This went over my head or under my feet.
I’m not bitter. Bitter would be nice sometimes. I mean, bitter is a kind of acceptance. It’s a frozen ‘things are fucked up and that’s the way they are’. I’m more like a 6 year old. (something I am both proud of and embarrassed by)
[b]Bianco Luno
An object of sentiment; a young girl with a stuffed animal, a doll or cat; women with babies or almost any child:
The surface vulnerability is irresistible.
How are we to place blame for suppressing the obvious?
That the teddy-bear is stuffed with rags, cotton or foam; the doll, air-filled plastic; the likelihood that the warm, vibrating ball of fur is only tolerating the proffered intimacy; or the boy’s indifference to or even resentment of motherly attention.
Ask too pertinently how it feels to be the object of another’s affection, we are met with a scowl or a pout.
Lest we spoil the pleasurable effusion.
Dare we suggest that a boy might be permanently “scarred” by a mother’s love?
(The girl is better equipped by nature and convention to handle this kind of abuse.)
Could it occur to her that she might use me as a man might a centerfold?
Why am I forced to break her heart?
How many victims of instinct can you fit on the head of a diaper pin?[/b]
It would be interesting to interview the mother behind all this. And her mother all the way back to the big bang.
[b]Emile Cioran
A sudden silence in the middle of a conversation suddenly brings us back to essentials: it reveals how dearly we must pay for the invention of speech.[/b]
Especially among those who, once switched on, do not seem in possession of an off button.
By all evidence we are in the world to do nothing.
Or to do everything in a manner interchangable with doing nothing at all.
How embarrassed can you be? I mean look at me.
Same here. I’m as lost as you are.
It must have been a thought that I got distracted from.
At that point, my mind is usually moving at about the speed of sound and I’m running around as fast as possible trying to capture it in as few words as possible hoping the reader will use the space around the words to fill in the gaps. Mondays, being my night off, are almost always a source of Anguish before I start drinking (on top of the fatigue from working nights) and a source of dread before I come back on Tuesday night*. Mondays, especially when a close associate offers me a tap off a blunt, can turn into a weird poetic flight. However, in my defense, it does stay in the spirit of what Ambig is doing here.
[size=85]*note the way in which I started off with a relatively lucid argument, then degenerated into what I did. [/size]
My point is that I think the effects of Citizen’s United have been a little over-exaggerated. It would be to act as if, after 50 + years of TV advertising, we would be so stupid as to not see through the BS. The only people that will buy into it are those that want to buy it in the first place. For my part, corporations can buy up all the advertising they want. I despise the Republican platform too much to vote Republican and will vote Democrat if for nothing else, to publicly announce my opposition to it.
At bottom, even if there are people who will vote republican just because they have cooler commercials, then our problems run a lot deeper than the choice between Democrat or Republican.
That said, I’m not sure why I brought that up here. Must have been a Monday. I apologize to Ambig for the digression.
Why are you looking at me when you say that, Ambig?
A confrontation with the Absurd: the way all chains of cause and effect go back and converge into the nothingness.
There is, ultimately, no foundation to what we are now:
The thin air upon which Rawls rest his assumptions when suggesting the original position experiment.
Many will think this insanity -a form of schizophrenia or divided mind. But as Lacan suggests, true psychosis is rooted in the Names of the Father: those terms and fixed meanings which the psychotic latches onto to anchor themselves in the thin air that all assumptions rest on.
The psychotic knows while we normal people rest on denial. At the same time, the psychotic, in an exaggerated sense, engages in a form of denial. In other words, the psychotic knows that what stability the brain produces to the mind is an illusion. Therefore, the mind over-responds by arbitrarily fixing meaning.
It’s the music’s fault I say!
Case in point: if you take a group of children who are playing nicely and play them White Zombie, they will begin to act more aggressively.
Sounds like the plight of the generalist.
You gotta love these Kafkaesque discourses.
It always lets you know that you are more than how you function or mean.
Leibniz asks:
Why all this rather than nothing?
And whether it is the right or wrong one, the best possible answer is an almost metaphysical sense of play.
For all we know, the universe may exist for the sake of Play.
Imagine, in the beginning, nothing. Now imagine that nothingness, in some infrastructural sense, needing to be something. Why else but out of a need to experiment (a metaphysical Boredom): Play?
Good catch. 
Just hope you’re not holding it against me.
Would it make any difference?
Love ya, man!
But: no. Not really.
We both gotta follow our flow.
We play together by playing in our own way.
Once again: I go back to a point made on another string:
why would sound waves or light waves exist if they didn’t anticipate ears to hear them or eyes to see them?
It kind of anticipates the Anthropic principle.
And this is not to lend credibility to the intelligent design theory.
All I am arguing is that there is something about existence that wants to be seen and heard and responded to:
Play.
Forgive my ambition.
But wouldn’t it be cool to make metaphysics respectable again?