriately we are not aware of that we are testing a complex rule following, that these rules are not rational, or that they change over time.

    Danger! You are not following the group's rule! The virtual group's virtual rules

    We navigate a world too complex to discuss, even as we spend a small time conceptualizing it.

    I rest my eyes on a human, man, man, child, old or young, and I have so many judgments and thoughts.

    White people don't spend all their times hating blacks. And vice versa

    Each concept is its own app.

    There is no beginning. The first steps step on a world.

    Map of associations. Example: rape.

    We do not know the appeal of children or children stories or myths.

    I guess the question is: What is a human with no skills? Time and to search for imaginary beings in a world?

    Few people show much awareness of the active slipperiness of words. They change meanings to be understood. With minimal cash value, who cares.

    We do not know appeal of children books or myths or children

    We have hooks for and in crowds

    If some words metaphorical, then not all information is information. Fact. a piece of information. De-contextualized. Is a sentence in a philosophy book information? Fact is apiece in a larger narrative | theory.

    Conceptualization changes the world, like a garden changes nature.

    We cannot see our idiocy. We cannot see the idiocy of following a flag: a colored piece of cloth and nothing more. We need to deflag, denationalize, derace, dereligion…

    We can "explain" this with some evolutionary explanation, as it makes sense we evolved for this. This answers the need for us to have an understanding of this but it fails completely to

    The instantaneous aspect of people also creates fear and dislike. Fail to see our cultural wrapper. It is not intended to be seen.

    Philosophy (religion, politics) is like a jazz riff on well known melodies, concepts.

    We do not get confused by this multiplicity because we can navigate it and we are highly contextual.

    What holds it together? Illusions and ignorance

    One error is conceptualization, Another is understanding. Both are occasioned by language' or since that nominalization is misleading by our language use.

    Our minds understand in background by fitting meanings to the words (words have multiple meaning, undetermined numbers of them)

    You talk about the universe: It is part of the essence of language that the words thought are like brushes that always capture in a variety of views at once. No way to grasp as you are understating in all sorts of ways at once but you can only understand in one dimension at once.

    Our simultaneity is inconceivable.'

    We cannot conceive the universe individually or collectively.

    We don't see the world, we remember the world. (Kahneman)

    Why do we feel a need to philosophize? to reduce the complexities of the world to a conceptual simplicity.

    Attention is lack of attention

    Multi-culturalism Main problem: can we get along. Can we survive, sure, as ignorant foolish animals, But, can we get along?

    keep on fuckin'.

    Assumptions of academia

    • credit for first to say it
    • it is found in books
    • will be found in books
    • erudition trumps insight
    • important what others have said, and why they are wrong

    Why do we dismiss certain things out of hand. Ghosts

    How can we get along if all of us has luxury of denying certain basic theories? Because it has nothing to do with daily routines, Daily routines less and less with our conceptuality.

    We live blindly flashlight of consciousness and shine into the machinery, and the machinery is still there.

    We need a new sense of what classic works are. Or the great passages.

    We orient selves in history and culture fundamental beliefs, value of science, we know nothing about, Easier to do that than to think of yourself as a chemical reaction.

    Old concepts are still there, embedded in our culture. And the culture is embedded in?

    Words extend to fit like a latex glove.

    Stone wisdom: Every deep truth should be understood at least twice, one of them being straight.

    Contexts show themselves as nexuses.

    There are beings trying to catch us unawares. We will kill those beings,

    Put these wide ranging ARF words around world, like a condom

    "They inherit the mental equivalent of a Swiss Army knife: a set of general-purpose tools—such as categorization, the reading of communicative intentions, and analogy making, with which children build grammatical categories and rules from the language they hear around them." - By Paul Ibbotson, Michael Tomasello, SA Evidence Rebuts Chomsky's Theory of Language Learning

    The more people, the more expendable you are. The more singers, actors, Cannot create a small universe. More expendable. Oh something in personal life we don't like, throw him in the garbage.

    Originality of Heidegger:

    1. dasein
    2. thrownness
    3. ready at hand…

    The unexamined concept is not worth employing. IS this true?

    Take seriously: everyone has an opinion, Everyone has a authority.

    loss of what it is to be human, dignity of work, loss of the individual

    Can you be learned without the Internet?

    There CANNOT be a canonical description of the world. Fermat theorems:

    • Multi processes of thoughts
    • Words are too fluid
    • Lose sight of facts, working details and often the work of these works.
    • Must be a number of different ways of thinking about the world.

    This election makes me afraid. Governing is not seen as difficult, important enterprise. Is it?

    I too am susceptible to tribalism: I think, are you one of us?

    We are Facebook friends with the enemy and they are us.

    Acting above our station. Do we know what that is? Do we have a station? Should we?

    We recognize each other peripherally. Eye contact is something else.

    Philosopher will tell you what Aristotle or Leibniz would have said on this topic, And this sounds like an answer, But not answer the topic if the two disagree. Presenting different conceptual universe.

    TOPIC: A philosophical research programme.

    • how to talk about the world
    • language is imprecise
    • we are deeply embedded in our shit
    • how to disembed
    • multiple cultures

    We can all riff on reality, the world, god,

    What about things that world greatest intelligence cant improve, coin flips, tic tac toe

    The ideal of a system that makes sense of all POVs.
    I imagine how you could imagine that.

    Blending of cultures is a blending of habits. And habits rarely blend. There is no canonical list of these habits; They are not held in place by lists. (We would not know what such a list would look like.)
    We do not know what the a blending of cultures will eventually look like, as we cannot calculate the effects of our actions, or how they will be taken. And what is expected.

    Weltanschauung as in World-looking-at-and-judging-us, I'm sure it has a history, although an unrecognized nature.

    The main ideas involve an interrelationship between language, use and our understanding thereof. We do not understand reality or better, we do not now what words to speak about it, and how to think about it. New theory of human nature, which I call the animal. Must talk about what philosophical understanding is


    The universe is ten times as incomprehensibly large as it was. The image of man in the universe is a shrinking one.

    Why do we believe anything?

  • there is an Afghanistan
  • things we do not experience
  • there is luck,,, a kind if unconscious confidence
  • unicorns The answers vary.
  • Do you want to talk, or do you want to navigate politely around each other?

    Truth is contextual is a foundational metaphor. Not a reassessment of truth.

    The problems the world faces are not primarily philosophical ones. They are failure of humans and human institutions. And human appeals to their intellectual instincts, or reactions, that do not lead to the best long-term outcomes but satisfy short-term needs. We forget the horrors and imagine the heroisms.

    The problems are novel; not only do we not have solutions, we do not see the problems.

    • live together in peace on planet Earth
    • not destroy ourselves
    • not destroy our environment
    Once we strip away the false goals we have nothing. We may as well compete.

    Takes a lot of time, intimacy, to get to know each other. You also get the fantasy figure (s) of the other.

    There are notes I write as I slide slowly down the wall into the hole.

    What is it to understand me?

    We call it consciousness. Vague interflowing kind of perceptions, discernments. No doubt Slow it down to define it ostensively, become perceptions. So if you didn't believe.

    Do I have a right to believe falsehoods, or to believe what I want to believe?

    Old age: The pleasures of being overlooked and nonfeared.

    We do not interact less actually so we signal stronger. No you cannot touch or even talk to me, but in these yoga pants I will shows you exactly what I look like in the bedroom.

    I am word-shamed.

    Our ignorance, or illusions, about ourselves:
    we are children of god, special, we have a purpose, we are the glory of creation, we have a unique consciousness and moral purpose, we have freedom, reason and an understanding of universe.


  • Appearance from spit on cigarette buts.
  • What will look like
  • Death
  • Gender of child. We do not know what difference it will make.

    Your imagination gets in the way of reality. Alters it to understand it. Filters it in various ways. So a little reality, which takes work to do, knocks us for a loop because of the paucity of our imagination

    We are not only running out of oil but we are running out of time, the free time to do something. We numb ourselves with informations, not that there's anything wrong with that.

    There are no words for the way things really are. How can there be? The words are part of it.

    The first question of philosophy is why are there so many different philosophies, and why we cannot agree on nature of reality and (related) the nature of god.

    How can you know / can you know / another culture? or even another person (in same your culture)

    So many of your reactions, natural, good and obvious, are not felt by everyone else. Best assumption multiplicity of varieties.

    We cannot see two filtered ways at once. Any more than listen to several musics at once,

    Our generalizations make people essentially the same. But we know that this is also bullshit.

    You can see your ignorance but not beyond it. Not with it.

    I didn't think that people would be so phony. Good part. Polite, Bad part. Unreal and personal Penalty

    We do not know the stock market, not consequences of laws, ways system can be gamed and abused, the power of the rich, collective action, what most people are doing.

    Science gets an unwarranted pass. This is true of many things.

    Pass in religion: Cannot know God exists or Jesus is a savior, or live forever after death, heaven or hell, good will be rewarded, but we can derive a variety of satisfactions for thinking so. A bit like loving your kids.

    Can science be corrupted? Like a news page. Looks like real thing.

    Facts exist within conversational contexts. The realities of the normal world (rocks, plants and animals) vs. the realities of scientific laws

    Abortion and ressentiment.

    Do unto others. Do unto otters.

    Have we forgotten the basic tool of OL. How a word is used in OL. Much more complex than first thought.

    Fake news. What makes good News? This is a seemingly simple question, but our simple answers are deeply inadequate. News is about the world, and even our understanding of the world is polycontextual and nuanced.

    My personal 'good thought' detector is off. I think of something and therefore I think it is good. How can I reset it?

    So.. should not speak in traditional ways? Or not speak about traditional ways in traditional ways?

    Looking at pictures isn't just another way of getting information. It is another activity altogether.

    There is no one answer. No one way of interpreting Bach.

    Easier to impress and convince your imaginary readers than one actual prickly argumentative person.

    Recognize that when you talk philosophy religion politics you are usually speaking in metaphors.

    Mistrust your understanding.

    How much time should we spend on Facebook? Should we be friends with our friends?

    It is a silly assumption we are all alike.

    Assumptions of thought must be caught in real time. How to think well. Speed is not of the essence but it is of peripheral importance.

    Why do not others think like me? What is it to think like me?

    Ostensive : not aware of many of these process and not just the corporeal regulate [new theory of human nature]

    Multi-processing being. HB==MPB O not enumerable processes but clusters

    Slow death of human overpopulation because

    • human life is important and must be preserved at almost any cost
    • each human must be permitted to breed and live in an expansive manner
    • society supports this, private property rules
    • not find any rules we can agree on
    • embedded in this messy and dangerous thing called religion.
    • YET we watch nature and no people there.
    • Definitely an ambivalent process: prefer virtual people, (people without many of the processes)
    • I want my machines to talk to me if only with a thermometer. Distraction of interactions with humans and visual changes,

      Know things you can't understand. Sex, travel, taste… Because words do not do justice to the thing. Here words, there thing Could do simultaneously

      Say in words why you can't say it in words.

    • NOT MEAN anything goes
    • NOT MEAN go back to what we have. Go back but with a special awareness.
    • We can discuss how we do things, but the related question, using these very structures, is how we should do things.

      If we can believe in a God, surely we can believe in the world. without pesky reason getting in the way.

      Alternative way is to define word, in our specific definitions, But understanding always? Flows beyond those boundaries.

      It's a mystery why we say what we do? What appeals to us and what doesn't. What first things that comes out of our mouths.

      Our politeness and fear of others keep us apart.

      But the real is also outside the structure it processes and creates social realities. ON small scale it is wonderful (compared to what?) and creates our societal realities.

      The mind is not only limited but at times appallingly stupid. This is demonstrated by psychological tests (Kahneman).

      Answer is wrong, or answer is improper. What are signs of question being improper?

    • suspect words… problem: need to be justified.
    • No answer
    • Anyone can answer
    • Abstract word used as noun
    • Answer without analyzing the word.
    • Apparent understandings.
    • What is a book is so long there is much more to comprehend than we are capable of keeping in mind. Loosen the nexus points.

      What are abstract words:

    • many ways of being abstract
    • apw. Cannot point to exemplar? Not a thing in normal sense of things. Hold up and examine.
    • An exemplar is just something called a.
    • There are multiple criteria where something could be called a. Many contexts.
    • FR. . . . form a family!
    • What is ___________. Is usually unilluminative.
    • In contexts we get it. Learned in contexts.
    • Move towards nominalism and implicit essentialism.
    • What is justice is not.
    • So much of what we see is memory
    • What are the limitations and strengths of multiculturalism? Of a spouse from a different culture? We might think: so much simpler/

      Not a bs twitter fight one cannot enter, Words like a bad scrabble hand.

      Modern World we live inside our personal illusions

      Modern life:

    • too many
    • too boring
    • identity trail
    • wish for a safe actual world
    • Live in rich virtual worlds,
    • So much at the mercy of our few acquaintances.
    • Lay in the bricks on the Facebook walls
    • Virtual thrills with no personal accountability.
    • Thrill ride...
    • Why can we not look at different walls? Can we judge us on our Facebook walls?

      What is the appropriate amount to talk? To someone else?

      Not only dynamics. Loos of jobs – so what does hardworking men? rise of virtuality… virtuality within context of overpopulation, or overcrowding.

      On Wittgenstein: what I have is a small idea. IS it better to make one medium map of all the territory or any many small detailed maps. The first is useless.

      Let your gpa follow you around.

      I can no longer be out of snap responses, any more than I can be out of perceptions.

      Only value we can agree on is life, preserving life, doctors life-saving, hunger etc. And I can't disagree with that value, but it is not without consequences.

      Humans are fucked up need something outside itself. Teams, tribe, enemies. Gives a purpose which is self-defense which is ego.

      I want to say we cannot understand language, because we cannot enumerate the thousands of rules of using language in all its contexts. And if we could enumerate those rules, we could not understand them as they would be far too complex, and useless in real time language use.

      Do I want to have a solution to our news driven social problems or do I just surround myself with the right responses? Is there a solution?

      Once you think seriously about it, our social values and judgments are contradictory and fragmentary, held in place mostly by our senses of contextuality.

      We need an fundamental theory of knowledge, culture and humans. a theory in which we can talk about the many epistemic differences between us. Not that this would be possible. One can also say that it is the lack of such a fundamental theory that makes some questions remain philosophical.

      Most philosophical knowledge, the laying out the pieces of an exposition | presentation, are apologetics for things of which their authors are barely aware.
      "This, this and this, cannot be doubted or moved. We will have to think our ways around them."

      Reason cannot be established by reason. Nevertheless, reason is reasonable . . . ness.

      We remain boring to each other, in part to remain in peace in crowds.

      Why two genders anyway? Biology of course, but certainly more.

      Thinking about humans in a new way can help with racism, albeit in a minor academic way. Instead of identifying with ones race or culture, one is a actually a being, a brain in a vat — but there is a vat, or better, a brain in a stew.

      Humans like group hate.

      It is time to begin to put to rest the fiction that there is an invisible loving god who takes care of us as we move through our lives, an invisible friend. The belief may be comforting, but comfort is not a good criterion for truth.

      The unconscious in not like a person who makes decision but whom we cannot hear. On the paradigm of the multi-tasking mind, there are countless "processes" working simultaneously, and the ontological status of such processes are vague at best.

      We do not not know how to think of mental processes in isolation (except by the metaphor of a mini-me) nor can we easily moderate their aggregate influences.

      There are mysteries of our self, and mysteries of our society, due to their their happenings-at-once-ness.

      When we speak, and think, about our culture as that which affects us form the manimals outside us, our "culture" includes all our so-called cultures.

      People are a funny sorts of generally unattractive simple beings. This is hidden from us by our various kinds of virtual people, who are charismatic, funny and involved in a story of interest. But people are not stories.

      We break up the same old with novels. We watch novels on TV.

      Words are fuzzy because made up of so many small parts, processes, which are constantly changing.

      Most of the major innovation have not been done by government: Free email, internet, google, Wikipedia, smart phone, directions,

      Doing philosophy is like building the George Washington bridge out of popsicle sticks. Words are incapable of the enterprise at hand.

      Need an outer circle in which to contently deal with the inner ,more personal circle.
      That circle is threatened by encroachment of the state, or the times.
      What kinds of concern do we have for the outer circle?

      It is important to look at this in multiple ways. We cannot see the multiple ways at same time, but we can recognize their simultaneity and influences.

      So much shit going on at the same time.
      we cannot conceptualize this.
      We just travel the territory,

      We need to understand
      who we are,
      where we are going,
      what we are doing,
      and we need reassurance, lots and lots of reassurance.

      Psychedelic drug experiences can Feel like reality only more real. How can that happen?
      A sense of peace (though not everyone) independent of one's previous convictions. This shows frailty of our convictions.

      You cannot celebrate freedom if you are frightened by others and have them under constant surveillance.

      Reality is not an experience, though our experience of reality is. We cannot encapsulate, or model reality
      It follows that:
      1. Our experience and opinion of reality are illusions, and
      2. We should be skeptical and open to alternative views.

      We can speak of our ETR, our Experienced Reality Reality.

      People in life are much nicer than the population seen on television.

      Religion could be OK, if there was but one way of running a world.
      But there are many, and many of which are horrid.
      religion addresses neither of these problems.

      The world is traversable though not grokkable.

      Though you are conscious, it is far from clear that you know what it is to be conscious.

      The fluidity of words: avoid binary thinking ('is or is not') and move towards 'like and not like

      In art classes we substitute recognizing for experiencing. We can "learn" about art without experiencing art.
      We miss the most important thing about art.

      Music is a multidimensiomal experience, a living matrix.

      There are relationships between the representations and what (plural) they are representation of.

      If we pluralize everything we show an awareness that we do not understand the eveythings-at-onceness of the moment.
      We can then talk about one aspect at a time.

      Everything from higher education to belief in god can also be understood through the prism of an elaborate mating ritual predicated on innumerable intersecting status competitions.

      We think we understand the world, but we cannot say what we understand.
      Or distinuish between alternative understandins.

      Talking about [any big issue] is a great way for unqualified people to say uniformed things and confuse their own cluelessness for sagacity. — Mat Johnson modified.

      What do liberals and conservative agree upon? Opportunity, America, Safety net, Health care, All these ways of looking at the world do not cohere, not like a duck-rabbit, a multidimensional duck-rabbit, et cetera

      When do we stop using a word: blaspheme, traitor, consciousness, truth?
      When they hide more than they reveal?

      Are you equally conscious all the time? What would a creature more conscious be like? What would a creature less conscious be like?

      What is it to give fair news? To call something news is already to make a judgment about it. Factual. Numbers. You decide what to think about it.

      We substitute models of reality for reality, What choice do we have?

      If words are fluid; we cannot instantiate with certainty. Nor can we know exactly what we are referring to.

      Humans spoke for centuries without a dictionary.

      Do we have the right to judge an overweight person?

      Do we have a right to not be attracted t people of color?

      To be in another persons mind is to be outside of yourself, with ifferent associations, interests, reactions, and instantiations (such as friends)

      To change a philosophy have to change a whole bunch of thoughts.

      What are some toxic concepts? eugenics, reducing population, Menkian contempt

      Idea: redo old movies with mobile smart phones.

      You cannot see a city at all. You can walk every street and entry way but not see what has happened: a fight, a proposal, a mufggig, a meeting.. Or remember it all. So what is it to see a city?
      A partial view. OF a city? But all we have are partial views. OS how can it make any sense to speak of a city above and beyond partial views.

      I am more interested in how good of a thought it is, than the thought itself.

      Alternivist credo: So much needs to be changed by looking at things in a different way, and most of those ways need to be thought out. But these are different ways, to be at least understood by the simuprocessing You are understood in multiple ways at once. And those too cannot be easily navigated.
      How does that apply to a new understanding? Simultaneous processing of areas of assent.
      But there can be many gardens.

      Ones commitments are intellectual intuitions, and they guide us in a deeper direction.

      What do you think of those who don't think like you?

      Science as teaching, vs. science as exploration.

      Facts cause emotions.

      Why are rude celebrities are a thing?

      oJust because you have a firm opinion does not mean you are right.

      • Have you studies the issue?
      • have you thought about the issue?
      • Do you recognize the multi-processing?
      • Do you recognize your conceptual limitations?
      • What if any are the facts? Known, not known?
      • You are not entitled to certainty, or self-righteousness

      But human nature abhors an epistemological vacuum and will fill it with the most plausible speculation.

      The contextualization == fragmentation of thoughts lead to problems.

      Objectivity is contextual.

      Meaning of sentence and word are different things.

      Meaning of an abstract word is resonance.

      Words have a use is misleading as it implies we can describe that use in words.

      Concrete words have one set of uses, abstract words like intentionality and justice have others.

      There is a realm of play not available in work

      We think we have a right to an opinion on __________ without even having studied it. Why don't need to study?

      We have language based on our context.

      Solids are hard, stars move in the sky and we go up and down. (Not instairs and outstairs, as Buckminster Fuller suggested. [needs ]

      What would it be like to be someone else? Have a different mother? Is this the same question? No,

      What is our personality?

      Why do we see people as different? They seems so similar.

      Philosophical POV (Knowledge) as new nexus of connections.

      Afterward some concepts left over, bad scrabble hands, with no clear use.

      Why do I feel less for someone from another country? Tribal Selfish

      Why do we like to watch things? Like golf. Or any competition. Make bets.

      It looks like I will get through life without anyone giving much of a shit about what I think. I get the senior discount but also the senior discounting.

      We should downgrade the importance of a quick and clear responses.
      This is a lower-brain-stem upper-brain-stem response.

      Thoughtful responses takes time, to adumbrate and to understand.

      Re-examining the historical past from a moral point of view: (say racism, colonialism, settlerism) it is difficult to find exactly the right words. Though they can easily be seen as wrong, they were wrong in a different way than we would be wrong in that they didn't know it was wrong. The racism is wrong, but for us there is also something else that is wrong.

      It would be irrational for everyone in the world to stop having kids, but it would be equally irrational to have too many kids. Why? Having children (getting married, raising a family) is a rite of passage involving activities on many levels: b. the local interactive, with local people, especially a spouse, and c. the cultural | ideological, involving: ethics and religion, expectations, laws (rules), symbols. All of these in multiple often interlocking ways. But does reason apply in these realms.

      Am I imagining the world adopting a calm western life? I suppose I am. Is that rational? If people have their basic needs met, yes.

      Is it important to see the world as composed of chemicals? Yes, if we are going to mess with chemicals. Yes, it it enables us to manipulate chemical in useful ways. Can we see it in other ways? Yes.

      How can there even be inconsistent understandings of the world?

      We cannot understand the world because our understanding is linear and non-simultaneous.

      Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.'
      Better 'Philosophy is a battle against the understandings of our intelligence by means of language.'
      There is no unbewitched state, except silence.

      Philosopher: "all the smartest people in history were wrong about everything, but I'm pretty sure that I've got it figured out."

      Contexts take place in no context. You can encapsulate the universe in a word, like universe,

      The metaphysical truth that weneed to believe in god we cannot know, is both comforting and dangerous. It encourages the idea we can and should over-ride the facts to unwarranted conclusions.

      How do we handle all the cognitive biases, itself a fuzzy word? Is it the same way we handle racism and prejudices?

      Overpopulation is not multiculturalism.

      Contingent bedrocks beliefs.

      • value of life
      • god does and does not exist
      • god says this
      • world continues the way ot is
      • liberals are wrong
      • All men are equal.
      • sasquatch exist
      Not all of these are wrong in the same way. No simple theory of how these exist. Not quite habits of thoughts.
      It's like aprecous chair we bring into the room. And we must get rid of thingd that chlash with it. Many ways to harmonize and we have rroms in the minds.

      How little it takes to creaste and understanding. We can read a photograph. Or thnk we know a charater from a few scenes in a movie. We don't get choice scenes from people in life,
      nor do they look as good.

      Those with money do not have skin in the gain, as money is virtual skin, or armor.
      What is it for a very rich person to lose a million? Not much, so what does it mean to have SITG?

      Does Goldman Sachs have skin in the game, not their own but those of countless others…

      Religion as a conglomeration masquerading as a unity. SO when you talk about it you get be clear on what aspect of religion you are speaking. It is as indvialized as daily routines. Or our eating habits.

      SO WHAT is best truths about the universe? There can be several! And that is the core of my understanding,
      First I take the necessity out of words like truth, knowledge, epistemology or assume that has been done in classic ordinary language philosophy. Then an explanation of how abstract words are used and thereby misunderstood, but this is our understanding,

      What to do with, how should we think about, those who think differently than we do?

      IS it like an acid experience that is hard to put into words and impossible to transmit.

      A scepticism based on facts.

      You cannot celebrate freedom if you are frightened by others and have them under constant surveillance.

      So reality cannot be experienced in any way?
      For reality is not an experience, though our experience of reality is. We cannot encapsulate, or model it.
      What follows from this?
      1. Our experience and opinion of reality are illusions
      2. We should be skeptical and open to alternative views.

      Is our experienced reality reality?

      We experience the world through the extension of the awareness of our corporality. And a world that runs on animal spirits, not reason.

      Reality: thousands of intellectual preoccupations, understandings in you will, pieces of a impossibly large jigsaw puzzle.

      The world is traversable though not grokkable, seen in a moment of illuminations.

      Instead of focusing on all the myriad things we do know, focus on the more myriad thigs we do not know, and cannot know.

      If you cannot know, then in some sense, you cannot know what you cannot know. It would not be a border, wall, which always presupposes another side, bit an impenetrability.

      It is not clear you know what it is to be conscious, even though you are conscious.

      Of course we do not know how a dog thinks, but we still think we do, and we think we know what it is to think.

      Three-dimension of movies, tv and graphic novel. No first person experiencing of the world.

      Art education can substitute recognition for experiencing. You can learn about art but you don't experience art.

      Why need UFOs or God. Understand world in terms of human like agents and we feel part of purpose is to serve and to guard against them. The idea that we are a species with no purpose, or no enemies, or nothing to serve seems alien and empty.

      If we pluralize everything we show and awareness that we don't understand the everythings-at-once-ness of the moment. We can just talk about one aspect at a time.

      Understand | understained

      Austin ended Sense and Sensibilia with the provocative thought metaphor. "The right policy is to go back to a much earlier stage, and to dismantle the whole doctrine before it gets off the ground."
      Philosophy is getting off ground.

      Our personal lives are a luxury.

      An endless never-ending network of people, wherever you go.

      There is an ignorance about the nature of mankind, and we are ignorant even about that.

      Reading: "In short, everything from higher education to belief in god is best understood through the prism of an elaborate mating ritual predicated on innumerable intersecting status competitions."

      Things are not understood. Things are analyzed over time.

      We can use the word understanding but we cannot understand everything.

      You cannot speak in abstract terms, like the enlightenment or reason democracy or colonialism. A discussion or clear analysis in abstract words, is the theater of understanding.
      We have multiple theaters if understanding,

      We need for a new view of humans, but also a new awareness of the limitations of human natures.

      Human obedience matters.

      Universe is a suitcase word.


      But the world cannot be understood in words. Although words about the world can be understood, but we are understanding the philosophy and not the world.
      And what is it to understand the world?

      That is a mood disguised as a fact.

      Not all facts are true.

      I am so deep I do not understand myself

      Thinking is important. Or not. But that question itself is important!

      “Some men have a uterus.” Men as humans and men as males.

      Can philosophy be entertainment? In a passive manner, yes.

      What s the philosophical context? Special rules of thought. we say something permissible reason, critical thinking, but that does not really seem to be the case.

      Ready to hand is our manipulation of the world, as though we were so designed. This is how we have evolved.

      One can walk the universe in different philosophies. Including not this one.

      We can confidently say that no one has it figured out., in the sense of conciding all others. Otherwise rational people. Why is that?

      We decorate around our more basic opinions like a treasured chair.

      Perhaps as useless as what is art? Both art and philosophy are fluid words, subject to AFR (active family resemblance). With AFR, we are no longer open to counterexample.

      It is not (A OR ~A) but neither is it (A AND ~A).

      Reality is at the very least hidden from us.

      We are a product of reality. That is how reality is used.

      What do you have to believe to believe that: Trump is a good president. That there is a Sasquatch. That there is a god and He is the Christian trinity

      What do you have to believe in order to think you are or are not allowed to have inappropriate thoughts?

      and yet we disagree in our simplicities. And think there is no unreachable destination.

      Real is not a big enough word to encompass reality.

      I listen and think of responses, taking the attention in a new direction.
      Is there, or can there be, a better direction?
      But truth is correct but not enough.
      And anything else seems wrong

      We want to understand it all
      and we can't.

      We can adopt and adapt an understanding of the world. But where does this drive come from? A desire to be knowledgeable, and figuring things out? It seems to be a public arena of sorts.

      I am not trying to convince you, but for you to look at it this way.

      If words do not stand for things, then certain kinds of truth cannot have experts.

      We now speak in conclusions.

      God is a building blocks of world.
      Can you have a satisfactory world without it?
      But in part because things are not so hot with it.

      So what is news? What should be news?

      Idea: a file program to save in two places at once.

      We can understand all sorts of things.
      We can understand contradictory things.

      Philosophy is a realm of a relatively limited number of terms, reality, truth, knowledge, and technical terms, god, social contract, determinism, empiricism, ethics. idealism, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, phenomenology, skepticism,

      With social media, you never come face to face, body to body, the other person, so you can't be punched in the nose, but neither can you come to recognize each other's humanity and become friends.

      The demon thought are not put into our heads by a demon,, We are partly demonic.

      Importance of stressing AFR , resemblance of genres is that it encourages us to find alternatives when some things may be art without being beautiful, or might be x without attribute y.

      Regarding conceptual foundations:
      Even a picture of a building must have a foundation.

      I consider driving a care one of the defining essential skills, intelligent demonstrations, in contemporary society.

      I ran off the denkweg again.

      A dance where all the songs are relatively unknown.

      What follows from AFR. Statements both true and false. No privileged enumeration (though there always are in practice).
      Sentences also carry along an emotive force, which ,can be strong or weak.

      Art is all the experiences you have when you are experiencing it.

      My theory of knowledge is that there are theories of knowledges.

      Metaphors lose detail. Think of zooming from say of you of your house and your town on your street in your District in your town and you're still out to seeing the world as a blue planet. Both are the same reality. But they are different understandings. But the larger understanding has no impact on the smaller reality or point of you if you will like picking up the garbage or fixing the brown spot in your lawn.
      A picture of the Earth has almost no use whatsoever.

      In order to believe the Bible is infallible and contains all and only truths, you must throw out major parts of science.
      What lets you do that?

      SI – simultaneity.

      You should pray that the world never loses its entertainment value.

      Someone wrote that we would not be so afraid of airplanes if each day we had a news item about the 22,000 flights that landed sagely without incident.
      Our news tells is so little about the world. We get a few stories, mostly aout a few people in a few countries.
      I recommend a day in the life of earthlings where each house would be assigned a reporter and all stories published in the internet to let us know what is happening that day. Or at least a lot of it.

      Humans beings are complex, but not complex enough to understand the complexity of themselves. Is such a being possible?
      What would motivate it? Or make it judge?

      A possible benefit of Trump's reality tv governance may be that people are paying much more attention to politics and governance.

      Whenever you say something
      and generalize about the world
      Listen to what you say
      and see if that is really true.

      A model of the human mind would not be a logic machine.

      There is such complexity in nature,
      participation without conscious awareness.
      Consciousness is something we add. It is not the generating factor.

      A family from Indiana came out West and found a perfect piece of land to build a house on.
      This we do not see as any kind of landgrab
      we decided,
      thinking it much like the land of our youth
      and only this,
      was and is life.

      We cannot understand understanding,
      and we don't understand that understanding is not the true understanding,
      which is an illusion, it does not as it cannot exist.
      Only its felt conceptualization.

      On drugs there is a context behind the present,
      and it can change like the weather.
      And this brings out idiotic false thoughts.

      When we simplify,
      do we want an outline, a simple loss of detail,
      or do we want modern art with its distortions of the human figure.

      If we the reader still have piece together an understanding,
      even of a linear sequential presentation,
      why not make it easier and just show them the piece.

      Most of us seek an understanding we don't understand.
      It could be a mirage on the horizon.
      It is the understanding that cannot take place.

      We never had a common understanding,
      so what keeps us together?
      our faith in a common understanding?

      What is cultural life without common understandings?
      Can that state be satisfactory?

      Understanding the world
      is like I'm humming an opera with some words and some phrases and some blanks to be filled in later
      but also I can see parts of it in my mind though there is nothing there.

      I sit here in absolute heaven.
      You might call it wasted
      I am but it is en-lightened

      Is there a class of people who enjoy classical music more deeply than most?

      Some people can think so much faster than me.

      We cannot think about billion years ago
      We cannot comprehend much before 200 years ago.
      We cannot comprehend the length of life and the minuscule part we are playing in it.

      Is all life more important than any life?

      Music you can really take and you can give your full attention.

      Here in my older age is my last chance to be happy.
      I'll go for it. How hard can it be?
      It seems largely to be about being satisfied.
      I am satisfied in being an old man who had had a wonderful life yet not lived up to some of his ridiculous dreams.

      Washington crossed the Delaware is a simple narrative that tells us nothing.
      The history of the world only exists as perceptions experiences of people.
      History without that is misleading parade of pseudo-concepts.
      [Sentence from Sicilian history.]

      Complexities of animal life.
      1. Extreme behavioral programming
      2. A chemistry we are just starting to puzzle out
      3. An incomprehensible time scare.

      The world has a suchness to it.
      Like its solidity
      and our embedment in our bodies.

      We really did build our world on rock 'n roll, but this is mostly forgotten as denied as something for how could that be?
      I welcome new music into my heart.

      I sit here in stupefaction wondering how I got this far without major violence, but this is true for most everyone I know.

      There is a reality but it is unique and everything you say about it dices up an organized multi-faceted / multi-processes experience.
      You can of course dismiss the world.
      and its mindless bustle.

      Perhaps we all succumb to the charm of being a shaman.
      or sha-person.

      In Active Family Resemblance (AFR)
      we make sense of what people say,
      and do this with a net of associations.

      Philosophical sentences in general words can be understood in a number of ways
      as well as its opposite.

      Understanding life, be it philosophical, poetical or musical, is a simulacrum, and not the real thing.

      What is a formerly educated person in the 21st century?
      Most people never learn to focus on a classical music
      with its delicacy of phrasing, its passion, its development.
      Instead we have music at background music (with no development)
      or we substitute recognition for appreciation.

      And what do we gain by reading the Greeks or Russian.
      Two lessons
      •   people were like us and better
      •   this stuff is better than.

      What does it mean that you cannot google "best videos on YouTube", or "best music," or "wisdom," or "truth"
      and come up with the best videos on YouTube, the best music, wisdom or truth.

      Understanding makes things small.

      Music is a very fuzzy word with multiple criteria, and a wider range of resemblances.
      There are words with small criteria and large criteria that flow over a wide range of things.

      Listening to my CDs to see what I may want to listen to again before I die, makes me want to live longer.

      Modern capitalism:
      If a food is only liked by 10% of the population, we don't stock it.
      Instead we get 25 varieties of things liked by 60% if population.

      You cannot avoid being judged, but you can ameliorate and deflect such judgments.
      Or decide that I want to be judged worthy by these people.
      You can be judged on what you like and what you don't like.

      Music, especially classical music,
      is now more than music,
      it is life.

      If you like classical music you think you have acquired a noble skill that others are not _____ enough to accomplish.

      So much of what makes life convenient and easy is bad for the planet.
      The same is true for our economy is as well.

      On the Internet we have no skin in the game.
      On the Internet we have no skin.
      We have no bodies,
      and we cannot be punched.

      Things that did not happen in my lifetime:
      •   death of religion
      •   death of nation-states
      •   a new view of human nature: view is simple
      •   world peace
      •   spiritual growth of mankind
      •   brotherhood of man
      Things that happened that I did not anticipate
      •   internet
      •   photo recognition
      •   language translation
      •   internet having a negative
      •   and bad things, not pollution or nuclear disaster but global warming.

      It is interesting that the Internet and the wisdoms of mankind have not made a positive effect on literate societies,
      quite the opposite.

      How did it get to be possible for total strangers to trash talk each other
      when, in the cosmic sense,
      we are all on the same team.
      Some people believe we are here to fight
      and that we are in the Thunderdome.
      And how is it possible that we all watch this,
      we are like a ring of students standing around in a school fight?

      Words as piano keys.
      Who knows what a gifted musician can do.

      The news we should be interested in
      is not usually the news we are interested in.
      Also distractions and competitions.

      We cannot agree on a world view.
      Why do we believe such irreconcilable conclusions?
      No doubt a number of irreconcilable theories of that as well.
      And if we had a theory that reconciled this
      We would not believe that theory either.

      You would think we would have learned after two world wars that the game of nation states does not come to a happy resolution.
      There is no narrative where this is the case.
      IS it that only opposition keeps the nation consolidated.

      Why do we not have world peace?
      •   we appeal to our own tribe
      •   our fear of strangers
      •   economic equality
      •   immigration
      •   difficulties of multi-culturalism

      We humans and all other earthly life
      are the end process of an incomprehensibly long time period.
      The traditional story of god creating man and animals and the earth at the same time makes is easy to think of the earth and its biomes as somehow being created for our use, as they are so useful.
      We need to invert the thinking for the length of time to recognize out disruption of this process,
      which is both unconscious and horrid.
      Will the earth recover.
      Of course, Give us a another 500,000,000 years.

      We read an ancient thinker for their ideas
      and simultaneously what is wrong with their ideas
      and what their ideas tell us about them.

      We read philosophers to see where they went wrong in spite of their acceptance and their plausibilities.

      Plato is not right but he is a genius.
      We should admire and recognize that.
      He shows what can be done.

      Heidegger's existentialia are the modes of the manimal.

      Kant' categories of the manimal.
      The concepts and the reactions in which we perceive our world
      Space and time are perhaps the greatest though often of smaller significance.

      So what is the world without our understanding of it?

      With a creator it is easy to think there are principles and rules of construction of the human awareness. Without it, and with evolution, the picture is more challenging.
      What is unplanned order?
      But somebody had to build it?!
      It grew.
      It unfolded
      And it gives us no guidance at all.
      So what should we do?
      One can go in many inconsistent directions at once,
      A kind of expansion without direction.

      We may fashion our own realities
      but we are not in control of the process.

      Part of studying in philosophers is seeing multiple valleys that got us nowhere.

      Just like nerves must send a somewhat unspecified impulses to be recognized, our words must make a certain kind and numbers of connections.

      Somewhere out there sits a person much smarter than you, but this is hard to notice because he is also faster than you or of the opposite gender.
      And you fight against people smarter than you, in some important way.

      As I age I doubt I will figure out who I am.
      I have always been an experiential ring moving forward.
      But judging myself as I judge others.
      What other am I?
      I am that limited package.
      But do I need to know that?
      Could it be useful?

      I have been told I should not be so arrogant.
      The trouble is I like arrogant people.

      Art must not only be beautiful
      but also evocative
      stirring us
      ushering our thoughts onto new places.

      What makes one house better than another house?
      And the better the design, the less you notice it.
      A good philosophy is a house but a conceptual framework
      a way to think about and be at home in the world.

      Is there a reality above and beyond your fundamental beliefs?
      For some things yes, for other things no.
      There is a good case to be made for reality.

      Our identity with our fellow human beings ebbs and flows.

      Old age is a time to figure out who you were.

      Music is other people signaling that we are here.
      And we want to play.

      Perhaps we don't need an identity,
      but it is a fun thing to play with.

      The job of management is to give an alternative meaning,
      a cover if you will, to what they do.

      Much of history is predators against predators.

      Someone is missing a marketing opportunity:
      •   gourmet Cheetos
      •   gourmet handcrafted pig rinds

      What is worth asking?
      (That's one.)
      How is it that we have philosophical and religious world-views?
      What are they?
      And that involves asking:
      What is language and what is not?
      What is man(kind)? (A new benign view of human nature?)

      It is possible that our species' population pressure will modify our ideologies.

      Techno music
      or rather the technology behind it,
      not only separates the song from the musicians,
      but also from the band,
      the being there together making music.

      Most people who disagree with you on things where one can permit differing opinions, are not stupid.
      There is often a value judgment at work supported by a fantasy.

      I have gone through my life without an identified identity,
      though I have played a number of roles.
      Was that a faux pas?

      The world is and is not real.
      We can think if contexts and situations which would make us say either one of these.

      Discounting hallucinatory reality is no different that our quick ability to abandon physical reality for a new virtual reality.

      Conversation is not exposition, or setting forth a framework.
      it is testing your view in words and deflecting the power of criticism or disagreement,.

      In the future you could get glasses that will tell you exactly who each person is who you see.

      One problem is that all we can do on the internet is disagree.
      Even when I am not posting anything on the internet, I think of things that could be posted onto the internet.
      I am drifting on a monstrous stream of conversation.
      We can have ongoing disagreements
      but not ongoing agreements.
      For how would that work?
      "Oh yes."
      "You got that one right!"
      "Yesiree Bob!"

      Even as I age I think of myself as a kid
      growing better,
      not realizing that a kid in slow motion has a whole different name.

      The slowness of age means
      I cannot play so many simultaneous games.

      Must I be, or have been someone , in my fife?
      Yes and no.
      Yes. By default I am someone, even if be the indecisive kind.
      No. I do not identify with any of my attributes or social roles.
      I am remaining vague and ambiguous
      and perhaps hidden from myself.

      This is true of most general and philosophical questions.
      So we might make it a rule of philosophical thinking:
      New rule: In all philosophy quest(ions) look both at yes and at no.
      So.... in what way is this not a rule.

      listening to each other's shit,
      and each other shit.

      It's one thing to save the world,
      navigating Spaceship Earth through changing times,
      but does it have to be done with drama, commentators, shrieking and yelling?

      One appeal of StarWars is that it shows us a unified Earth.

      Instead of words we can now use emojis or animated gifs.
      A picture may equal a thousand words,
      But a thousand words can be confusing and send all sorts of distracting messages.

      Twitter levels the playing field, or at least the cost of admission.

      Democracy is not good if ignorant people get to decide,
      at least on things that are not a matter of opinion,
      and would need some background.

      Since most white people in America do not know their heritage,
      or it is hopelessly spoiled by people who may have had a tenuous if not hostile connection to it,
      we can only identify as white people.
      And that narrative is something we need to address in a thoughtful manner.
      What would that story be?

      Double entendres, of the philosophical kind need to be stated in single entendres.

      Games, including language games, are LIKE contexts, THOUGH emphasizing social rules and their back and forths.
      Contexts are individual situations that we are participating in.
      Contexts are both in the world and in our minds; they are understood in the social world, but individually enabled in structure evolved for that very purpose.

      Philosophy weaves together all the things we think we know.

      All this philosophizing gains us nothing.
      But nothing gains us anything, and we should not pretend it can.
      It is more like the feeling we get from completing a difficult crossword puzzle.

      Understanding is a social umbrella.
      Something that covers us in understandings on what is going on in some superlinguistic sense.

      What is this notion of privacy that we hold on to?

      • We think we have a different self, a private self if you will which we don't want people to know.
      • Insecurity fodder
      • We fear others would judge us unfairly,
      • There are things we like to do that they would not
      • Who gets through life without hating the powers that be?
      • Being like a king, a realm where we can do what we want.
      • We don't want them to see our weaknesses
      • We like not being known.

      Even knowing full well it is fiction,
      we wonder what's coming up in the plot, what's going on.

      You can experience experiencing all times simultaneously
      but you cannot experience all time simultaneously.

      We humans are constantly puzzling things out and understanding things.

      If there is an antichrist, is there not also the seductive antiholyghost, and of course, the antigod?

      We can no longer walk across a mountain range to take things from our enemy.
      This was done for necessity and for combat and competition,
      Something we now do only in games.

      What we will be judged harshly on in the future
      depends on what that future is.

      We suck at creating new societies.

      Music can be enjoyed without paying much attention to it.
      It is a simple multiprocessing event of which we are capable.
      We probably have many ways of monitoring the world, most of which are subconscious.

      To say something is subconscious is to say that it does not activate the various programs of consciousness.

      We carry around little pictures of understandings,
      like children's books,
      while the universe around us roils in stories.

      What is a nuanced statement?
      It manipulates a palette of associations.

      For a poet any statement is fine,
      with no need to explain a compelling vision.
      He had already done that.
      But a philosopher should only speak in true sentences,
      but what does that mean in the abstractions of philosophy?
      Avoidance of the poetic, striking statement is right
      in the wrong way.

      People who see racism, in people as is books, may be missing the good in them.

      I believe Wittgenstein was correct and had excellent philosophical instincts. He is not the last word, but the next direction.

      Books and history are fascinating study that is worthwhile for a sense of broadness and time,
      There is a community of good people
      monitored by academic wizards.
      But now stupid people want to wear the robes.

      Facebook, snapchat - here we have no guiding clichés

      No longer | no linger

      a poem
      I capture your attention
      as your mind struggle to understand
      my unexpected words.
      In the end we have an understanding,
      or its beginning,
      but we do not have knowledge
      except we know our minds can move in strange directions.

      There will never be a time on earth, no matter how utopian and stable, where there will not be gossip and talk regarding other people.
      Or where some people are not privileged.

      Some amazing things have been done by privileged people,

      You think because I can say it, I do it,
      or I have gotten this saying from my experience and my observable success,
      but no,
      it is intuition, but of a peculiar verbal kind of skill,
      the expelling of words that resonate with meaning.

      Our personal experiences of what it is to be a human,
      may not quite translate to how others may experience their life.
      (Though there are limits to what we can experience our life
      as hat very experience is a part of the life.)
      We know we run a lot of similar programs,
      especially the "we are similar" program
      stimulated by something hat evolved before language,
      indeed before any kind of thinking,

      Nothing happens in my town anymore.
      The local newspaper is dead
      in part because
      nothing happens in my town anymore.
      We have to go further and further afield
      to find things worthy of our horror,

      Do anti-depressants make you happy?

      Look carefully at animals.
      They seem to exhibit many human characteristics:
      care, love, tools, learning, etc.
      So much cooperation happened before language and language thoughts,
      which are the thoughts we can put into words.
      So much happened before reasoning.

      Why don't presidential candidates run in teams?
      It is what enterprise would do.

      Let us not forget as we sit, sleep and ponder out what should be done,
      life move inexorably by past, like a big river,
      vast and out of control.

      Global warming is like the songs of the whales,
      undetectable by the normal human ear.

      To what do we want to assign the word real,
      and what are we saying when we so designate?
      IS it just that it is not unreal.

      Each country has its own history,
      the thing we teach the children in school.
      (It would be good to have a book of them.)
      Even so, these stories are not without effects on our thoughts,

      I am living my life.
      Right now this place, this situation is 100% of what I get.
      (Though I may dream of something else.)

      The first step towards a good relationships is always to remember your love the person.

      Authority, not as in he or she is to be believed, but of authors.

      I believe it but it is not true.
      It is false but I believe it.
      Some beliefs are comforting.

      Why do emotional stories in movies and sitcoms make me uncomfortable, but not so much those situations in real life.
      Are media constructs caricatures?
      More raw focus, more facts, and more perceived feelings.
      And we do not have to do anything?

      I can watch relationships on TV and cringe. It can be difficult to watch, whereas a daughter can be going through a severe emotional situation,
      but no one talks for long periods at a time.
      And this is also what is left out of TV:
      the long boring not unpleasant times where nothing happens, minds wander, you think about something different.
      You watch TV or read a book.
      Things don't just come to you.

      There are so many language games we can use.
      probably many thousand.
      New ones can be invented,
      like new musical styles can be invented.

      What do people like in people?

      Would Americans be more amenable to immigrants if they were more beautiful?

      Look at say Viking period and see a number of people doing some things, and other doing other things as opportunities were tried and if possible, seized.
      History is like an avalanche, perhaps describable, seen from afar
      but composed of millions of small particles just tumbling along, at the mercy of local forces.

      We should take all polysyllabic words (of PSWs) and make them into three or four letter words.
      Make words slang for themselves.
      And no word should have more than two syllables.

      Repressed thoughts seem larger than they really are
      because of the work it takes to repress them.
      Let them out and they are almost never as large as they seem.

      Social score for interestingness, intelligence and attractiveness.
      You would have to get them renewed from time to time.

      Are people afraid of each other or are they afraid of me?
      It can be hard to tell.

      Why be so set up at being the greatest philosopher ever.
      Why not have philosophizing as a hobby.

      As you age you no longer hold life fresh and unknown and for the defining ahead of you You would die on the way.

      Do we have tribal duties?

      In the future, toys will speak to you and interact with you as small people.

      Do I like people, or do I like to be interesting with people?
      It is like a musician who prefers making music with people as opposed to hanging with people.

      I am not as productive as I used to be,
      but I have moments of happiness as deep or deeper than any I have ever had in my life before.

      We may be the last generation to drive ourselves around in automobiles.

      To be fearful of immigrants is to be insecure about making it on your own.

      What argument can we make that we cannot conceptualize the world adequately?

      My consciousness has a hard time with theories that say there is no consciousness.

      The computer word is just data, or directions if you will.

      What happened to individual authenticity?

      We live in many worlds,
      which is a luxury.
      We live in a virtual world or worlds of news
      which is visceral and dangerous and filled with problems.
      And we live in the actual world around us,
      which, for most if us, is boring and predictable,
      with a large amount of safety.
      We do not interact much with the many people walking around in this world
      , nor do we want to.
      That is also a luxury.

      One way that we can say we are the end of history,
      is that we are no longer seeing ourselves are being in a story of rise of the rise of a superior civilization of some kind.
      Word wars and pollutions have made that narrative harder to justify.
      Our history is no longer grandiose.
      We may be less inclined to identify with "our" history,
      and take less interest in it.

      Although old,
      I do not have the inner peace and certainty to give advice or insights,
      so I present thoughts as given me.

      These days we cannot let the world be.
      We think it needs our help, and our vigilance.
      We are helicopter humans.
      It is an open question if this is indeed the case.

      The first thing to remember is that I love this person.
      This will guide my subsequent reactions.

      I cannot walk the world nongrasping or nonjudging. It seems it would be a more present and glowing world if I could.

      California is not a place, or a life-style, but a process,
      a product of colonial expansion.
      They came for the gold, but soon turned to other professions,
      all according to the logic of the capitalistic tradition.

      Religion is written for everyone individually and equally.
      Your god loves you and you nothingburger of a life.
      This is nice.

      Most truth is not a quality of a sentence;
      most truths are a quality of many sentences.
      This, sadly, makes truth somewhat ambiguous and/or multifaceted.

      It does not take much to boggle a human mind.
      One can imagine beings who could hold a lot more things in mind than a human,
      such as the ability to listen to two melodies at once.

      I take my aging one year at a time.

      Giving up on weltanschauungs is the best weltanschauung.

      That thing,
      the thing that can be understood in so many ways by so many people,
      that thing is what I am talking about.
      What is it?
      A complexity beyond our understanding(s)
      It is only deep complexity.
      Need it be more?

      Individually we humans are wonderful.
      In groups we are mindless assholes.

      It is hard to talk about reality in its essential incompleteness.

      Not only is my childhood gone
      Childhoods like mine,
      untroubled by adults,
      are gone.
      Though childhoods are not gone.

      When speaking of big things
      perhaps all we can do is speak in metaphors,
      but there is no need to assume all metaphors work alike.

      Some kind of calculations in done by processes in the mind,
      to see that something is not like something else
      But the calculation is preconscious:
      it is simply felt to be like something else.
      It is similarities gone wild.

      In theory anything can be like anything but in practice this is not how it works.
      We do not start with random association and judge if they are appropriate or not.
      Metaphors arise.

      Two metaphors about metaphors:
      Like describing America in one sentence
      Like being at the shore and mountain meadows at the same time.

      The best starting point for truth is Austin:
      It is not that a sentence is either true or false, but it is apt, useful, wise, etc.

      Society is a complicated dance
      one can escape by withdrawing to Walden,
      not of course without dancing the dance to explain getting out here.
      And one can say that one's true character is the one forged in isolation,
      but that is also to deny the inevitable judgments by others.
      ("Others" is here used as a metaphor.)

      We "know" in different ways,
      in different contexts,
      though we cannot explain this in any way.
      We like kittens in the same incomprehensible way
      Yet we think that thinking about this will clear things up in some way.
      Maybe. Maybe not.
      It probably won't make us enjoy kittens or philosophers any better.

      We can speak of the limits of language,
      as we can speak of the incomprehensible truth,
      though the metaphor itself is misleading.
      When we think of a boundary, a wall, we think of what is on the other side,
      but at the limits of language there is nothing comprehensible on the other side.

      Wittgenstein wanted to say you cannot "know" you have two hands,
      to point out an asymmetry in a sophistication of words
      I may not go along with that trope
      we should be prepared for both possibilities.

      Words in a different language sounds lovely in a song.

      The world can only be understood in words.
      Or, that is the understanding we are most interested in.
      And these words are slippery,
      Subjected to multiple understandings
      Heading in different directions,
      Calling up different examples and metaphors.
      As the Ordinary Language philosophers exhorted us:
      Think of many examples.
      And think how these words are used in actual life.

      You can be happy
      and not know the answers.
      You can be happy
      when you are close(r) to death.
      You can be happy
      when the world has intractable problems
      that you cannot solve.
      You can be happy,
      and happiness makes life worth living.

      Why do we want to know about truth?
      Nostalgia, for a golden age that never existed?
      But we get so confused when we look at truth in all its rich contextuality.
      We jump between statements true by definition, to empirical statements, to generally true statements, to metaphors, to statements too general as to be useful, statistical correlations presented as causes without all the caveats.
      Multiple causes and inputs put into one.

      School shows us the seductive powers of knowledge
      and we are barely aware of it.

      One can be knowledgeable abut Batman, who has never existed,
      and whose narrative can be made up.

      •  What is truth?
      •  How can we determine what is truth?
      •  What is the truth about the world?
      •  How can we believe in equality of persons and still have war?
      •  What can we disagree about?
      •  What is the best way to secure a livable future for mankind?
      •  Why are there unintended consequences?

      We have a strong sense of being on a river that is hurtling us towards unknown situations and possibly dangers.
      We are not participating in a great battle
      (which sadly we can best do against each other).

      A border in our world always has something on the other side.
      A limit to our knowledge has nothing on the other side because it is by definition unknowable,
      Yet we want to ask: What is it that we cannot know?

      The ways we never really understand ultimate realities shows that the question is not an important one, although others will disagree.

      Ultimate reality
      is never cheese,
      or that toy figure sitting in the cabinet.

      Abstract concepts have an ordinary language uses, as well as academic realities.

      Is there something else beside atoms, or atoms and energy, or quantums, or whatever else the scientists are worshiping now.

      Some words I think should be banned:
      •  consciousness
      •  evil
      •  the will
      •  free will
      •  nations
      •  we, us

      Nationalism diminishes progress, the feeling we are moving to a better world.
      Nationalism does not focus on common human achievements of science, music and free trade.

      Just like an expert in an out of style musical genre, may not be able to develop his art because it was not in fashion,
      there are human communities that will not appear in our lifetime,
      because in a slightly larger sense, these communities are out of fashion.

      We can go with the process
      more than with leaders.
      At some level we hate being told what to do.
      So we invent a world where our orders do not come from a leader.

      Does there have to be an overarching story above and beyond the simple pleasures of living safely in an organized society with large amounts of safety?
      We must wake from all our ancient dreams,
      though this is a glacial, as in receding glacial, process.

      If I had written the absolute perfect philosophy book
      And showed it to the world,
      And very little changed,..
      This would tell us something about the nature of philosophy.
      What would that be?

      The ideal of writing the philosophy book is like the ideal of having two hours of sex.>
      we cum to our conclusions too early.

      In the same way that you can't know something that is false,
      You can't comprehend something incomprehensible.
      If you now comprehend something that you thought was incomprehensible,
      it was never incomprehensible after all.

      Let us say that AI can make any person say anything in any voice in any video
      and you cannot know if they did or not.
      On the one hand, we get back our privacy,
      while on the other, more things will happen in back rooms.

      In a multicultural we focus on what we don't have in common (culture, skin color, language)
      and not on what we do have in common (humanity, children, loves of life...)

      Self is a multi-determined word.

      The world may be comprehensible in some plausible version of that term, but it is not conceptualizable, fitting neatly into categories.
      •   categories are fuzzy
      •  any set of categories cut across other categories
      •  We understand categories but have a hard time seeing what is not categorized

      Most comprehensible philosophical sentences are yes and no, true and false,
      because they are metaphorical,
      and as such, are and are not like what they are applied to.

      The ability to chat constantly has lowered the reflecting vs. talking ratio

      While we set here
      the world grinds forward like bulldozers
      tearing up the landscape.

      Our day-to-day lives are largely disconnected with what is good for the planet: fashion, convenience, keeping up, self-worth and status from possessions.

      Humans have a minuscule time frame,
      unable to appreciate the billion year timescales of evolution and of the universe
      and of Earth.
      Humans think one hundred years is a long time,
      and that things don't change that much.
      We have before us animal behavior that has evolved over time, complex behavior without much we would call conscious awareness.

      The word "soul" presupposes what should be argued for,
      that there is such a thing as a soul.
      The word is more dangerous than useful
      or not useful at all.
      It distracts, like clickbait.

      We must have a new false narrative,

      On the Internet, we're all Archie Bunkers.

      Why do we keep up on the news?

      What is none of your business?

      Humans: How can we run a planet without war?
      (No we're not going to try "peace". That's just a dream.)

      I must wear my lucky hat to please my god and be a part of the order of the universe.

      The times you are thinking best may not be the time you feel best about thinking.

      Nations though somewhat similar in structures, are like two plants grown in different pots.

      What is my culture?
      Do I need one?

      One can be racists in variety of ways,
      not all of which are equally reprehensible.

      Can I be a Swede?
      I could be Swede in many aspects
      but I wouldn't actually be a Swede.
      But some Swedes aren't.

      You could totally understand a political situation,
      noting all its major aspects,
      and it would change nothing.

      Do you see your thought
      as a discovery
      or as experienced description?

      I have a small but definite sense of commitment, and pride in Norwegian.
      I was raised in a culture of Norwegian heroes, so to speak.
      But one mistake in thinking about this
      is to think that my sense of culture is what others have,
      or even mean when they talk about culture.

      Q: How fast can a person think?
      MetaQ: What are the assumptions and the driving metaphor behind this question?

      We have categories in our mind we feel free to use without much initial study:
      society, science, religion, government, knowledge.

      To show the horror of x,
      you show many horrible things.
      So we incorrectly think the horrible things are the global climate problem.

      Formerly we sought individual authenticity,
      today we incite a twitter mob.

      The virtual world is exciting, dangerous, insulting, emotional,
      while the actual world, mostly boring and calm,
      with the worst problems being medical ones.

      The death of history
      is death of story of civilization.

      Why are we prone to binary distinctions?
      Does language create the binary
      or is there something deeper creating binary language.

      We do routines so we won't have to think,
      or perhaps not to worry.

      As adults we all want to chit-chat about science, government, art, religion, education,
      each so complex we cannot possibly know what we are talking about.
      But nether can anyone prove us wrong.

      We need a framework of how to move your mind forward.
      We cannot get a consensus on that either.

      We should consider the perhaps we will deal with global warming in the background,
      as we go about our business,
      as a series of disasters and changes,
      while the pontificating classes pontificate.

      I wish I could have gotten to my self acceptance much earlier,
      though maybe I had to abandon many of my engagements.

      I need status to be myself.

      Music as a momentary effortless meditation.

      Political correctness leaves no place for my sins.

      We need a framework of how to move our minds forward.
      But we cannot get a consensus on that either.

      The statements of philosophy, like the generalizations of religion, politics and economics, show us nothing.
      Going out in space, you can see the whole earth but you lose all the detail, including all that is important in your life.

      Because of our constantly ongoing multicontexting, we jump easily and nonconsciously between different mind sets.
      And there are multiple ones.

      What would a really cool philosophy book be?

      The understanding of life at seventy
      is an understanding of the limited life of a seventy year old.
      There are far fewer balls in the air.

      Perhaps do not think we can ever get along.
      We are like an alpha male in a pride of lions whose days are numbered
      and only held onto by combative instincts.
      Perhaps that is both a false image,
      and a superficial view of lions.

      In making poetics,
      the poet gives birth to words with a life|meaning of their own
      of which the owner|sibyl can only take a limited responsibility.

      In philosophizing,
      take responsibility for your words.
      If you think something is important or deep, be prepared to say how,
      and what this importance is.
      This cannot always be done on the spot.
      One part of philosophy should be a slow constructed conversation.

      We each have our own conscious dance, things we think about.

      Consciousness is difficult to think about.
      It is hard to avoid falling into one rabbit hole or another

      Consciousness as a reification as a soul.
      Or a small conceit of our own individual individuality.
      Or thinking we know we are conscious by direct intuition.

      Your phenomenology does not trump the ontology. [Jonah Goldberg]
      But the ontology is only accessible through the phenomenology.

      Question: Can you ignore keeping up with the news?

      Everyone, whose main daily activities are eating and dressing, has an opinion on Iran.
      Should you have a modicum of demonstrable knowledge before you have an opinion?
      Say pass an interview with an AI robot?
      Like the test at the DMV.

      We abandon previous housing units and build new ones, lightly made, ones on free land,
      in most cases bulldozing out the local landscape and replacing it with labor intensive pesticide controlled fertilize needing artificial landscaping.
      We have a verb — landscaping.

      I dislike the tall formal lobbies of building which as are disinviting as they are spectacular.
      Here there is no place inviting to sit or enjoy, and experience surprised.

      The mind thinks by itself as in dreams, and feelings and opinions.

      If we don't trust scientists, who can we trust?

      our gut feeling

      Question [Spell-It-Out™]: why should we trust scientists

      Question: Is it wrong to make fun of races, say by mimicking the way they speak, behind their back?

      We can enter a simplistic nationalism...
      statism, tinged with racism.
      "Racism" leads with emotive baggage.

      It's a question of questions.
      There are fake questions, and there are fake answers?
      Freedom isn't free.
      What is mind, never matter. What s matter never mind.

      I want to explain the limitations of our understanding
      but that explanation has its own limitation of understanding.

      Originally you have a phony B-game for people
      saving your A-game for those few who are worthy.
      In time you talk so much B-Game your A-game goes away.

      Question: What do people miss by not having war?
      Actual combat.

      In a movie we can understand the impossible,
      the myth
      the adventure and the romance.

      A classic movie scenes is like a well designed tool.

      Knowledge is not material power
      but it is also not power over oneself.
      For most of us power of ourselves is but a flickering goal.

      It is hard to shed the resonance of the present.
      One might argue one should not.

      It must be nice not to have to be conscious...

      We search out meaning in films.

      True knowledge knows there is no true knowledge.
      There are arenas, cineplexes of knowledges.
      There are also base beliefs,
      often unquestioned
      even in something as highly complex science.

      Many people have said the same things I say,
      but I think I mean them better than they do.

      Do we then go forward in life without purpose?
      But of keeping life alive.

      We don't teach how shitty and racist America has been in the past
      so when we hear about it now
      it amplifies how shitty and racist America is in the present.

      its not so much that philosophers have wasted their time but
      (1) these were among the brightest of their generation, and
      (2) this is not a situation unique to philosophy.

      To argue about ones position we must show you this, that and the other things.
      And each thought occasions its own response.
      How many thoughts are in the nexus?
      Probably too many to do or comprehend.
      Where are all these thoughts "going"?
      We are persuaded in many ways, with some are enforced on us.
      We jump into beliefs,
      or into what might be called over-arching beliefs.

      Traditional church belief was a whole bundle of activities which only made sense with a certain conception of the words.
      It was no accident they used monasteries.
      (For the benefit of the people?)

      In a world without any overarching belief,
      or a diversity of such,
      how can we find our way>
      1. personally, and,
      2. collectively

      Personally, there are ecologies of thought.

      Collectively we are only metaphorically like personal.

      What are ecologies, contexts of thought?
      Do we multi-task? Or time share?

      I should be speaking from a place where I appear to present the definitive exposition of our human reality.
      We should at least, consider that there may not be such a place.
      Reality may be too complex for our understanding, which, however vast, is still greatly limited.

      We cannot listen to two pieces of music at the same time.
      Though we can listen to two harmonies pieces at the same time.

      We need is a non gendered salutation
      and ungendered possessive pronouns.

      The Bible is a bouillabaisse

      For all the lip service we pay to the Bible and to Jesus,
      and the truly astounding things about the message to love others
      is that it almost never carries over into personal or political life.

      Why has philosophy so little intellectual humility?
      After centuries, there are so many inconsistent interpretations
      and no way to adjudicate among them.

      We want the simplicity of reading books about the great explorers,
      without hearing that they were exploiters and destroyers of other human lives
      and stealing their land.

      So your country was shitty.
      Every country has been shitty.
      But stop being shitty.

      If we can find facts to justify every opinion,
      then there is no truth in a simple sense of truth.
      And it becomes not only permissible, but possibly morally incumbent upon us,
      to adopt a world-friendly POV.
      [ POV = seeing things from that perspective ]

      Music has complexity of variation and complexities of soundscapes

      Music gives me hope.
      People can groove together,
      safe in the music.

      We lose sight of how strange it is so have a huge number of people who do not fundamentally think like you and never will,
      and vice-versa

      I can visit the clans of the God-believers
      and I can see how I could live a comfortable life there,
      up to a point.

      What is wrong with phoniness?

      As we age, life slows down
      becoming more simple
      and now we can finally circle around it and look at it.

      We like to keep ourselves mysterious,
      So we don't know ourselves,
      we deliberately do not understand ourselves.

      If someone wears a gender neutral haircut, is it OK to look at other parts of them to determine their gender?

      There is no history, only histories.
      There are facts, but their meaning, importance, evaluation are up for competition.

      We pick a side because picking a side is easy.
      Delineation what my side is hard,
      and we soon run up against the facts that many people on my side disagree with me on this, this and that.

      One major epistemic choice is god/religion vs. secularism.

      In the not to distant past there was a path for being an educated person.
      Now one is not educated, a long and time consuming process,
      instead one is woke, no matter how groggy.

      Religion will not go away.
      We are not immune to any of these passions, religion or patriotism, or whatever they may be.

      Poets may do better philosophy than philosophers,
      as they are better at imagery and metaphors
      and similes.
      And they are persuasive.

      Must you know something in order to have intelligent opinions on things?
      Or you could you mouth the opinions of those you consider to have the truth.

      There are those who know little
      and those who can think
      like you.
      And those better than you (insert here your thoughtful ideal).

      Americans and Europeans set out for the gold fields of the west,
      not knowing what would happen along the way.
      Mostly it was the accidents and happenstances that get us moving along our path of existence.

      What do I know?
      There were no doubt some diversity of the childhood experiences in my time.
      It's not like I know my childhood was the best,
      or even particularly good,
      but it served its purpose.

      We might think that since we all see the same stuff,
      the decent people in power,
      who think and feel like me,
      will make the right decisions.
      But that is not what we feel.
      We feel we must constantly push our legislators.

      Speaking different languages automatically turns people into separate self-understanding teams

      Why don't we all agree?
      Well, why doesn't the world all like one kind of music?
      It might be the way we were brought up,
      or emotional connections. Music connects with memories and emotions.
      But surely political opinion are not a matter of taste!
      Or are they?

      Why do critics, our professional arbitrators, disagree?
      Or, why do we accept a multiplicity of judgments.

      What character should
      and could
      I play at being?

      The layout of the type and page on a computer screen should be as self adjusting as seats in a modern car,
      and if possible automatically.

      I would like the conveniences of the laptop screen
      with the beauty of (most) books.

      There should be an app for our phones that beeps like the warning systems in our cars, warning us about a variety of dangers, and things of interest
      as we walk around,

      At my age, if I have sensual thoughts, I feel blessed.

      We want there to be magic in the world.
      We seek transformations.
      Our world is seldom enough.

      The confusing yet hypnotic eloquence of the Internet.

      The ancients wrote without footnotes and attributions.
      (Some things can not be attributed.)
      Modern scholarly articles do, creating a buzzing confusion, a bit like a precursor of the Internet.

      What can be, can be,
      The future is ours you see.
      Que será, será

      We give credence to certain assertions without really having convincing evidence for it.

      It's not that we couldn't learn to talk about the varied personas, sexually and otherwise, that we have in our heads,
      but since there are few paradigms
      we hear early discussions in varied ways.

      With science we expect our understandings and the facts to change.
      This would not always have been the case on knowledge.
      We have an institution for this on science.

      Is any money earned legally, after appropriate fees have been paid, belongs to us?
      Though we are never allowed to spend it on anything.

      Some people will never agree with you.
      But usually we can work with each them and can park our ideas.

      Now everyone in America is thinking about the nature of government,
      as the ship of state is in a storm.
      This shows a belief that we can think this through
      and that we have the power to change it, or to continue it.

      There are values
      and there are relationships between values.
      Which value do you value.

      We need new understandings, if that is the word.
      We need new prejudices.

      What is it like for you to walk around with your sets of assumptions, judgments and preoccupations and ignorances?
      Now, what about someone else.
      And there is much diversity here.

      Not so long ago, you could read say ten published books and be very well-informed.
      Now we have an endless amount of input.
      So John Kenneth Galbraith says this, but Bob in the basement says something different, but hold on, here comes Karen.

      The damage of rape is a conversation difficult to have in our society.

      Nations involve us in their stories,
      but there can be other ones.

      You've got to keep up reality.

      We like music because of the harmonies; it is the same with knowledges.

      There are no magic concepts to unluck a true understanding of the universe.
      Not being, purity, godliness, liberal, consciousness, atoms, etc.
      There will always be a collection of explanations, and no one knows them all,

      To live in the moment you must experience your surrounding as a separate if lovely thing.
      As the place where you are.
      This is hard to do if you are watching television.

      For singers as for all of us, life flows slower in middle age; we spend time in pools along the way.

      It's a shame that generations of philosophers, bring young minds, have not been able to agree in a simple explanation for knowledge.

      It must be strange for a celebrity. They know a lot about you, and you know nothing about them.

      If there is no race, what are we talking about when we talk, blame, identify as a race?
      Swatches of understanding of history, and incidents in the past?

      Do we have to live as though we are simple?
      It is an open question.

      We live in hysterical times. There is much shouting.
      We are afraid, or at least, not secure.

      How can we look at the same universe of facts and come up with radically different, inconsistent, conclusions?

      We might have to come to terms that we will never figure out the future.
      It won't be horrible to the people living through it.
      Well it will, like WWI, but the people won't feel it like that.
      But we are ignorant of what it will be like.
      As we are ignorant of what the world was like before the Internet.

      We won't figure out the future.
      Every "fact" we think with can be false.
      And then there is all the things we don't know about.

      All of us have little worlds of plausibility we carry with us.
      Some of it exists only in its elaboration but also in a tendency to elaborate certain ways,
      although elaboration can lead to inconsistencies.

      God as our creator makes us too simple.
      We are like a cell-phone dropped into a forest.
      We are complex, but not in harmony with the complexity of nature.
      Nature is for us to use and should we deem it so, to destroy.
      The alternative is seeing ourselves as part of a very delicate web, with a time-frame we cannot actually comprehend,
      seeing our connectivity in a number of ways.

      Philosophy is a basic human trait elevated into grandiosity by the philosophers.

      There are hundreds of great singers, rightly judged to be so, but no one likes them all.
      And that is a small subset of the subsets all throughout our lives.
      A simple epistemology is impossibly hard,
      but it would be useful
      if only in an aesthetic way,
      which is not the most useful useful.

      It's interesting we can see the world made out of god.
      Here the question of who created god has no meaning.

      Not only do we not know what the internet is/does,
      we don't know what a book means, or why we like kittens.

      We each have our own communities,
      with their possibilities mostly folded up.

      We write from an intuitive certainty.

      Why can't we ban words?
      Or what does that mean, "ban."
      We could not say, not think, not use synonyms; we would not go there; we might be in a land of concomitant mistakes.
      We can disparage certain ways of looking at things,
      as the conceptual aberrations they are.

      Tendencies of thought are something like linguistic canyons in our mind, eroded by time and are now channels of our minds.

      RQ: Well why can't we all get along?
      How hard can it be?

      Models themselves are part of life.

      Why try to model human life when all you know is your own?
      If cannot imagine another person, the our theories are self-serving.

      [ back ]