|FAQ||Members List||Calendar||Search||Today's Posts||Mark Forums Read|
|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|Apr 8th, 2008 04:29 PM|
|Apr 8th, 2008 03:11 PM|
|sloth||i dunno, guanilo's island sounds pretty fun! id have leibniz bursting in like Joey going all, 'well, i thought it'd be nicer but i guess they know what they're doing round here!' to canned laughter.|
|Apr 8th, 2008 08:23 AM|
|Chojin||I get the feeling that I found the first post in this thread more funny than anyone else did :<|
|Apr 8th, 2008 12:37 AM|
I pressed "Post Quick Reply" for that several hours ago, then resumed my quest to conquer the internet in a different tab. I then went on to do greater things.
Hours pass, I come back just now and open this tab to find Stan still violently gesticulating, my post yet unposted. I press "Post Quick Reply" and it goes through fine.
|Apr 8th, 2008 12:35 AM|
*(1): The suggestion that Gaunilo's Island, which none of you have probably heard of, would make a great show is so horrible that not even the worst of medieval or religious scholars have voiced it in my readings or presence.
*(2): No, I don't actually have a girlfriend right now.
|Apr 7th, 2008 01:22 PM|
|Pub Lover||Are you trying to annoy me with the existence lacking addendums for which you take pains to place markers, or perhaps you have a small book that you carry & jot items down as you think of them but when it becomes time to transfer them to digital form you find such notes as you made obscured by faeces as you keep the book shoved up your ass.|
|Apr 7th, 2008 04:24 AM|
Man, I can't believe I started this whole thread last night and left this out.
I didn't go to the bar last night as I thought I would, but I did this past evening. While there, I had a realization that back in early February I had an epiphany.
I took a class on a medieval philosopher named Anselm of Canterbury. He was most famous for "The ontological argument for the existence of God". Even as a theist, it was something that I could never take seriously and it pissed me off when I saw people try to pass it off as logically sound.
Then, two months ago basically, I realized that you can demonstrate why it's absurd by replacing only a few words of the argument and turn it into something very different. This has actually been known since the time it was written in the 11th Century (cf. Gaunilo's Island*), but I figured there had to be great parody potential for the modern reader. Then it hit me.
It's remarkably easy to turn it into "The ontological argument that my girlfriend has the best pussy in the entire universe."
I told myself to write down the formal argument in a form that would prove that my girlfriend* has the best pussy in the universe, but I forgot to do so and it totally escaped my to-do list until it mysteriously popped into my head tonight at the bar when I was talking to someone.
It goes something like this in axiomatic form:
|Apr 6th, 2008 09:17 PM|
Oh man, I have some explaining to do.
Back when this was all in the making, I kind of made a big deal about it on the boards. By my own standards I was probably annoying about it, in fact.
My life has had an annoyingly high number of "weird periods", in the sense that weird things would happen for or against me, but the year when that was written is at the top of the list. I knew that if I wrote that book, which I knew I'd have to write at some point in my life, in that period of time versus years later when I would have the paper certificates that tell people it's worth reading then it'd come out as premature and immature and haphazard.
And yes, it did, but I wrote it anyways.
The discussion of whether or not the whole thing was a mistake is one I can't issue now since a huge part of "why" I wanted it to be written hasn't been tested yet. I did lots of things wrong and I wasn't in the state of mind to correct them when I could have.
Except for my tendency to insert things in the wrong voice than I intended, the first part of the book where I just blend the history of science and religion and philosophy into a webbed system is pretty nice. Since you probably know physics better than I do, you'll probably get RAGE from the way I discuss the Copenhagen Interpretation as if it's not taken seriously when it obviously is taken very seriously.
If I remember correctly, the rest of the book is total shit. Some parts are shit for one reason, others for different reasons. If you read it and it's not obvious why some part of it is shit, then I'll walk you through its shittiness. It's not that I disavowed all my opinions, but the way I threw them together was just horrible.
Last fall, I finally got the royalty check from the initial printing and a few weeks later the publisher asked if I wanted to renew my contract. I declined because whatever argument I can make for why I wrote the book and put it on the market, I can't really use them to justify keeping it on the market.
|Apr 6th, 2008 09:04 PM|
|Nick||So Seth took the shirt off, and the party really started.|
|Apr 6th, 2008 08:54 PM|
|Pub Lover||OH NOES, IT'S COETERNALISM AGAIN!|
|Apr 6th, 2008 08:51 PM|
|Apr 6th, 2008 04:56 PM|
Oh man Rez, you ended your sentence in a preposition.
|Apr 6th, 2008 02:40 PM|
|Rez||tempting as it is to callously dissuade the air of jocular credibility with something crass and insensitive, such a tactic feels far too accessible and pedestrian to indulge in. indulge in how, you ask. are we above rudely interrupting this babbling climax with the heady nervousness of cretinous disdain? in a word, no. in digito-social terms, perhaps.|
|Apr 6th, 2008 01:09 PM|
|Fat_Hippo||Does your book have this extreme switch of style and subject too? If so, I might actually be tempted to read it.|
|Apr 6th, 2008 11:10 AM|
|Apr 6th, 2008 10:19 AM|
|Apr 6th, 2008 10:10 AM|
Having gone to grad school in the sciences, my fellow students and I often saw in one of the more prominent journals several articles by the same Professor/research group. On analyzing the science therein, we were amused to find that the papers were almost word-for-word copied from each other, in eveything including the conclusions, with changes made only to the object of study. We surmised that the Prof had a "paper" hotkey on his computer that asked for inputs on subject, object and a few other details before eventually submitting to a committee for peer review, and eventual publication.
In this day and age, he would probably use the Google "autocomplete" function.
Your posting made me laugh loudly and long. Thanks for the pick-me-up (I just finished paying taxes).
|Apr 6th, 2008 06:37 AM|
Historical pragmatics, especially.
I am so depressed now.
|Apr 6th, 2008 06:06 AM|
|Apr 6th, 2008 06:05 AM|
|executioneer||he is, geez|
|Apr 6th, 2008 05:58 AM|
Oh Sethomas, when I first gained membership within these illustrious forums, I found your writing to be obnoxiously protracted and psuedo-intellectual. However, delving deeper into your psyche (made possible by essays such as these), I've come to appreciate your impeccable flair for diction and the wit within. For, as is universally understood, the best humour and most satisfying instances of mirth come from subtle effort.
You, sir, should be published.
|Apr 6th, 2008 03:40 AM|
|Apr 6th, 2008 03:37 AM|
When I was in the shower I wondered whether or not I should drive with the top down tonight. Last I checked a thermometer, it read 50°. I decided that I would not, and if the subject came up in conversation I would respond "yeah, I've honestly driven with the top down in colder weather but I feel like I shouldn't do that. Even if people tolerate my weirdness*, driving with the top down in 285° weather probably goes too far for most people."
It then clicked that I could make the argument that I wouldn't insert Kelvin measurements into real-life conversation if I were genuinely pretentious in real life as I pretend to be online. My reasoning was that it's intended to be ironic in a self-deprecating way the nature of which precludes one's ability to hold the attitudes that define pretension. If it weren't actually ironic, I would argue, then by now such would have given me a clinical diagnosis with at least one of a handful of psychological disorders (eccentric behavior correlating disconnect to reality) or personality disorders (acts contrary to established norms in spite of having had normal social internalization).
I went on to think about bigger and better things, then something about that argument clicked in and I realized that it doesn't serve me well.
*Example of this that I found hilarious: last night, smoking my pipe outside a bar, two girls (by today's American standards both were extremely attractive) walked up and conversation some way or another started between them, the cousin I had with me, and myself. Within the span of the first 45 seconds or less, the more vocal one made note of my bowtie, the stitches/scarring on my finger, my pipe, and my hair. I could tell by her outfit, diction, makeup, behavior, and whatever else that she was definitely a cultural sycophant (she argued that men wearing pink shirts was okay for a while but it's not anymore), yet she didn't speak disparagingly of any of the quirks I have to start conversations like that since I suck at starting conversations. Well, she grabbed my pipe and inhaled from it (I told her NOT to inhale) and she complained about how it tasted, but that's it. HOWEVER, I was wearing a linen shirt with a natural unbleached cream color and we were standing directly under a light that gave everything a yellow hue. Then, suddenly, she started bitching aggressively about the fact that I was "wearing a yellow shirt". She vocalized a weird train of thought, her points being that either I was wearing a white shirt that turned yellow, making my shirt (and me, implicitly) "dirty" or that I was wearing an intentionally yellow shirt. The latter was just as bad as the former because it connotes the former, she argued. I explained at several stages that it was neither white nor yellow, and she'd just repeat the phrase "yellow is dirty" in louder and louder increments.
Ever have a one-line comeback pop in your head that you really want to use, but can't because to do so would make you a bad person? You know, like the Truman Decision of verbal discourse, where you feel like using a weapon at hand will give you victory at the dear cost of your humanity?
That was my situation when I tried to change the subject without mentioning that she was Asian.
|Apr 6th, 2008 01:58 AM|
As he mentioned throughout the post, & his blog if you go & sign up for it, his manner is born of pretension, as with all such activity, it is easy to understand for half-wits such as you or I.
|Apr 6th, 2008 01:55 AM|
|Misdemonar||his writing is too smart for me|
|This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|