PD's body has a way of shutting pro-lifer's down.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Praised be man, he is existing in milk
and living in lilies -
And his violin music takes place in milk
and creamy emptiness -
Praised be the unfolded inside petal
flesh of tend'rest thought -
(petrels on the follying
sing themselves asleep) -
Praised be delusion, the ripple -
Praised be the Holy Ocean of Eternity -
Praised be I, writing, dead already and
dead again -
Dipped in acid inkl
the Anglo Oglo Saxon Maneuvers
Of Old Poet-o's -
Praised be wood, it is milk -
Praised be Honey at the Source -
Praised be the embrace of soft sleep
- the valor of angels in valleys
of hell on earth below -
Praised be the Non ending -
Praised be the lights of earth-man -
Praised be the watchers -
Praised be my fellow man
For dwelling in milk"
I found this online as a good stepping stone:QuoteOntology is the philosophical study of existence. Object-oriented ontology (“OOO” for short) puts things at the center of this study. Its proponents contend that nothing has special status, but that everything exists equally—plumbers, DVD players, cotton, bonobos, sandstone, and Harry Potter, for example. In particular, OOO rejects the claims that human experience rests at the center of philosophy, and that things can be understood by how they appear to us. In place of science alone, OOO uses speculation to characterize how objects exist and interact.
I think the point is that humans prescribe values, narratives/histories, and uses to objects. But how is the nature of objects if it were to step outside human value systems? How do these objects relate to each other with all things being equal? (Of course we can never step outside our nervous system, so all of this would be speculative debate).
Culturally, some of us are obligated to frown on those that cannot queue in an orderly fashion.I agree that normative distance-standing rules are not absolute, however, I also suspect no earthly introduction can make proper of what those devices get-up into.
How the fuck can my phone get that right and still have problems with "hello" and "man". Worst fucking pocket spy I've ever used.
Well, at least Sorweel should come out of things OK. Unless he literally runs into the No-God or goes on to kill Kelhus, that boy's unstoppable.
Or, if the theories are correct at least, he runs into Kelmonas. The fan theory is that Kel's a narindar of Ajokli, and thus stands outside the sight of the gods, including Yatwer and her White Luck Warrior. He sacrified that beetle as an offering, a murder done for no other reason than "because".
Ajokli is the god of tricksters, thieves and assassins...a description that fits Kel to a t. I also wonder if Ajokli can see the No-God and Consult..."He only seems such [the Fool] because he sees what the others do not see... What you do not see ... The blindness of the sighted". Which also makes me wonder if there is a link between Ajokli and the Solitary God of the Cishaurim...the reference to the blindness of the sighted, the fact that the Psukhe is undetectable by other magi and even unknown to the Consult, and that the Cishaurim wage war against the followers of the Tusk. Ajokli, via the nameless narindar in the White Luck Warrior notes that his cult alone is persecuted by the Tusk.
I'm also somewhat amused by the many parallels one can draw between Ajokli, narindar and our favourite inscrutable trickster god, the Anticipation of Mephala himself, Vivec. Narindar are holy assassins the gods send, but narindar of Ajokli are ritual assassins for whom the act is holy, and are asked to kill without reference to their own cares. Of course, Vivec is the Tribunal replacement for Mephala, whom the Morag Tong assassins (and maybe the Dark Brotherhood, if the Night Mother is Mephala. Of course, one reading of the 36 sermons suggests Vivec is in fact the Night Mother). Assassins remove the act of emotion from murder, which in turn makes it an act of destruction...and destruction is another form of creation. Murder and enlightenment, combined.
Incidentally, narindar = narinder = narendra = "lord of men" in Sanskrit. Just putting that out there.
Now THERE'S some food for fucking thought.
The themes of sight and blindness are rampant in this series and especially in this trilogy. Khellus's children are constantly described as having inherited their father's sight to varying degrees. One of them had to be chained up because he could see deeply but lacked the dispassionate conditioning. Minor spoiler: Serwa in The Great Ordeal makes a statement to the effect of "light is our birthright."
The entire Dunyain philosophy revolves around the eponymous Darkness that comes before, and the Logos is the way to be able to "see" the origin of one's own thoughts. Plus, the Probablity Trance.
The Few have their own form of sight, and Mimara's Judging Eye represents a kind of sight that perhaps no other living person possesses, except perhaps Khellus during the Circumfixion. What little we know about Cishaurim sorcery revolves around themes of sight and blindness.
Then there was that guy in the cave, with the heart.
The various asides about how the Nonmen perceive the world comes to mind as well: they can't "see" two-dimensional images, so they sculpt. I forget if it was a character or in one of the pre-chapter quotes, but it's stated that Men fear and hate the darkness because it is ignorance made visible, while the Nonmen see it as holy.
The No-God is, apparently, invisible to Heaven. And, it seems, somehow invisible to itself ("WHAT DO YOU SEE?")
I don't have a real thesis here, but it will surprise me greatly if the conclusion of this series is not somehow related to sight and blindness.
My bad. I thought you were getting upset at how the possibility of her moving defies your consideration of a comprehensive commitment.
She also stated that she feels like if she turned down a job to stay with me, that she'd regret it in the future. I agreed with her on that. I told her that that is an ok thing to feel, no matter how much it hurt me. But I told her that she can't talk about long term commitments with that mentality. Those two things are incompatible, and it is unfair to me to imply that both are certain when they obviously aren't.QuoteIt's not that I disagree with such a decision, I just want us to be realistic and honest with each other about how important our relationship is to each other. After hearing how easily she'd have given it all up for the job, it made me feel cheated for all this time that she's spoken of marriage and kids. I felt safe and got VERY VERY attached, and I would be devastated now, if she kept up the marriage talk and then left me for the job. At least if she was more realistic with me now, then her leaving in the future wouldn't be so hard, and wouldn't seem so disingenuous. But she doesn't seem to understand commitment, so she thinks that it's ok to talk about these permanent commitments when she's willing to walk away for something else.
Projecting a long distance relationship by way of an emphasis on being "VERY VERY attached" seems like a contradiction worth exploring before directly confronting her about it?
It's not a long-distance relationship, nor is it planned to be. I think one of us has misread/misunderstood something.
It's not that I disagree with such a decision, I just want us to be realistic and honest with each other about how important our relationship is to each other. After hearing how easily she'd have given it all up for the job, it made me feel cheated for all this time that she's spoken of marriage and kids. I felt safe and got VERY VERY attached, and I would be devastated now, if she kept up the marriage talk and then left me for the job. At least if she was more realistic with me now, then her leaving in the future wouldn't be so hard, and wouldn't seem so disingenuous. But she doesn't seem to understand commitment, so she thinks that it's ok to talk about these permanent commitments when she's willing to walk away for something else.