OPEN BAR: Tough on bars, tough on the causes of bars

[The Good Reverend Roger]

This is where I work.  For scale, the diagonal silo looking thing (the solar telescope) is 300 ft tall.



I will be posting pics of my own some time next week.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer lizard man.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The one cranky thing I kind of want to post on my Facebook wall but won't (unlike most of the cranky things I say, which go right on up there) is that I find almost all poly bloggers tedious as fuck. Like, are they seriously so totally un-self-aware that they don't realize that they aren't blogging because they have profound insights on love and life, but because they are processing their own inner conflict between what they think is expected of them and what they want?

The experiences of love and romance are deep and new and profound to the ones experiencing them, but they are very nearly universal, which is why people have been, effectively, journaling them through art and literature since those things took root as a form of human cultural transmission. Almost without fail these blogs read like the diary of a 14-year-old who has just had her first romantic experience and is still trying to sort out what all the feelings mean and whether they're OK; the detailed histories of their first meeting, the examinations of the emotional responses, the dialogue, the weighted, almost mystical importance given to mundane and trivial events.

Most of all, the sense of significance running through the whole narrative; the significance of the experience, of the writer, of the discovery of polyamory, of actually caring about and fucking more than one person at a time, and of the narration itself; the complete inability to take a step back and realize that none of these experiences are new on a human scale, none of them are groundbreaking, and that ultimately these blogs are as boring, banal, and commonplace as a teenager's angsty diary or any middle-aged adult's midlife crisis; and that essentially they are blogging instead of talking to their therapist, who would do them the favor of explaining to them that it's OK and that everything they are experiencing is normal and fine, and maybe would even suggest that they pick up a copy of the Joy of Sex, the original with the hairy hippies copulating in hand-drawn illustrations, so that they could finally understand that their parents already had this revolution and everything is going to be okay.

See I can sympathize with that a bit. I had a bit of internal reconciliation to work through as I realized that I had a polyamorous nature in terms of relationships, but not particularly in a sexual context. I'm not keen AT ALL with other males around while actually getting sexual, but am also very comfortable with socializing with a partner's significant other(s) outside of active sexual context. There is a distinctive need for openness and painstaking honesty with self and others in such matters that comes very naturally to me. I do not particularly desire, and so don't seek, to be with more than 1 partner at a time in a sexual context. It's not like I think I'd mind, pretty sure I'd enjoy the challenge in fact, but it doesn't matter enough to attempt to act towards and hasn't come up otherwise. Not sure where this puts me on like a "polyamory spectrum" or something, but it's not quite "cis" for sure.

What I don't have is a sexual identity built around being "poly" or anything else for that matter other than heterosexual. I can find a male personally attractive, acknowledge physical beauty, admire ability, and love one in the brotherly sense, but I have yet to feel like I'd like to "get on that". I really don't expect that I ever will.  My sexuality is not a big part of my identity overall in fact, but an important one to be sure.

Now some folks find themselves and swiftly build an ID around their new found attributes. After much observation of identity "converts" of various sorts I've come to simply accept that the kinda teen like behavior is almost universal in the early stages. I suspect, in most unscientific fashion, that it's some sort of neurological throwback to the last time most folks "discovered themselves" around puberty. It's notably common in ideological conversion and personal discovery alike. Thing is, a sexual personal discovery is often at odds with ideology that's been loaded into the brain since childhood by parentage and various social constructs. The ideology is a 3rd+ circuit program, and a genuine personal discovery is likely a "hardwired" 1st AND 2nd circuit instinct previously suppressed by said ideology or simply unexpressed previously. A period of potentially obnoxious catharsis and social realignment is inevitable in those that wisely, healthily drop the ideology in favor of accepting who and what they are.

It's still annoying to those that have already been there, did that, and moved on. I get that for sure!

I can sympathize with the experience, it's the delusion that the fine details of the experience are so important to the public knowledge base that they need to blog the process-- usually while taking a sort of elder-sibling-dispensing-advice tone-- that I find ridiculous.

I got lost when you started talking about circuits with numbers... I haven't read those books because they were hopelessly boring pseudopsychology.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also, growing long hair and a beard, on account of "frozen hell".

Probably a good call. Progressing the trend though.... you might just be enjoying relatively cool and comfortable breezes in the summer up there while all others are frying and cursing the sun.

It's 80-100F in the summertime, I gather.  At which point I will break out the shears.

That pic is amazing!

How's the humidity? I see plenty of trees. In a dry spell wouldn't the height lead to a lot of lightning?

Also... could you possibly acquire milspec construction vehicles under the policy above? A crane or two might prove invaluable around those cliffs.

Sorry, missed this.

At that altitude, there's about as much water as you'd get in Wisconsin.  Lighting is a thing.  It is a huge thing.  It is in fact the second worst thing in the world.

And we have about 6 cranes, but they're mostly useless, just on account of the sheer scale of everything involved.

[The Wizard Joseph]

The one cranky thing I kind of want to post on my Facebook wall but won't (unlike most of the cranky things I say, which go right on up there) is that I find almost all poly bloggers tedious as fuck. Like, are they seriously so totally un-self-aware that they don't realize that they aren't blogging because they have profound insights on love and life, but because they are processing their own inner conflict between what they think is expected of them and what they want?

The experiences of love and romance are deep and new and profound to the ones experiencing them, but they are very nearly universal, which is why people have been, effectively, journaling them through art and literature since those things took root as a form of human cultural transmission. Almost without fail these blogs read like the diary of a 14-year-old who has just had her first romantic experience and is still trying to sort out what all the feelings mean and whether they're OK; the detailed histories of their first meeting, the examinations of the emotional responses, the dialogue, the weighted, almost mystical importance given to mundane and trivial events.

Most of all, the sense of significance running through the whole narrative; the significance of the experience, of the writer, of the discovery of polyamory, of actually caring about and fucking more than one person at a time, and of the narration itself; the complete inability to take a step back and realize that none of these experiences are new on a human scale, none of them are groundbreaking, and that ultimately these blogs are as boring, banal, and commonplace as a teenager's angsty diary or any middle-aged adult's midlife crisis; and that essentially they are blogging instead of talking to their therapist, who would do them the favor of explaining to them that it's OK and that everything they are experiencing is normal and fine, and maybe would even suggest that they pick up a copy of the Joy of Sex, the original with the hairy hippies copulating in hand-drawn illustrations, so that they could finally understand that their parents already had this revolution and everything is going to be okay.

See I can sympathize with that a bit. I had a bit of internal reconciliation to work through as I realized that I had a polyamorous nature in terms of relationships, but not particularly in a sexual context. I'm not keen AT ALL with other males around while actually getting sexual, but am also very comfortable with socializing with a partner's significant other(s) outside of active sexual context. There is a distinctive need for openness and painstaking honesty with self and others in such matters that comes very naturally to me. I do not particularly desire, and so don't seek, to be with more than 1 partner at a time in a sexual context. It's not like I think I'd mind, pretty sure I'd enjoy the challenge in fact, but it doesn't matter enough to attempt to act towards and hasn't come up otherwise. Not sure where this puts me on like a "polyamory spectrum" or something, but it's not quite "cis" for sure.

What I don't have is a sexual identity built around being "poly" or anything else for that matter other than heterosexual. I can find a male personally attractive, acknowledge physical beauty, admire ability, and love one in the brotherly sense, but I have yet to feel like I'd like to "get on that". I really don't expect that I ever will.  My sexuality is not a big part of my identity overall in fact, but an important one to be sure.

Now some folks find themselves and swiftly build an ID around their new found attributes. After much observation of identity "converts" of various sorts I've come to simply accept that the kinda teen like behavior is almost universal in the early stages. I suspect, in most unscientific fashion, that it's some sort of neurological throwback to the last time most folks "discovered themselves" around puberty. It's notably common in ideological conversion and personal discovery alike. Thing is, a sexual personal discovery is often at odds with ideology that's been loaded into the brain since childhood by parentage and various social constructs. The ideology is a 3rd+ circuit program, and a genuine personal discovery is likely a "hardwired" 1st AND 2nd circuit instinct previously suppressed by said ideology or simply unexpressed previously. A period of potentially obnoxious catharsis and social realignment is inevitable in those that wisely, healthily drop the ideology in favor of accepting who and what they are.

It's still annoying to those that have already been there, did that, and moved on. I get that for sure!

I can sympathize with the experience, it's the delusion that the fine details of the experience are so important to the public knowledge base that they need to blog the process-- usually while taking a sort of elder-sibling-dispensing-advice tone-- that I find ridiculous.

I got lost when you started talking about circuits with numbers... I haven't read those books because they were hopelessly boring pseudopsychology.

I'll give you that on the pseudoscience and boring shit, but once understood I've found it's not a useless way to view cognition.

1st circuit is the raw survival and reproduction instincts. It's pure instinct without ANY cognitive action and informs "higher circuit" functions on a deeply unconscious level.
2nd is the territorial instinct. The point where you begin to see an organism actively, if not necessarily consciously, respond to the environment and other organisms and set boundaries.
3rd is the kind of cognition common to higher animals. That is to say concept communication and, in humans, language and names. Dogs, for example, have a weak version of this but can understand a humans commands after proper training, though grasping context is rare.

The model is unscientific to be sure, but perceiving the functions of the mind in this way is very useful for training behavior. Martial artists, salespeople, leaders, or anyone with a vested interest in understanding, anticipating, or instilling "thoughtless" reactions can make use of this QUITE ancient art. The "circuit model" is merely an attempt to scientifically describe it, but the mind and it's functions cannot be quantified objectively as far as I know. If so it will never be science, but it doesn't have to be to have effect.

[The Wizard Joseph]

Also, growing long hair and a beard, on account of "frozen hell".

Probably a good call. Progressing the trend though.... you might just be enjoying relatively cool and comfortable breezes in the summer up there while all others are frying and cursing the sun.

It's 80-100F in the summertime, I gather.  At which point I will break out the shears.

That pic is amazing!

How's the humidity? I see plenty of trees. In a dry spell wouldn't the height lead to a lot of lightning?

Also... could you possibly acquire milspec construction vehicles under the policy above? A crane or two might prove invaluable around those cliffs.

Sorry, missed this.

At that altitude, there's about as much water as you'd get in Wisconsin.  Lighting is a thing.  It is a huge thing.  It is in fact the second worst thing in the world.

And we have about 6 cranes, but they're mostly useless, just on account of the sheer scale of everything involved.

No apologies man!    Hell I stopped expecting continuity in Internet communications a long time ago. I try not to expect the same sort of follow through that I do face to face or on the phone. Still appreciated!

Yeah, the scale of the complex hit me when I saw the pic. You don't need cranes. You need jet packs!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yeah, the scale of the complex hit me when I saw the pic. You don't need cranes. You need jet packs!

What I need is a better road up the mountain.  Given the political climate, I should get the money for that sometime next century.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The one cranky thing I kind of want to post on my Facebook wall but won't (unlike most of the cranky things I say, which go right on up there) is that I find almost all poly bloggers tedious as fuck. Like, are they seriously so totally un-self-aware that they don't realize that they aren't blogging because they have profound insights on love and life, but because they are processing their own inner conflict between what they think is expected of them and what they want?

The experiences of love and romance are deep and new and profound to the ones experiencing them, but they are very nearly universal, which is why people have been, effectively, journaling them through art and literature since those things took root as a form of human cultural transmission. Almost without fail these blogs read like the diary of a 14-year-old who has just had her first romantic experience and is still trying to sort out what all the feelings mean and whether they're OK; the detailed histories of their first meeting, the examinations of the emotional responses, the dialogue, the weighted, almost mystical importance given to mundane and trivial events.

Most of all, the sense of significance running through the whole narrative; the significance of the experience, of the writer, of the discovery of polyamory, of actually caring about and fucking more than one person at a time, and of the narration itself; the complete inability to take a step back and realize that none of these experiences are new on a human scale, none of them are groundbreaking, and that ultimately these blogs are as boring, banal, and commonplace as a teenager's angsty diary or any middle-aged adult's midlife crisis; and that essentially they are blogging instead of talking to their therapist, who would do them the favor of explaining to them that it's OK and that everything they are experiencing is normal and fine, and maybe would even suggest that they pick up a copy of the Joy of Sex, the original with the hairy hippies copulating in hand-drawn illustrations, so that they could finally understand that their parents already had this revolution and everything is going to be okay.

See I can sympathize with that a bit. I had a bit of internal reconciliation to work through as I realized that I had a polyamorous nature in terms of relationships, but not particularly in a sexual context. I'm not keen AT ALL with other males around while actually getting sexual, but am also very comfortable with socializing with a partner's significant other(s) outside of active sexual context. There is a distinctive need for openness and painstaking honesty with self and others in such matters that comes very naturally to me. I do not particularly desire, and so don't seek, to be with more than 1 partner at a time in a sexual context. It's not like I think I'd mind, pretty sure I'd enjoy the challenge in fact, but it doesn't matter enough to attempt to act towards and hasn't come up otherwise. Not sure where this puts me on like a "polyamory spectrum" or something, but it's not quite "cis" for sure.

What I don't have is a sexual identity built around being "poly" or anything else for that matter other than heterosexual. I can find a male personally attractive, acknowledge physical beauty, admire ability, and love one in the brotherly sense, but I have yet to feel like I'd like to "get on that". I really don't expect that I ever will.  My sexuality is not a big part of my identity overall in fact, but an important one to be sure.

Now some folks find themselves and swiftly build an ID around their new found attributes. After much observation of identity "converts" of various sorts I've come to simply accept that the kinda teen like behavior is almost universal in the early stages. I suspect, in most unscientific fashion, that it's some sort of neurological throwback to the last time most folks "discovered themselves" around puberty. It's notably common in ideological conversion and personal discovery alike. Thing is, a sexual personal discovery is often at odds with ideology that's been loaded into the brain since childhood by parentage and various social constructs. The ideology is a 3rd+ circuit program, and a genuine personal discovery is likely a "hardwired" 1st AND 2nd circuit instinct previously suppressed by said ideology or simply unexpressed previously. A period of potentially obnoxious catharsis and social realignment is inevitable in those that wisely, healthily drop the ideology in favor of accepting who and what they are.

It's still annoying to those that have already been there, did that, and moved on. I get that for sure!

I can sympathize with the experience, it's the delusion that the fine details of the experience are so important to the public knowledge base that they need to blog the process-- usually while taking a sort of elder-sibling-dispensing-advice tone-- that I find ridiculous.

I got lost when you started talking about circuits with numbers... I haven't read those books because they were hopelessly boring pseudopsychology.

I'll give you that on the pseudoscience and boring shit, but once understood I've found it's not a useless way to view cognition.

1st circuit is the raw survival and reproduction instincts. It's pure instinct without ANY cognitive action and informs "higher circuit" functions on a deeply unconscious level.
2nd is the territorial instinct. The point where you begin to see an organism actively, if not necessarily consciously, respond to the environment and other organisms and set boundaries.
3rd is the kind of cognition common to higher animals. That is to say concept communication and, in humans, language and names. Dogs, for example, have a weak version of this but can understand a humans commands after proper training, though grasping context is rare.

The model is unscientific to be sure, but perceiving the functions of the mind in this way is very useful for training behavior. Martial artists, salespeople, leaders, or anyone with a vested interest in understanding, anticipating, or instilling "thoughtless" reactions can make use of this QUITE ancient art. The "circuit model" is merely an attempt to scientifically describe it, but the mind and it's functions cannot be quantified objectively as far as I know. If so it will never be science, but it doesn't have to be to have effect.

Oh, no, I wasn't asking you to explain. I have no interest.

[The Wizard Joseph]

The one cranky thing I kind of want to post on my Facebook wall but won't (unlike most of the cranky things I say, which go right on up there) is that I find almost all poly bloggers tedious as fuck. Like, are they seriously so totally un-self-aware that they don't realize that they aren't blogging because they have profound insights on love and life, but because they are processing their own inner conflict between what they think is expected of them and what they want?

The experiences of love and romance are deep and new and profound to the ones experiencing them, but they are very nearly universal, which is why people have been, effectively, journaling them through art and literature since those things took root as a form of human cultural transmission. Almost without fail these blogs read like the diary of a 14-year-old who has just had her first romantic experience and is still trying to sort out what all the feelings mean and whether they're OK; the detailed histories of their first meeting, the examinations of the emotional responses, the dialogue, the weighted, almost mystical importance given to mundane and trivial events.

Most of all, the sense of significance running through the whole narrative; the significance of the experience, of the writer, of the discovery of polyamory, of actually caring about and fucking more than one person at a time, and of the narration itself; the complete inability to take a step back and realize that none of these experiences are new on a human scale, none of them are groundbreaking, and that ultimately these blogs are as boring, banal, and commonplace as a teenager's angsty diary or any middle-aged adult's midlife crisis; and that essentially they are blogging instead of talking to their therapist, who would do them the favor of explaining to them that it's OK and that everything they are experiencing is normal and fine, and maybe would even suggest that they pick up a copy of the Joy of Sex, the original with the hairy hippies copulating in hand-drawn illustrations, so that they could finally understand that their parents already had this revolution and everything is going to be okay.

See I can sympathize with that a bit. I had a bit of internal reconciliation to work through as I realized that I had a polyamorous nature in terms of relationships, but not particularly in a sexual context. I'm not keen AT ALL with other males around while actually getting sexual, but am also very comfortable with socializing with a partner's significant other(s) outside of active sexual context. There is a distinctive need for openness and painstaking honesty with self and others in such matters that comes very naturally to me. I do not particularly desire, and so don't seek, to be with more than 1 partner at a time in a sexual context. It's not like I think I'd mind, pretty sure I'd enjoy the challenge in fact, but it doesn't matter enough to attempt to act towards and hasn't come up otherwise. Not sure where this puts me on like a "polyamory spectrum" or something, but it's not quite "cis" for sure.

What I don't have is a sexual identity built around being "poly" or anything else for that matter other than heterosexual. I can find a male personally attractive, acknowledge physical beauty, admire ability, and love one in the brotherly sense, but I have yet to feel like I'd like to "get on that". I really don't expect that I ever will.  My sexuality is not a big part of my identity overall in fact, but an important one to be sure.

Now some folks find themselves and swiftly build an ID around their new found attributes. After much observation of identity "converts" of various sorts I've come to simply accept that the kinda teen like behavior is almost universal in the early stages. I suspect, in most unscientific fashion, that it's some sort of neurological throwback to the last time most folks "discovered themselves" around puberty. It's notably common in ideological conversion and personal discovery alike. Thing is, a sexual personal discovery is often at odds with ideology that's been loaded into the brain since childhood by parentage and various social constructs. The ideology is a 3rd+ circuit program, and a genuine personal discovery is likely a "hardwired" 1st AND 2nd circuit instinct previously suppressed by said ideology or simply unexpressed previously. A period of potentially obnoxious catharsis and social realignment is inevitable in those that wisely, healthily drop the ideology in favor of accepting who and what they are.

It's still annoying to those that have already been there, did that, and moved on. I get that for sure!

I can sympathize with the experience, it's the delusion that the fine details of the experience are so important to the public knowledge base that they need to blog the process-- usually while taking a sort of elder-sibling-dispensing-advice tone-- that I find ridiculous.

I got lost when you started talking about circuits with numbers... I haven't read those books because they were hopelessly boring pseudopsychology.

I'll give you that on the pseudoscience and boring shit, but once understood I've found it's not a useless way to view cognition.

1st circuit is the raw survival and reproduction instincts. It's pure instinct without ANY cognitive action and informs "higher circuit" functions on a deeply unconscious level.
2nd is the territorial instinct. The point where you begin to see an organism actively, if not necessarily consciously, respond to the environment and other organisms and set boundaries.
3rd is the kind of cognition common to higher animals. That is to say concept communication and, in humans, language and names. Dogs, for example, have a weak version of this but can understand a humans commands after proper training, though grasping context is rare.

The model is unscientific to be sure, but perceiving the functions of the mind in this way is very useful for training behavior. Martial artists, salespeople, leaders, or anyone with a vested interest in understanding, anticipating, or instilling "thoughtless" reactions can make use of this QUITE ancient art. The "circuit model" is merely an attempt to scientifically describe it, but the mind and it's functions cannot be quantified objectively as far as I know. If so it will never be science, but it doesn't have to be to have effect.

Oh, no, I wasn't asking you to explain. I have no interest.

Ah! See I had only explained thinking that you wished to understand what I was talking about with all that jargon. I will not presume that you want or require one unless asked in the future. Is all good.

[The Wizard Joseph]

Yeah, the scale of the complex hit me when I saw the pic. You don't need cranes. You need jet packs!

What I need is a better road up the mountain.  Given the political climate, I should get the money for that sometime next century.

Any chance of the Nation giving a kick back donation for any possible milspec trucks they might turn around and sell internationally? Or would that be crossing the line into fraud?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yeah, the scale of the complex hit me when I saw the pic. You don't need cranes. You need jet packs!

What I need is a better road up the mountain.  Given the political climate, I should get the money for that sometime next century.

Any chance of the Nation giving a kick back donation for any possible milspec trucks they might turn around and sell internationally? Or would that be crossing the line into fraud?

That would in fact be illegal, both by federal law and the nation's laws.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The one cranky thing I kind of want to post on my Facebook wall but won't (unlike most of the cranky things I say, which go right on up there) is that I find almost all poly bloggers tedious as fuck. Like, are they seriously so totally un-self-aware that they don't realize that they aren't blogging because they have profound insights on love and life, but because they are processing their own inner conflict between what they think is expected of them and what they want?

The experiences of love and romance are deep and new and profound to the ones experiencing them, but they are very nearly universal, which is why people have been, effectively, journaling them through art and literature since those things took root as a form of human cultural transmission. Almost without fail these blogs read like the diary of a 14-year-old who has just had her first romantic experience and is still trying to sort out what all the feelings mean and whether they're OK; the detailed histories of their first meeting, the examinations of the emotional responses, the dialogue, the weighted, almost mystical importance given to mundane and trivial events.

Most of all, the sense of significance running through the whole narrative; the significance of the experience, of the writer, of the discovery of polyamory, of actually caring about and fucking more than one person at a time, and of the narration itself; the complete inability to take a step back and realize that none of these experiences are new on a human scale, none of them are groundbreaking, and that ultimately these blogs are as boring, banal, and commonplace as a teenager's angsty diary or any middle-aged adult's midlife crisis; and that essentially they are blogging instead of talking to their therapist, who would do them the favor of explaining to them that it's OK and that everything they are experiencing is normal and fine, and maybe would even suggest that they pick up a copy of the Joy of Sex, the original with the hairy hippies copulating in hand-drawn illustrations, so that they could finally understand that their parents already had this revolution and everything is going to be okay.

See I can sympathize with that a bit. I had a bit of internal reconciliation to work through as I realized that I had a polyamorous nature in terms of relationships, but not particularly in a sexual context. I'm not keen AT ALL with other males around while actually getting sexual, but am also very comfortable with socializing with a partner's significant other(s) outside of active sexual context. There is a distinctive need for openness and painstaking honesty with self and others in such matters that comes very naturally to me. I do not particularly desire, and so don't seek, to be with more than 1 partner at a time in a sexual context. It's not like I think I'd mind, pretty sure I'd enjoy the challenge in fact, but it doesn't matter enough to attempt to act towards and hasn't come up otherwise. Not sure where this puts me on like a "polyamory spectrum" or something, but it's not quite "cis" for sure.

What I don't have is a sexual identity built around being "poly" or anything else for that matter other than heterosexual. I can find a male personally attractive, acknowledge physical beauty, admire ability, and love one in the brotherly sense, but I have yet to feel like I'd like to "get on that". I really don't expect that I ever will.  My sexuality is not a big part of my identity overall in fact, but an important one to be sure.

Now some folks find themselves and swiftly build an ID around their new found attributes. After much observation of identity "converts" of various sorts I've come to simply accept that the kinda teen like behavior is almost universal in the early stages. I suspect, in most unscientific fashion, that it's some sort of neurological throwback to the last time most folks "discovered themselves" around puberty. It's notably common in ideological conversion and personal discovery alike. Thing is, a sexual personal discovery is often at odds with ideology that's been loaded into the brain since childhood by parentage and various social constructs. The ideology is a 3rd+ circuit program, and a genuine personal discovery is likely a "hardwired" 1st AND 2nd circuit instinct previously suppressed by said ideology or simply unexpressed previously. A period of potentially obnoxious catharsis and social realignment is inevitable in those that wisely, healthily drop the ideology in favor of accepting who and what they are.

It's still annoying to those that have already been there, did that, and moved on. I get that for sure!

I can sympathize with the experience, it's the delusion that the fine details of the experience are so important to the public knowledge base that they need to blog the process-- usually while taking a sort of elder-sibling-dispensing-advice tone-- that I find ridiculous.

I got lost when you started talking about circuits with numbers... I haven't read those books because they were hopelessly boring pseudopsychology.

I'll give you that on the pseudoscience and boring shit, but once understood I've found it's not a useless way to view cognition.

1st circuit is the raw survival and reproduction instincts. It's pure instinct without ANY cognitive action and informs "higher circuit" functions on a deeply unconscious level.
2nd is the territorial instinct. The point where you begin to see an organism actively, if not necessarily consciously, respond to the environment and other organisms and set boundaries.
3rd is the kind of cognition common to higher animals. That is to say concept communication and, in humans, language and names. Dogs, for example, have a weak version of this but can understand a humans commands after proper training, though grasping context is rare.

The model is unscientific to be sure, but perceiving the functions of the mind in this way is very useful for training behavior. Martial artists, salespeople, leaders, or anyone with a vested interest in understanding, anticipating, or instilling "thoughtless" reactions can make use of this QUITE ancient art. The "circuit model" is merely an attempt to scientifically describe it, but the mind and it's functions cannot be quantified objectively as far as I know. If so it will never be science, but it doesn't have to be to have effect.

Oh, no, I wasn't asking you to explain. I have no interest.

Ah! See I had only explained thinking that you wished to understand what I was talking about with all that jargon. I will not presume that you want or require one unless asked in the future. Is all good.

That is very kind! It's just that it's impossible to get around the "hopelessly boring" part of hopelessly boring pseudopsychology.

[The Wizard Joseph]

The one cranky thing I kind of want to post on my Facebook wall but won't (unlike most of the cranky things I say, which go right on up there) is that I find almost all poly bloggers tedious as fuck. Like, are they seriously so totally un-self-aware that they don't realize that they aren't blogging because they have profound insights on love and life, but because they are processing their own inner conflict between what they think is expected of them and what they want?

The experiences of love and romance are deep and new and profound to the ones experiencing them, but they are very nearly universal, which is why people have been, effectively, journaling them through art and literature since those things took root as a form of human cultural transmission. Almost without fail these blogs read like the diary of a 14-year-old who has just had her first romantic experience and is still trying to sort out what all the feelings mean and whether they're OK; the detailed histories of their first meeting, the examinations of the emotional responses, the dialogue, the weighted, almost mystical importance given to mundane and trivial events.

Most of all, the sense of significance running through the whole narrative; the significance of the experience, of the writer, of the discovery of polyamory, of actually caring about and fucking more than one person at a time, and of the narration itself; the complete inability to take a step back and realize that none of these experiences are new on a human scale, none of them are groundbreaking, and that ultimately these blogs are as boring, banal, and commonplace as a teenager's angsty diary or any middle-aged adult's midlife crisis; and that essentially they are blogging instead of talking to their therapist, who would do them the favor of explaining to them that it's OK and that everything they are experiencing is normal and fine, and maybe would even suggest that they pick up a copy of the Joy of Sex, the original with the hairy hippies copulating in hand-drawn illustrations, so that they could finally understand that their parents already had this revolution and everything is going to be okay.

See I can sympathize with that a bit. I had a bit of internal reconciliation to work through as I realized that I had a polyamorous nature in terms of relationships, but not particularly in a sexual context. I'm not keen AT ALL with other males around while actually getting sexual, but am also very comfortable with socializing with a partner's significant other(s) outside of active sexual context. There is a distinctive need for openness and painstaking honesty with self and others in such matters that comes very naturally to me. I do not particularly desire, and so don't seek, to be with more than 1 partner at a time in a sexual context. It's not like I think I'd mind, pretty sure I'd enjoy the challenge in fact, but it doesn't matter enough to attempt to act towards and hasn't come up otherwise. Not sure where this puts me on like a "polyamory spectrum" or something, but it's not quite "cis" for sure.

What I don't have is a sexual identity built around being "poly" or anything else for that matter other than heterosexual. I can find a male personally attractive, acknowledge physical beauty, admire ability, and love one in the brotherly sense, but I have yet to feel like I'd like to "get on that". I really don't expect that I ever will.  My sexuality is not a big part of my identity overall in fact, but an important one to be sure.

Now some folks find themselves and swiftly build an ID around their new found attributes. After much observation of identity "converts" of various sorts I've come to simply accept that the kinda teen like behavior is almost universal in the early stages. I suspect, in most unscientific fashion, that it's some sort of neurological throwback to the last time most folks "discovered themselves" around puberty. It's notably common in ideological conversion and personal discovery alike. Thing is, a sexual personal discovery is often at odds with ideology that's been loaded into the brain since childhood by parentage and various social constructs. The ideology is a 3rd+ circuit program, and a genuine personal discovery is likely a "hardwired" 1st AND 2nd circuit instinct previously suppressed by said ideology or simply unexpressed previously. A period of potentially obnoxious catharsis and social realignment is inevitable in those that wisely, healthily drop the ideology in favor of accepting who and what they are.

It's still annoying to those that have already been there, did that, and moved on. I get that for sure!

I can sympathize with the experience, it's the delusion that the fine details of the experience are so important to the public knowledge base that they need to blog the process-- usually while taking a sort of elder-sibling-dispensing-advice tone-- that I find ridiculous.

I got lost when you started talking about circuits with numbers... I haven't read those books because they were hopelessly boring pseudopsychology.

I'll give you that on the pseudoscience and boring shit, but once understood I've found it's not a useless way to view cognition.

1st circuit is the raw survival and reproduction instincts. It's pure instinct without ANY cognitive action and informs "higher circuit" functions on a deeply unconscious level.
2nd is the territorial instinct. The point where you begin to see an organism actively, if not necessarily consciously, respond to the environment and other organisms and set boundaries.
3rd is the kind of cognition common to higher animals. That is to say concept communication and, in humans, language and names. Dogs, for example, have a weak version of this but can understand a humans commands after proper training, though grasping context is rare.

The model is unscientific to be sure, but perceiving the functions of the mind in this way is very useful for training behavior. Martial artists, salespeople, leaders, or anyone with a vested interest in understanding, anticipating, or instilling "thoughtless" reactions can make use of this QUITE ancient art. The "circuit model" is merely an attempt to scientifically describe it, but the mind and it's functions cannot be quantified objectively as far as I know. If so it will never be science, but it doesn't have to be to have effect.

Oh, no, I wasn't asking you to explain. I have no interest.

Ah! See I had only explained thinking that you wished to understand what I was talking about with all that jargon. I will not presume that you want or require one unless asked in the future. Is all good.

That is very kind! It's just that it's impossible to get around the "hopelessly boring" part of hopelessly boring pseudopsychology.

I may yet attempt to re-express the thought without the jargon. It's not really necessary, it was just what came to mind at the time.

[The Wizard Joseph]

Yeah, the scale of the complex hit me when I saw the pic. You don't need cranes. You need jet packs!

What I need is a better road up the mountain.  Given the political climate, I should get the money for that sometime next century.

Any chance of the Nation giving a kick back donation for any possible milspec trucks they might turn around and sell internationally? Or would that be crossing the line into fraud?

That would in fact be illegal, both by federal law and the nation's laws.

People are trying to Science dammit!!

[Meunster]

A guy was following me for like 10 miles today.

So I went around a round about until he lost interest.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Someone's trying to get into my Facebook account.

HOW ODD.