(420 = 2*5*3*7*2.)
[Lots to read today.
Sorry, or you're welcome.]
Eight new art inanimations:
But should I even call these
'inanimations' anymore, like I
called my computer art (which I
posted until a few months ago)?
These are more so scrawl than
sketches; as if I am a doctor
illegibly writing out a
prescription, or something,
when I make these drawings.
(Hey, the vivid colors and
the relatively high resolution
were not all I miss about those
computer images of mine --
the straight lines and perfect
circles were nice too.)
As Asymmetry
Counterbalances
Asymmetry
Portrayal Of The
Oneness Of Zero's
Infinitely Many
Descriptions
Sundiality Arisen
Overlapped By Its
Own Discontinuities
Equalities Of Entirety Else
Entirely Equal To Equations
The Divisibilities
Of Random Space
This Lunar-lessness
Of Eclipses
Chaotically Becoming
Disentangled
("Sundiality" is the
reality of the sundial.)
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
Anagrams:
[Eleven -- 11.]
Space is random,
yet it is seen;
=
... As sameness'
periodic entity.
---
This tangle overlaps
its arcs' shape.
=
That vast prong is
else as spherical.
---
In the coarse entropy,
these slack twists are
tied askew.
=
A sphere as knotted
there was as its
clockwise entirety.
---
Their rotation is
as is whatever is.
=
Its variations are
otherwise this.
---
Certainty's tide
overcame us.
=
Its creation yet
made curves.
---
Any fails it:
=
As finality.
---
Many evil
anti-messiahs
so stirred any
universes.
=
Their satanism is
as every sin in
your damn selves.
---
Reality's angle sets
within a sundial.
=
It is as all;
anything was
else under it.
---
This universe was solar
in its daylight.
=
That sundial is aswirl;
everything is so.
---
Sums are aswirl.
=
Surrealism was;...
-
Surrealism was rotating
sideways to this.
=
A torus is mostly as
what is a weirdest ring.
=
... (Rotating sideways
to this, sums are aswirl.)
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
Palindromic crappiness:
'Is as it so;
meta-tori rotate;
most is as I.'
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
Failure after making quite
the effort is not so much
a 'triumph' as it is a..
'try-(then)-UMPH!'..
-------------------------------
They mocked me for having
yellow stains on my teeth.
But, hey, I just...
brushed them off.
-------------------------------
Who researches the physics
of bluish-green light?
The 'cyan-tists', of course!
-------------------------------
Appetizers strewn astray:
Quite the 'dis-hors d'oeuvres'.
-------------------------------
The accordion-player playing
the written music skillfully
and accurately is surely one
time when things actually..
went.. accordion to plan!..
-------------------------------
A celibate banker might
advertise he is a..
'low-interest lo(a)ner'.
-------------------------------
In the future!..
(and whenever else):
There will be (are/has been)
mass-transit time-machines.
But will they have a good
reputation for..
on-space-time reliability?
(Can any
time-ships/busses/trains
ever even possibly arrive/
depart off-schedule? Hmmmm..)
-------------------------------
I was just reading (again) how
the entire universe may be one
big black-hole.
In that case, I would guess the
Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction
-- due to the universe expanding
extremely quickly at distances
extremely far away from us, and
so seeming to flatten and slow
to a stop at those distances --
may result in the universe
possessing an (very large)..
advance-horizon.
[PS: Is the apparent flattening
out at VERY distant distances
from us actually being observed?
I read once that it was observed
or I read that it was at least
possible. But now I cannot find
much info on this idea of there
being an 'advance horizon'.]
----
(As they say, the universe will
end not with a bang, but with
a whimper.
So, is this.. The..
"Big-Whimper Theory", then?)
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
Indeed, you are the product,
as they say. But worse,
you don't actually OWN
yourself, but rather only
have a license to use
yourself.
And that usability of you
by yourself is subject to
restrictions; and this
usability can be remotely
disabled at any time and
without warning and for
any reason whatsoever.
Didn't you read your TOS?
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
Extremists are (by definition)
quite... ANTI-SEMI-tic.
[^I might have posted
this joke already.]
-------------------------------
New name for eyeglasses:
'Correctoscopes'.
-------------------------------
[Warning:
Next item will surely
offend most of you.]
The US prison-system is
essentially run by the..
Department of
'Colorectal-Erections'.
[It's NOT funny, sadly,
because it's true.]
-------------------------------
Since I am being
offensive here anyway..
[Warning: Offensive.]
Proof that the Bible is
probably not representative
of historical reality:
It contains very few jokes.
Where the HELL are the jokes?
Where is the (intended) humor?!
Reality is pretty funny,...
but only for whoever has been
fooling us for these millennia
with their nasty trickery.
But the Bible is even more
serious, or at least it seems,
than would have been a purely
academic and modern-style
first-hand account of all that
genocide, murder, war, slavery,
disease/plagues/pestilence,
rape, incest, famine, demons,
Hell/damnation, and that
end-of-the-world stuff.
(But to be fair, the Bible's
writers and translators over
the centuries weren't trying
to increase their ad and
purchase revenues, like the
media's scribes of today do,
by being extra entertaining;
...
not necessarily so, anyway.)
-------------------------------
When it is sad for Susan,
but funny for us, it surely..
Yucks to be Sue!
(Due to a mishap
involving a spoon,
perhaps?)
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
Band-names:
'Shock And Wow'
Their album: "Wow-Therapy".
(Shock-full of awe-fulness.)
'The Conspiracy Theorems'
'Shroud Of Turing'*
*(Was the 'Mechanical Turk' a
chess-playing Turing Machine?
{"MT-vs-TM-Complete, even?"}
Better give it the
Turing Test to find out!..
And if that test is a public-
education standardized test,
the poor Mechanical Turk will
have to fill in the little
bubbles with a number-2
pencil to indicate each of
his next chosen chess moves.
And a REAL robot would have
struggled with handling that
pencil. So, checkmate, Turk;
we know what, I mean who,
you really are!)
(PS: BS^.)
[As for this "Mechanical Turk",
was this automaton an Ottoman?..
Seriously, maybe this^ pun is
even why the automaton was made,
in the first place, to represent
a Turk, as opposed to someone
of another ethnicity? {Me know
no history of "his" story.}]
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
One of the worst things, I
believe, about the human mind
(aside from its commonplace
tendency to act sadistically
against others) is:..
Its inescapable and often
hyperactive tendency to try
to deceive itself.
Psychological
autonomic masochism.
Early in human-evolution, it
seems, people were too often
dying from too much STRESS.**
(Of course, during those
relatively early years of
human evolution, even more so
than now days, people were
dying more from what CAUSED
stress -- wild-animal attacks,
war, famine, diseases, etc --
than from the stress per-se..
But, yeah.)
And instead of the human body
evolving to, say, be less
harmed physically by the
mind's stress, evolution
had another strategy:
Reduce the stress itself by
leading our minds (whether
any of us actually have
desired this "fix" or not) to
attempt to deceive themselves
into being overly optimistic.
(Meanwhile, any remaining
stress we each still have
anyway has continued to be
damaging to our physical
health.)
So,...
confirmation-bias (ask some
scientists about how it can
mess up their research),
bigotry, superstitions,
religion, politics,
the Dunning-Kruger effect,
mental-illnesses (especially
the psychoses with
hallucinations), dreams
(if so realistic as to be
deceptive), just being way
too stubborn about believing
what we have believed..
despite all contradictory
evidence, and even our
tendency to be too easily
deceived and also manipulated
by others (an almost willful
gullibility, if not always
willful), plus other unsavory
mental traits not necessarily
regarding our self-deception
per-se (such as addictions
to substances/behaviors),..
all became traits way too
commonplace, unfortunately,
in the brains of our species.
And not just attempts to avoid
stress have moved human-
evolution towards our tendency
to engage in self-deception.
Often other needs have too,
such as mating;..
"Believing in" oneself, enough
so such that one actually asks
out that attractive person, say,
might likely be (as it often is)
only a result of one lying to
oneself about how "great" one is.
("She wants me, I know it.")
But if the self-deceptions get
you laid and keeps you from dying
of STRESS, then you might be more
likely to pass on your
self-deception genes to your
descendants.
It is almost as if humanity's
entire purpose for living our
lives is to be deceived
(by ourselves and by others).
**(PSA: And the only thing worse
than stress for you is HYSTERIA!
HYSTERIA, I tell you! BEWARE!
We have GOT to lock up all
those hysterical women and men
-- mostly women -- RIGHT AWAY!
OR ELSE! Or else.. their
HYSTERIA will spread and will
then SURELY GET US ALL!..)
-------------------------------
Regarding confirmation-bias
(which I mentioned above):
How do scientists and their
critics who have claimed that
confirmation-bias has tainted
scientific research (and our
human experience generally)
know for sure that THEY
THEMSELVES are not subject to
any confirmation-bias when
they see confirmation-bias?
As they too seem (seem to me,
anyway) to be determined to
see confirmation-bias all
over the place; and it surely
is ruining our understanding
about the truths of the world.
(Or IS it??...)
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
A drawing may be completely
realistically drawn, with all
aspects of objects depicted
within it each conforming to
and acting correctly regarding
any applicable laws of physics.
Or it may be of an extremely
unrealistic image which is
completely absurd and
nonsensical and impossible.
Or, of course, its realism
might be somewhere in the
intermediacy between.
But as there is also no
perfect zero in regards
to temperature, there too
is no way a drawing can be
of absolutely zero realism.
Because, it is indeed
physically and logically
accurate in at least one
aspect:
It correctly represents
an image drawn upon some
paper/canvas/etc by a pen/
pencil/crayon/etc; and it
correctly represents the
physics of pencil-lead/ink/
etc affixed to such paper/
canvas/etc; and represents
correctly, too, the physics
of light reflecting off such
an image; and represents the
biology/psychology of our
eyes perceiving that light
and transmitting the image's
representation to our brains,
where we might understand or
not understand the aesthetics
and/or the implications
of that image.
---
On another topic only
somewhat related,...
[Warning:
May very likely offend!]
As I understand, at least
some Muslims believe that
artistic depictions of
living things are quite
blasphemous.
Has anyone thought to
argue with those Muslims
that these artistic
depictions do not
necessarily depict
living things, per-se,
but instead they are only
depictions OF DEPICTIONS
of living things?
This same argument could be
used with some non-Muslim
people here in the West too
in regards to imagery that
THEY find offensive, also.
Maybe it could be argued
to those who want to ban
flag-desecration, as an
example, that the flags
which are being burned at
any protests are NOT really
representing America and its
freedoms, but are instead
just artistic images
(albeit, rendered in cloth)
representing flags.. which
in-turn represent America.
And what about bans on
pornography? Has anyone ever
successfully argued in court
that their porn is only
IMAGES OF IMAGES of the
offensive things/acts, and
is not the images of any
offensive things/acts
directly?
I doubt this argument above
has ever worked, in criminal
court especially, with any
person or authority (such as
judge, prosecutor, jury) who is
firmly against any such imagery
-- it must not matter to them,
no matter what, how many times
the images were essentially
only recursively derived/
extracted from the previous
incarnations of those images.
(Photographing the images,
say, and keeping only the
photos of the photos is not
necessarily a way out of
such possession being
potentially very illegal,
I would bet.
As a matter of fact, even
simple cartoonish drawings of
stick-figures shooting "guns"
and of stick-figures engaged
in unacceptable sexual acts
have gotten real people in
very real legal trouble
before within the past years
{yes, in modern times, and,
yes, in "free" nations}.)
{Disclaimer: I am not
advocating for anyone using
the above legal strategy,
both because the bad images
might be offensive to me
personally as well, and
because, oh yeah, I am
not a lawyer.}
All that matters to many people
is the final image itself and
how it appears to the awareness
of the observer (and only how
it is PERSONALLY INTERPRETED
ultimately by the observers/
authorities/busybodies/censors,
which is at the crux of most
laws against offensive things).
See,...
The image IS what it represents.
(Or so, that is how it is..
seen..)
(A philosophy^ which might bring
up its own spiritual crises for
Muslims, say, firmly against
any artistic portrayals of any
highly revered prophets and/or
God, if they looked hard at the
implications of that philosophy
in regards to idolatrous images
being blasphemous.
If images of images are as
blasphemous as are first-order
images of whatever living thing,
then why not is the living thing
itself/himself not just as
blasphemous also?
Logical consistency, thus,
must be.. ungodly.
{..As it also must be so to all
religions generally, by the way,
not only to extremist Islam;
but I digress.})
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
Speaking of logical
inconsistencies...
[And, as we know, segues
themselves can also surely
be consistently illogical.]
It is good that I do not derive
mathematical theorems anymore,
as most all of them, especially
these days, would be incorrect.
("I have proved 0=1!
So therefore, it does not.
{Or does it?..}")
-------------------------------
Leroy
No comments:
Post a Comment