Feeds:
Posts
Comments



As an anti-dote to rational bias, I propose cognition as part of the emotion always already present to our experience when we thought something. The emotional manifold has already been synthesized – embodied not embrained– by the time thinking runs away with us.





As a pragmatist, I begin to understand that my commitment to this way of life commits me to ontological homogeneity, rather than ontological pluralism, which is Kant’s peculiar form of idealism. Because if all truths are to be judged by contextual responsiveness (justification vis-à-vis my verbal community), then epistemology can be the only activity. Because there is no truth out there. The world does not break down into truth sized parcels demarcated by words. They neither re-present nor correspond. Words are simply one event in many, which together sum to the indefinite entirety of everything. And whatever we name any contingent process – proton neutron electron spacetime curve song or just plain love – the words are meaningless. They divide nothing and fix nothing. And if, like Bishop Berkeley, if I must have a cause for all this beauty, call it God and say that she is thinking us alive. Or not. Because beauty needs no reason, as far as I can see.




I think creativity is at least as important as science in human interaction. Creativity is what allows us to use science to help people. It is a combination of technique, joy and curiosity. The ability to control one’s attention, and yet still be surprised.




I believe words can be completely enthralling and completely unbelievable at the same time. That is language may be completely inadequate to beauty’s expression without it losing an ounce of fascination for me.



why was i born the way i was,
how did i end the way i will.
did i forget to breathe the way i do,
was i blind when flowers died.

who appeared among us unscathed
who travels and returned with no scars,
who went home a withered arm?
where did i get my jagged edges
and you your softer one.





Need I state the obvious about the Martin-Zimmerman case? That if no one but sworn officers were allowed to legally carry guns in this country that either Martin would be alive or Zimmerman would (at least) be a convicted felon at this point?





Isn’t it interesting how humans tend to attack other humans for the things they say? Or do? Is there a single shred of evidence to suggest that attacking leads to any sort of sustainable long term solution?





Today I’m thinking about what it says about a community that feels the need to have “stand your ground” laws. Perhaps they would be better named: “we have no idea whatsoever how to decrease violence” laws…




Isn’t it interesting how an expression of hope can at times be an occasion for experiencing despair? Our emotional brains…sigh…




IMGP1762