Do You Feel Lucky?

(and feel free to comment! My older posts are certainly no less relevant to the burning concerns of the day.)

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Perception = Reality? Not Really.

"My perception is my reality" would be an acceptable way to put it, but "perception is reality" is simply not accurate.

"My reality" is not equal to reality, it is less than. "My reality" encompasses only one angle in, to a vaster reality. Each of us has a self - our angle in. And for each of us, our perception is indeed all we know! But there are glimpses we catch, the keen glare of our own observation reveals views of others' angles into reality, where they intersect our own. These glimpses and views give compelling cause to suppose that others exist, and that each of those others has their own experience of reality, and to further suppose (because we can only be so egotistical) that their experience is comparable in weight and validity to ours.

Even though we may disagree royally on interpretation! Interpretation is a purely internal matter. Interpretation does not claim to affect reality, it seeks to "get" it. To hold in the mind a description of reality that makes sense. And one's interpretation it is funded and fueled by the foods for thought that all others provide.

Once we go in for the idea that your "my reality", my "my reality", and the "my reality" of others are all comparable in validity, where do these realities intersect?

Reality.

Reality, without qualification or presumption of attributes. We apply attributes liberally within our own slice: my reality may be sad and little, but if so, it is only because I have a sad, little reality. Reality, unqualified by possessives or further descriptors. Reality, which is not mine and which is not yours - though we each have our own share of it.

And each of our shares in it is vast. And each of our sovereign shares overlaps greatly with the shares of others! Reality, which we cannot comprehend or plumb, except fully - within the extent that our grasp can reach. Reality, which is the thing we must agree upon, for it to make the same sense to both of us. Reality, upon which it is not necessary to agree! None of us need agree upon reality's nature or extent, because however much a suddenly-shared grasp may turn my reality upside down, reality itself is not rocked by that epiphany.

Reality is not changed by our agreement or disagreement about it, or within it.

Reality.

There is only one of these. Or at least, I'll let Billy Occam have his say on that one. There certainly does appear to be only one of these.

Anyone who truly believes perception equals reality; anyone who believes their "my reality" is equal to reality - be very careful and respectful of those people! Their viewpoint is just as valid as yours. It's called psychosis.

Monday, May 28, 2012

Yet Another Post On Necrophilia.

You know what, a lot of people get weirded out by necrophilia. But I'm totally fine with it! My gorgeous corpse will probably get laid more than I do. Once that off-putting personality's out of the way, "it's on." Or so I would suspect!

And that's fine. I say to the world, "knock yourself out!" My organ donor card explicitly states "NO organ doning. YES necrophilia." Under which I have handwritten, "Bring it." In fact, the whole reason I refuse the organ doning is I'm worried it'll cut down on my chances of getting laid, postmortem. There's only ONE organ I want to be "doning."

But "Not so fast!" You say: "It's not so clear-cut. There may be gray areas involved: what if you're in a coma? What if you're in a persistent vegetative state?" The answer is still yes. Oh! God! Yes!!

It's a heartbreak, in this life people think they're immortal. They leave these decisions unmade. It's so important to let the world know what your wishes are...before it's too late to say. I have also made my wishes known: do not unplug me.

But I guess in at least some instances, that's going to be up to the other person involved.

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Puking? Try Creme Soda!

I was puking last Monday, and when I puke I like to hydrate with creme soda because - well, it's obvious. That shit's delicious, up or down. Plus the bubbles help, it's a proven fact. So does the sugary syrup in there - soothes and calms, and no acids to aggravate (unlike previous proven go-to 7 Up, which is now far less efficacious to the purpose since they spiked it with citric acid in order to call it 'natural' flavor). The carbonation gently releases the uncomfortable stomach vapors that would otherwise build, and keep building to the point of critical nausea, i.e., "bluuuueagh!" Naseua. Nasaeu? Naw. NAUsea. You knew what I meant. Critical nausea - but I had no creme soda.

Nothing like creme soda in the fridge at all! Nothing of any description in the fridge to answer the 3-alarm critical nausea crisis bell, but guess what was in there? One (1) bottle of champagne.

Chillin'.

At the risk of seeming unnecessarily, jarringly celebratory - and I admit there were all kinds of cognitive dissonance going on while I was lying there all fluey and miserable, gently sipping from my tall, elegant flute of champagne - but I have to say. That champagne might've edged out my previous proven pukey go-to. Maybe creme soda's no longer the reigning nausea relief liquid champ?

This was the good stuff, too by the way! I don't recommend anybody treat their nausea with bad-quality champagne. That just sounds declasse, and frankly, you should consult your doctor if that's how you operate because you might just as well be buying your aspirin from a dude on the street. You get what you pay for, okay? If you want to feel better, use the better stuff. If people are looking for a recommendation, just PM me or e-mail. Wait, what the hell - I'll just tell you: Jansz of Tasmania. Premium Non-Vintage Rose.

The incident also inspired a song, called straightforwardly enough "From Now On Baby (We Puke Champagne)." It's a sweet (yet brut) number, epic yet pathetic, tormented yet celebratory and how we deal with it. Except in the song, the idea is not necessarily based on influenza.

And yes, sharp-eyed sticklers will note: "'Champagne?! Not from Tasmania!" Technically, quite right. There is no such thing as Tasmanian "Champagne." But you know what? When I'm feeling sick, it puts me in a foul mood. Foul enough even to piss off the chauvinistically protectionist French beverage industry!

Friday, May 25, 2012

1. Conjugal Visits, right? 2. Prison Work Programs. 3. Prostitution is Legal in Some Cases. The Pieces Are All In Place!

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Legalized prostitution for prisons.

It would be totally opt-in, the inmate could sign on to the program or not, they'd be tested regularly just like it was Las Vegas or something (probably the first place this would fly would be in Nevada, whatever their biggest federal penitentiary is), the public would sign up (there should also be some testing there, you know? You sign on for the program or whatever, as a regular? Except that would kill the tourist business - nix it! Never mind! Just manage it however Nevada normally does for its above-board whores).

What a boon this would be to prison revenues. What with all the hard, tough-as-nails cons in there, all muscle-y and tattooed, lord knows that bad boy mystique is catnip to many, many willing ladies (and others!) who would be more than happy to line up and pay to pay a call! There could be prison online chat camera sites, affiliated with Federal Whore Prison (or whatever they call it), where your favorite convicts would scowl, preen, snarl and flirt with you, maybe show a little flesh for the right PayPal inducements, and next thing you know you find yourself contemplating a little "trip" to Nevada to see Scowly Pete the hard-core grand theft felon, who has smooth-talked his way into your heart or at least, pants - contingent on pockets attached. This idea is ready to go. It solves two things!

Of course, you'd have to have, build, or adapt a super-max security Whore Wing, complete with special custom functions and safety features, and security protocols to protect the paying public (and prevent any getaway tricks). And of course, cons would have to fit a certain profile to be eligible - and live up to customer service expectations. This service ain't free! But such practical matters are doable, and whatever infrastructure and equipment upgrades are needed, they would pay for themselves within 18 months, tops.

Get it up and running at or adjacent to an existing federal pen in Nevada, as a pilot program! It's a surefire success! And then depending on how the response goes, as the kinks work themselves out, we decide which way we want to do the nationwide roll-out:

1. ROLL IT OUT WIDE. Implement similar programs across the country! Or, maybe it would be better to:

2. CENTRALIZE. Make it a destination resort! Allow penitentiaries nationwide (state, federal, county or local) (just kidding, county and local are JAILS not penitentiaries! By which distinction you know I "know my stuff," and that my recommendations should therefore be taken seriously and looked at for immediate implement) to solicit their inmates to apply for the program, according to whatever standards. This could be a huge good-behavior incentive. Also, put some strict standards in place, because only the buffest, gruffest, hottest and sexiest convicts should be put up for grabs for the sex-hungry money-waving public's pubic amusement.

This idea is so great, I feel like it's already being worked on. Before anybody has even finished reading about it! Come on, government. I'm sure that many many of our nation's convicts are more than ready to start paying their debt to society, by sharin' and shakin' what the Good Lord gave 'em!

It's hypocritical not to do this. As a society? It's hypocritical.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

I don't mind a steep learning curve!

I just can't stand when the curve comes full circle. Loop-de-loop! Damn, back where you started.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

YES FOR SCIENCE, Pt.2

GUYS I LOVE SCIENCE

If I could have sex with any school subject, it would be Science. She's hot. The chemistry, the electricty, hell the magnetism between us is just palpable. Science makes me want to put the physics into biology, if you know what I mean. Or might that even be vice-versa. Rrrrrrrrwmm.

Mind you, I'm not opposed to getting Art involved. She's pretty cool too.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I love English - I always will! She was my first love. And me and Math had a pretty complicated relationship for a while. But at this point, all those others are History.

BE MINE, SCIENCE. You know you want to, Science.

YES FOR SCIENCE

SCIENCE. It starts with observation. Information. Data. SOMEBODY NOTICED SOMETHING.

Next somebody (sometimes the SAME somebody) is all "hey, we don't really know how that happens! Do we?"

Soon hypothesises are concocted and offered up, to explain the puzzling phenomenon. These hypothesises are called "hypotheses." Technically. In the plural and all.

SO THEN somebody will be all "WELL HEY! If this hypothesis is true, then we can expect to see this, this, and this as well."

Now that's a testable hypothesis. And sure enough, some mother fucker ends up testing it.

WILL THE RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENT BEAR OUT THE PREDICTIONS?

Well, shoot dudes. That's what it's all about. We don't know yet.

You've got to do the science first.

The ol' reverse reductio ad absurdum

So some people take things to their logical extreme, to show how ridiculous they are. I try to do the opposite.

People are less looking out for that.

So Good At Compliments!

DAMN girl, that's one hell of a well-drawn jaw you have on you! How come I never noticed that before? Look at the line on that. That's elegant, with power and grace to back it up.

Friday, May 18, 2012

small hope

I always hope that with my lifelong devotion to trying as hard as I can to say what I mean when it's not necessary, I will one day, when the moment comes, be able to say exactly what I mean when the universe depends upon it.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

The War On Greed.

I don't know. Greed is a tough one. Honestly, we need to pick our fights. Trying to take on any common human trait and eliminate it, or declare it out of bounds...where's the usefulness? War not on the impossible.

Any trait that has a Smurf named after it is ineradicable.

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Thinking About A Revolution

When I think of revolution, I think of my grandmother. I think of infants. I think of most adults, like me, trying hard to make it work in a world they can't very well understand or predict as it is. We have still, despite all the howling, a very stable system that does a good job of protecting most of us from outright government atrocity, and from the rampaging mindless mob. We need to urge that system back on track. Throwing it out the window is not an improvement, and accomplishes none of the aims claimed by those who cry out for lawless action and overthrow. What we do NOT need is people saying that the only way to "strike back" at some archetypal fatcat is to bring down society around that fatcat's ears. Talk about the baby with the bathwater! That fatcat will fare better than everybody else on earth in the crisis that follows. The old, the weak, and the common and decent everyday people will not fare well, when society falls.

The fact that others can be and are greedy is nothing to give up on civilization over.

The system is built to handle a certain amount of greed. Indeed, if we did our job as a society - the hard work of keeping government accountable and clean, rather than the easy and self-defeating advocacy of an anarchy that will grievously harm the powerless, and not even seriously inconvenience those with real wealth and power! - if we held government even minimally accountable, the system is set up to harness self-interest and greed, to fuel the public good.

I'm kind of passionate about this. I think of my grandmom, my dad, all the other people who rely on the stability around them and who would probably be killed in the mayhem and rioting if and when "shi* got real" - when the revolutionary, licking their chops, finally gets the kind of collapse they've been wanting to bring about.

It's always been easier to do evil than to do good. Lasting good is hard work. Lasting evil, evil that can never be undone...that can be as easy as doing a little homework, and flipping a switch. But the stakes have never been higher than they are in the world today, and it has never been easier for even one person, acting alone, to unleash more horror, harm, and evil.

The revolutionary is the greatest and most dangerous evil on the face of the planet. The revolutionary must be eliminated, by the simple expedient of being made to look ridiculous: we must cure the comparatively minor ills we have. And believe me, next to the widespread bloodbath starvation panic picnic we'll get bringing down society in a pathetic and failed miss at the rich, the ills we have are minor. We need to get our governments to do their job. Pass laws that effectively define abuses, and then enforce them. Self-police and rigorously root out those who allow corruption.

Hard work, I know.

Paranoia: As True Then As It Was Now

Buying into a paranoid, fatalistic scenario is just one way to manufacture certainty and build superiority into one's self-image during troubling and confusing times. "Not only do I know what's going to happen, but it's BAD - and you, you poor deluded fool, will find out soon enough!"

Paranoia and fatalism are comforting, in a paradoxical way. They free us from any personal obligation to make the future better. The worst is inevitable! And we know why. Paranoia frees us from our duty to put in hard work at the base of the real problems, which are too many and spread too wide for the paranoiac's limited energy and mental resources to deal with.

Those who are working hard are just deluded sheep! Their effort can't yield real benefits. Can't they see? All of these so called "many different problems," over which they rally and upon which they work, stem from the big problem. The one they're ignoring! The future is rigged by mysterious powers, and our "role" in the REAL fight is to yell and point.

That's our hard work.

Quote of the Day: The Calm of Organized Resistance

“If we are calm, it is the calm of organized resistance. The soldier must be calm, in the thick of battle. The composure of an army is the anger of a nation."

- G.K. Chesterton

Friday, May 11, 2012

Remember Who We Are: Supple, And New

Circle overhead,

The view from the bed,



So high, and lonely.

They have showered me with riches and they've said that I am worthy of their love, and their attention, but they still don't know the truth.

Truth? Worth more than pride.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Quote of the Day: People Who Don't Fit In Make Me Stick Out.

"People who don't fit in make me stick out."

Ask a Question Get an Answer #6: Hey, Should Restroom Segregation Be Extended?

Reader fatdaddy9226 asks:
Men and women have "separate but equal" public restrooms, I presume so as to reduce the possibility of either sex sneaking a peek at the naughty bits of one of the other sex.

Well, if gay people enjoy the sight of same-sex privates, should there be additional "separate but equal" public restrooms for them as well?

It's difficult to ask this question without seeming like a raging homophobe, so I appreciate your discretion.

fatdaddy9226, I'd say you're proceeding from a premise I disagree with. So it's plain I can't go all the way with you to the dilemma posed at your conclusion! Still, I will do my best to answer the question from a premise I'd go with.

First, let me assure you, I'd never accuse anyone of sexual-orientation hate bias just for asking an innocent question about social mores. But to me, society's body-shame issues and nudity issues are already pretty silly - and plenty of countries (like Europe) have way less in the way of hang-ups.

We have to make some allowance for the "social realities." There's not a whole lot of harm in letting people think it's a big deal if somebody gets a peek at this and that. Ooo, titillation! Kinda goofy, kind of fun. But to me, what we're doing there is humoring something silly and unnatural. So our attitude should be: where society insists on it, pat society on the head, go "there, there," and humor society.

But at bottom: it's really nobody's job to make social or cultural taboos "make sense." In fact, I say it can't be done. So I'd disagree with anyone wanting to take it another step. Humoring society its quirks is one thing, and a strong case to be made that we should. But on what grounds do we justify creation of new taboo applications that society isn't clamoring for, and doesn't need to be humored on? Someone would have to demonstrate the separate benefit of taking that on as a cause. Logic alone can't justify such a step, not when we know the premise is not rationally valid, but is rather culturally valid.

It does not dishonor us, to honor the nonsense that is held in common. So as long as we cannot show compelling cause why a given bit of nonsense must be campaigned against, there is scant harm and arguably, strong good in making allowance for the odd, nonsensical stuff that quirks us up at our foundations, and leads to many charming social realities. Of course as with any principle, we must keep our eyes wise for people attempting a harmful application of it, and oppose the application "on merit."

Side note: I gave a related answer to Kenny in AaQGaA #5 on what is, essentially, the same question - you should check it out! The two questions sort of "dovetail" seamlessly into each other, and I hope my answers are similarly complementary.

Thanks for asking! Did you get your answer?

Ask a Question Get an Answer #5: Should Restroom-Segregation Be Extended?

Reader Kenny asks:
Men and women have "separate but equal" public restrooms, I presume so as to reduce the possibility of either sex sneaking a peek at the naughty bits of one of the other sex.

Well, if gay people enjoy the sight of same-sex privates, should there be additional "separate but equal" public restrooms for them as well?

It's difficult to ask this question without seeming like a raging homophobe, so I appreciate your discretion.

Kenny, I'd say you're proceeding from a premise I disagree with. So it's plain I can't go all the way with you to the dilemma posed at your conclusion! Still, I will do my best to answer the question from a premise I'd go with.

First, let me assure you, I'd never accuse anyone of sexual-orientation hate bias just for asking an innocent question about social mores. But your theory here starts with the idea that segregation of restrooms is to keep people from enjoying sight of naughty bits. I'd disagree on that one. I'd argue that the realpolitik reason is that the ruling hetero patrimatriarchy doesn't want their preferred sex object to hear and smell them pooping. They're not comfortable with that. They think it'll bollix their chances of getting some! But they could care less about bollixing the chances of a gay-on-gay romance. Ergo: there it is. The answer would be no.

Thanks for asking! Did you get your answer?

Wednesday, May 09, 2012

Ask A Question Get An Answer #4: I have a question. So, hypothetically if you had this friend, right, and she liked to buy clothes and do shopping over the internet and she had a particular site she regularly purchased from called asos.com and a package arrived from them of four skirts but she didn’t recall making the order, so she checked the date and the order was placed when she was in another city visiting a friend, so then she wondered if she’d placed the order in a moment of drunken sincerity, but she checked her asos account and no order was placed by her and then she checked her credit card statement and no money had transacted for the skirts, so clearly it was just a computer error on the part of asos.com and it's someone else's order, so my question is… It's totally okay for her to keep the skirts isn't it? More info to help you answer ... THE SKIRTS ARE IN HER SIZE.

So. This is basically the "got too much change" question, on another scale.

Also, this is a morality question, so I have to let you know: I'm totally okay fielding these type questions! But I'm only going to answer on an "if it was me" basis, and add my considerations on that basis. How I'd do it (and why) is NEVER a judgment on what anybody else does. What your friend's call should be...? I don't consider that my call. But I'm happy to field morality questions, and say what MY CALL would be, utterly without prejudice to all the things that go into the fucked-up way other people choose to live.

So.

Purely on that basis, user Mel has a (wait, "USER"?!! FUCK! SORRY MEL!) um, Reader Mel, dear friend Mel, has a friend with a problem. To wit:


I have a question.

So, hypothetically if you had this friend, right, and she liked to buy clothes and do shopping over the internet and she had a particular site she regularly purchased from called asos.com and a package arrived from them of four skirts but she didn’t recall making the order, so she checked the date and the order was placed when she was in another city visiting a friend, so then she wondered if she’d placed the order in a moment of drunken sincerity, but she checked her asos account and no order was placed by her and then she checked her credit card statement and no money had transacted for the skirts, so clearly it was just a computer error on the part of asos.com and it's someone else's order, so my question is…

It's totally okay for her to keep the skirts isn't it?

More info to help you answer ...

THE SKIRTS ARE IN HER SIZE.

First, two things are immediately apparent. #1 I misspoke. Mel's friend does not "have a problem" - and I NEVER SAID SHE DID. So, eliminating that, we're looking at two main possibilities: Mel's friend has a hypothetical problem, or Mel's hypothetical friend has a problem. If the latter, then: fuck her. I can't stand hypothetical people.

If the former, then my below answer applies right down the line, but exclusively in terms of what I would do if I were Mel's friend in the same hypothetical situation.

(The second thing immediately apparent is that "a moment of drunken sincerity" applies to this answer, right here.)

So okay. This is basically the "got too much change" question, on another scale.

What I'd do is: check the skirts out, try them on. Parade around a bit. A little fashion show, you know. And: determine what they WOULD have cost. And make an informed purchasing decision to keep one (1) or two (2) of them, if warranted at that price. Then attempt to return the other two.

If this clears up the whole thing, cool.

More likely it's going to end up that some other situation happens: maybe I am in effect, volunteering to pay for two skirts, and they give you some honesty voucher in gratitude for bringing the problem to their attention. Maybe they try to charge me for all four. At that point I stand on principle: "I didn't order skirt ONE of these. I'm willing to keep the two I chose. It's that or else you can call tag the lot - and quit sending me unordered merchandise please if this is how you treat your customer trying to help you out."

Considerations.

Face it: things are not right at asos.com. They're fucking up. If they're a valued supplier for your fashion needs, maybe it's worth giving up a freebie to keep 'em in business. If this is a fundamental problem, they can't possibly keep in business this way.

But: suppose you're really destitute, money-wise? If these free skirts are the difference between you and abject nudity, then I have to say! Well. Well well. Ok, I say send 'em back anyway girl. You need to stand on principle sometimes.

But that's just my call. You may advise your friend differently.

Tip, though: if she's asking you, then maybe it's not so clear-cut as it seems. Maybe that's your cue to find out the underlying issues? I'll leave that one to you. I know who I trust on a call like this, and it's you Mel.

Thanks for asking! Did you get your answer?

Monday, May 07, 2012

Doodeloo #93: Judgment. Fig A


Ask A Question Get An Answer #3: What's In A Name?

Why do people keep e-mailing these? I mean yeah, I know I said "fine," but the whole purpose of it is you put the comment with the question on the big button there. To the upper right. Click it, it describes the whole thing! It's very easy.

Well, no worries: "What's with the name 'dogimo' huh?" This is a question I've answered before.

DOGIMO!!!!

SAY IT!!!

SHOUT IT!!!!

Spell it backwards. There it is.

So anyway, I picked this handle because the other one was taken, and I had recently written 'dogimo' down as a band name. This was years ago by now. At that point nobody else was using 'dogimo' except 1 guy, and he said it meant some damn thing in Japanese (which doesn't even count!). I've totally outlasted that guy. He's not even in Google anymore, but I've since become beleaguered by all these fucking upstarts. "Dogimo" they so-call themselves - with their You-Tube accounts, their g-mail addresses, and their other various bullshit trappings and accoutrements. SCREW YOU, SPELL-CHECK!! YOU THINK I CAN'T SPELL "accoutrements" WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION??? IN YOUR GOD DAMN FACE!!!!!!

There really needs to be another way to emphasize text. Mere bold, with an every-other-exclamation-point-italicization, doesn't quite cut it for the extra emphasis I mean to pack into the word "face," there.

Oh, what, so "italicization" is a word, but "accoutrements" isn't? Oh, spell-check. You disappoint me.

Anyway. Point is, what the hell was I supposed to do when I hit upon "dogimo" ahead of everybody else but that one guy - go around registering accounts in that name under every damn little sniveling upstart media service and outlet that I didn't then know I'd eventually become interested in and/or wish to stake my claim to if only to forestall all these dogimo-come-latelies?

Well fuck that. And fuck THEM.

Edited to add: and then of course, I went back and bolded/every-other-italicized the initial "dogimo" and associated punctuation. That's pure balls on my part, after my disparagement of that very technique's inadequacy.