Month: August 2016

Nuance. Subtlety. Empathy. Sarcasm. Irony.

There are many different ways to communicate other than 1+1=2; which is what dogmatic following of language “rules” is.

There are many words that are REAL WORDS (as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary) today ONLY BECAUSE people used them INCORRECTLY as SLANG often enough.

In the same sense, dogmatic following of science “rules” serves one purpose: keep everything safe, orderly, unchallenging.

Protect the weak minds who are incapable of creative intellectual thought by establishing “rules” to be learned that are, once memorized, as easily fallen back on as 1+1=2.

Mediocre scientists follow; great/innovative/REAL scientists lead.

And, while I’ll admit that a lot of what he said was horsesh1t…
1) A lot wasn’t AND, more importantly;
2) He was not ALWAYS intending to state everything as a dry, formal recitation of facts.

“Do not be misled by the fact that today hardly anyone gets killed for joining a scientific heresy. This has nothing to do with science. It has something to do with the general quality of our civilization. Heretics in science are still made to suffer from the most severe sanctions this relatively tolerant civilization has to offer.”

“Most scientists today are devoid of ideas, full of fear, intent on producing some paltry result so that they can add to the flood of inane papers that now constitutes “scientific progress” in many areas.”

– Paul Feyerabend

“Feyerabend attacked science because he recognized—and he was horrified by—its power, its potential to stamp out the diversity of human thought and culture. He objected to scientific certainty for moral and political, rather than for epistemological, reasons.”

If you’re too emotionally stupid to understand nuance, that’s your problem; PLEASE, let’s keep emotional intelligence alive. Once in a while, say something that isn’t PURELY LOGICAL.

Try it.

Do you know one of the reasons more and more people have problems with emotional intelligence, with empathy?

Because it is not encouraged…because it’s not “logical”.

Which is a travesty and a load of sh1t.

Stay human, people.

KEEP THIS ALIVE:

“…it doesn’t quite ring true.”
…
“There are no ‘superior facilities’; he knows that. But that’s not the point.”

I think it’s really, really, really, really, REALLY sad that the prevailing dream of kids today for “What do you wanna be when you grow up?” is “A scientist!” instead of an artist, musician, philosopher…

We have plenty of scientists.

Science is not dying, it will never die.

INSPIRED MUSIC…*REAL* music…now THAT is dying.

I can only assume that the CA/A’s trying to hack into my website disagree strongly with the following:

…Rationalism… is a secularized form of the belief in the power of the word of God…”

“…The separation of state and church must be complemented by the separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution…”

“…Unanimity of opinion may be fitting for a church, for the frightened or greedy victims of some (ancient, or modern) myth, or for the weak and willing followers of some tyrant. Variety of opinion is necessary for objective knowledge. And a method that encourages variety is also the only method that is comparable with a humanitarian outlook…”

Paul Feyerabend, ‘Against Method’

‘Hagakure’ and ‘Against Method’: two invaluable reads.

Some things in each may contradict the other. Hopefully, that is.

Neil Young sums up very well what it’s like to have unwanted fans.

“You think I’m cool? So what?”

…”Doesn’t mean that much to me, to mean that much to you.”

“Anti-theist Central”

Just saw their ad on Facebook.

Wow…Chris Hitch looked…really happy, huh?

I think he proves (well, proved) that the following is correct:

“…For is it not possible that science as we know it today, or a “search for the truth” in the style of traditional philosophy, will create a monster? Is it not possible that an objective approach that frowns upon personal connections between the entities examined will harm people, turn them into miserable, unfriendly, self-righteous mechanisms without charm or humour? “Is it not possible,” asks Kierkegaard, “that my activity as an objective [or critico-rational] observer of nature will weaken my strength as a human being?” I suspect the answer to many of these questions is affirmative…”

Thank you, https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Paul_Karl_Feyerabend

OK, so I’ve taken some slack for defending freedom of religion and putting down fervent CA/A’s…but here, something I just saw that is at least as ridiculous as anything a CA/A has ever said (I know!):

On Facebook, a “Suggested Group” for me (???) with a picture of Obama with a moustache made to look like Hitler (????) and the name “Atheism – A Pathway To Extreme Ideology” (?????)

I think this is the only proper reaction to that, besides the far too obvious ‘Billy Madison’ quote:

(1:45-1:50)

FAIR USE: CRITICISM – A great reaction to something utterly absurd.

Oh btw, if any CA/A thinks this is my suck-up attempt cuz you’re bangin’ away at my site: Go fck yourself. Thank you.

Ah, praise Jesus for the “Reason Rally”:

Dick Dawk advocates intellectual assault, Penn Jillette talks at length about truth as climate change DOES NOT OCCUR!!!
…
(SATIRE…SATIRE…SATIRE…)
…
“The withdrawal of philosophy into a “professional” shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists…may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth – and this is the fault of the very same idea of professionalism which you are now defending.” – Paul Feyerabend
…
“Holes In the Foam
Yet, it seems to bother a goober like you enough to have to comment ad nauseum about it with absolutely ridiculous drivel. Funny how that is. Shut the fck up loser. :D” (edited for naughtiness)
…
Your “yet” has no basis, since in my extreme mockery of the pointless waste of time that is the Redundancy Rally I am quite clearly trying to show how incredibly stupid and pointless it is. “have” is used improperly, I LIKE pointing out horsesh1t. I know you have no actual basis for saying “absolutely ridiculous drivel”, so I’ll NOT ask “what do you mean by…”
etc, cuz who gives a fck anyways, who the Hell are you you attention whore. Ummm…to finish, no, it’s not funny in a funny sense or in an ironic sense. But to finish, my two favorites before I post this and your best twaddle on my website (TOP OF THE WORLD!!!): 1) You using the phrase “ad nauseum” of course INSTANTLY makes your opinion, whatever it may be, correct, and anyone else’s incorrect. 2) Well yeah, I’m a loser, baby, so why don’t you kill me? *Dundun DIN dunDIN…*… and so on, and so on…
…
Jesus H. Christ!
…
It’s so great that, like…there are so many weaknesses you probe for…
so many you’re accustomed to, so many you have so many pre-programmed scripts for, etc…but I have ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THEM. I mean…you’ve got nothing. I…think I just might orgasm. Maybe that’s because of Hitchens though. No, wait…there is ABSOLUTELY no necrophilia in the British Navy. Absolutely none. And when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount.
…
And I close, of course, with a quote from The Three Stooges:
“You too, rain-in-the-face” – Moe Howard

Regarding a previous post regarding those that insert random Latin and/or random “scientific” into their conversations (written or spoken), I believe the obvious parallel (and reaction) come courtesy of Diane Chambers and momma Crane.

(First, a bonus! From the same episode, some pseudo-intellectual analysis!)

“The primary symptom of postprandial trauma is the blurring of the metatarsals…”

(Frasier’s Mom) “…I wanted to save you from ruining what could be a brilliant career. I just can’t stand the picture of you being married to a pseudo-intellectual barmaid. No offense intended.

(Diane) None taken. C ne fit rien…”

And, of course, one eventually comes to terms with it, albeit grudgingly:

“I never understood your spider collection either, but I grew to accept that.”

Or does one?

(Frasier’s Mom) “I understand you used to date that woman. I want to know how much you’d charge to start things up again.”
(Sam) “You don’t have enough money.”
(FM) “How would you know?”
(Sam) “There isn’t enough money.”
(FM) “I know what you mean.”
(Sam) “I don’t think you do.”
(FM) “I think I do.”
(Sam) “Oh, no…”
(FM) “Oh, yes…”
(Sam) “OH, no…”

Un Scene De Diane Chambers

FIN

My apologies to the fictional character of Diane Chambers for lumping her in with this grouping, but it’s for a good cause. I actually LIKE the character of Diane Chambers because – while she may be somewhat pretentious – she is, at heart, a truly caring person. Very noble indeed.

And, bonus…Diane and Woody talk about an antitheist’s manifesto and a normal person’s reaction to it, Diane having praised the manifesto: (JOKE)

“No, he tossed it in the thresher.”

Thank you Cheers, episode ‘Diane Meets Mom’.

To save some of you the time you appear to be taking:

Q: If I’m blocked for doing/attempting to do anything at all naughty to the website, how long will it be before I become un-blocked?

A: Hmmm…well, assuming I live another 40-45 years, whoever inherits this site might lift the ban…then again they may not. So let’s go with 40-45 years…but I can’t GUARANTEE that.

From My Review Of ‘Babe’

I can’t resist a wry smile when two groups are presented, both of whose opinions are narrated with complete neutrality, both of whom prove to be wrong. It’s an obvious reference to “ism”‘s of any kind (Sex, Race, Etc…) as being, above all else, stupid. It’s quite clever and, to quote a wise (fictional) being – “I do, in fact, agree with it.”

And then…

“You know, I don’t know what y’all believe and I don’t really care.” – Bill Hicks

Assuming this person – who I was in contact with, but am not now – actually gave a fck about me, and I wasn’t simply a curiosity; an amusing toy to play with and then throw away…a final, vaguely regretful message:

“Honors English, (X) was a BRILLIANT student…like you. But (X) hung out with simple-minded fools…also, like you.”

“…(X) you are too d@mn smart to be floating around here pretending you don’t see all the holes in this bullsh1t…”

“…I’m tired of feelin’ pissed off. I’m just tired of it.”

Merry Fcken Christmas.

It’s absurd…I mean, there are people that will refuse to watch/listen to BRILLIANT works of art SIMPLY BECAUSE they have religious references/connotations. Come on, man…

A short list of songs we’d never hear again if extreme antitheism won:

“Dream On”
“Stairway To Heaven”
“Hotel California”
“Sweet Home Alabama”
“Baba O’Riley”
“Won’t Get Fooled Again”
“Like A Rolling Stone”
“Gimme Shelter”
“House Of The Rising Sun”
“My Sweet Lord”

Three quotes to end:

“I mean I really don’t give a fck whether it’s about religion or not. I don’t give a fck what their belief is, or is not. All I care about is: is this something I enjoy listening to, for musical and/or lyrical reasons? As for the rest…who gives a fck? If your hatred of religion is so extreme and invasive that you can’t enjoy GREAT music because of it, that’s your loss; and you’re an idiot if you can’t see that.” – Me

“Here’s the thing with me and the religious thing. This is the flat-out truth: I find the religiosity and philosophy in the music. I don’t find it anywhere else. Songs like ‘Let Me Rest on a Peaceful Mountain’ or ‘I Saw the Light’ – that’s my religion. I don’t adhere to rabbis, preachers, evangelists, all of that. I’ve learned more from the songs than I’ve learned from any of this kind of entity. The songs are my lexicon. I believe the songs.” – Bob Dylan

“Rock ‘n’ roll is everybody’s f—-n’ music…I think that’s where God and the devil shake hands – right there.” – Neil Young