Dawkins hypcrite!

[i don't wanna see that name again but it keeps propping up]

when people say evolution has no place for god
that's a laughable statement because it includes its own definition

there is no absolute

and because humans can not express that they fall into paradoxes
i can only create my own little absolute and uncompromising intransigent universe for my own defenses
but that's as far as the walls of my cube and paralilepiped

does that give us an inkling?

of source some will say this is the length of the language

but the language evolved out of the brain as a meta-function whose that based on?

and the paradox goes on

i can look at myself and i can look at myself looking at myself and i can look at myself at looking at myself at looking at myself
is that gonna lead to madness?
you sure bet it is


let the fish come out of the water and the animals be and forget about the gods
and gods delusions

rusionalist

the rationalists speak rationally about the rational

the allusionists speak in allusions about what cannot be said rationally

thus the allusionists seem to talk about a superset of what the rationalists talk about
they even accept the rationalist approach (proof etc) in the part that is rationalist

then why can't the rationalists make the leap?

of course there is the issue of the ego

but the ego has already been broken  from the allusionist side

the only answer is that they do accept it but do not publicly admit it


don't we all have something  we won't admit publicly?

Like i would say that i went to the prostitutes

"i went to the prostitutes you guys!"

"man you need help"

cog

"you do an empirical study and you get an empirical result"

isn't that bizarre?

i guess that cognitive thinker won't take his pills tonight

because the experiments were done on mice and only a limited number of people

of course it could be a provocative title
it won't hook me
to see at the very last line that his opinion is exactly the opposite

those cognitive scientists have some kind of preciousness for their brain

criticise - eulogize

όταν είσαι απέξω criticize

όταν είσαι από μέσα eulogize

analysis

the analysis of noticing-not noticing something is psychological in its basis: say you are in a bus if you are in a certain mood mode you will not notice anybody but if something disrupts and scratches through your attention you will notice : a  that guy is with the beard that lady is with the bags in her hands

the same with relationships

when you are in love enamoured with somebody you don't notice (or if you have that brain you will but pass off) the little imperfections when the relationship breaks down you notice them ( and they become big)

the same with a tv presenter (or an actor)
when they are in tune with themselves you are all focused upon it  on them

when they lose that in-tuneness lose their concentration the focus falls on the background on their clothing on the speckles on their face
(and the production manager or edit-manager or what's his name the person who switches with camera is to be viewed
is quick to notice
or  sometimes they don't or they won't change the camera
and the situation becomes awkward you will be forced to tun your attention somewhere else change the channel talk to the person next of you or something

when you like a given singer you are not bothered by the little imperfections in their voice or the false notes they produce

[
what's the thing  that breaks in the other person that makes the relationship breakdown?

in an equipment that is visible easily

a hair dryer breaks down because a pin somewhere broke

some people  call that then a piece of garbage or a "piece of crap" some will call it a-non-working-hair-dyer

of course if you don't get a scrap of how things work you will not know you will simply declare the thing doesn't work

now there must be pin in a person that breaks down for the whole relationship to them to break down

it's the un-in-tuness as  a general principle but can we locate and make visible the pin?

if you are in a bus the whole world may broken down around you and you could still be immune to it
a slight hair may move and your attention is disrupted

now we get into psychology territory what you expect to hear /see and what you expect to avoid

humans are a lot more complicated "machines" and we don't know whether they are complete in and of themselves so it's harder to locate the pin

it may be even a simple nerve cell that dislocates or put into misuse temporarily for flip second

well then we can locate the pin to a fine grain or as fine grain as we can

is that our whole purpose?

is that still a hair dryer?

different people will answer differently

in its absolute sense it's not because it's not a complete working hairdryer
part of it is missing that pin has broken into two or has been misplaced been gotten of the hook

it has become a mere thing according to heidegger's approach which is not far from commonsense

"give me that thing" or "throw that thing to the garbage"

thus from equipment has been demoted to thing

(the greek poet Solomos wrote in 19th century (loose translation):
poor dark rifle
I have you in my hand
you've become a burden to me
and the opponent knows it
[έρμο ντουφέκι σκοτεινό
που σ' έχω δω στο χέρι
όπου συ μού 'γινες βαρύ
κι ο αγαρηνός το ξέρει]
(anything that we can't use (for the purpose it was created for) when needed (broken relationship?) becomes a burden))

we are talking of a change in nature of thing  equipment to thing

can you restore it? yes

to its initial working or to a different working
that's not because it by itself changed itself

but because you intervened and changed its structure and possibly its function/working

thus a man-made object cannot change (by itself) can only be changed, by its master

I don't know what is hidden in a hammer
maybe the umbilical cord that connects it to the great-beyond
the great-darkness that we came from


then we have the self-modifying machine ( i remember the self-modifying programs in LISP)

we supply them a logic and they can choose from a range of possibilities

did they invent their logic of their own?

the master supplied the logic (and if they do 'invent' logic, that is based on the seed already provided to them - so the question leads to the usual question "who started first")


sometimes the relationship wears down
as with equipment

and reveals the nothingness that exists under it
no relation is complete to an absoluteness

none that we can prove in our limited time

some relationships have some strong hooks (a couple of them) that keep them in place and intact
despite the turbulence and the disruptions

some are just kept there for reasons of nothing else to do

like the hairdryer that you keep lying there because you can't feel to throw it away

in some cases this develops into a facile relationship (some may call it fetish-ization but it may go beyond that)

but in any case it's a non-working  thing
your relationship to it may still work (exist) at some  facile level
]

of course when the presenter is head on there is no choice but to show her
and the presenter is less likely to be disrupted as there are no others in the discussion
but it can happen the flow of text doesn't fit them well or the card guy makes the eyes on them

the attention can be disrupted at any moment so out intuneness with our selves is constantly threatened to be broken

then we have to switch to a different mode / mood

if we are successful at doing that (it happens automatically with most people)

otherwise we will be picked on by the others "is everything ok???"

jazz-rock

jazz fusion or jazz rock has that electric guitar which messes things around
jazz rock is messed up jazz
perhaps it allows lower parts of the brain to work up

it doesn't have that sheen of winds which may become stilted at times and non accepted

and you have that cheesey keyboards

or angular ones

chick corea is too angular as his face  proclaims
although we accept that he has his own unique style and he puts it forth

as you slide more towards the rock you get more of the potato-heads

like Holdsworth

his sound is ok and his picking

but his technique? what is that practicing exercises for the young guitarist?

essentially we are talking about virtuosos and nothing more

a + b = x

- that's what the mathematicians mean when they say return to first principles
- Ah that's what they mean?!
  But what is a and what is b?
- ah that's what we have to figure out

 he stopped short 

- he stopped short of describing
- describing what?
- that's what he didn't say
- hmm it seems he described the whole thing then

painting

sometimes I'm thinking we should do away  get rid of all the labels that are one level above the ground

what is this? this is painting (poussin)

what is this? painting and sculpture (rauschenberg)

art is snicky business

painting? it's paint liquid

nobody doesn't know what liquid means

because if you are one level above the ground you still see the ground the ground is still in view
if you go more the view is lost

of course you'll say you can bend your neck and tilt and twist and turn yourself and still see the ground (from that 7th floor)

that's tricky business
that's magic tricks
you earn yourself a place in eternity
but you don't earn eternity
you are einstein who reinvents the square law

[did he tell us that the universe is governed by a third power law?
cube vs square
3 dimensional space 2 dimensional equation power-1

well he invented a lot of other things...
that's what he is known for isn't he that's what his popularity is based on
you need a con-carde a symbol
a good name-tag and a smiling personality and off you go

that's what popularity means

as for essence..we will have to rely on others]

you are riehmann who bends the space

that's why women/females (appear) to have a 2-level structure a big mama in the center and the surrounding workresses

while the ego is high flying

(that's a high flying hypothesis)

or you could see that as a center and its circle
or you would be playing with words


or may be concentric circles

isn't that the same as hierarchy levels?


there may be some experimental evidence for that somewhere

of course women are not the same as men and the functioning would be different

the extreme feminism would have it that all be equal externally
but how can it be equal externally and unequal internally that's a contradiction and absurdity

some of the extreme feminism is for laughs (I did laugh out spontaneously once on a claim by a feminist)

i have an inkling that that's what we mean by circles of influence

the queen (of England that is) does not have the same aquaintance with all and each layer of aquaintance has a different influence on her

that's not an all-women but it's what we mean here

how would the queen delegate jobs to her circles (and what jobs)

it's not a realistic case since it runs on vapour but it has a realistic simile and has a remnant of old structure
that was real at one point

some will say this runs on already male structure and thus you can't make anything out of it
accepted we can only make...inklings

for the real thing we will have to go to some matriarchal society of the past / or present

it seems to me concentric circles lie on the plane and the pyramid runs the height (it's a phalic resemblance but it's not our concern)

perhaps the different circles don't report to the immediate succeeding circle but directly to the centre or maybe they do

whether concentric circles or pyramid it's the same layered delegating of tasks (I don't think the myth that everybody is doing the same task in the circle except the queen who oversees stands the chance of reasoning

in simple societies yes
the same could be said about males all the hunters and the chief
as things became more complex so the structure of the group had to be more complex - whether in men or women

so I'm busting the myth of multilayerism as being avert to females
that's not true females can have the same layers of ordering and commandeering and delegation of power

whether it's vertical or horizontal

i'm almost sure people will come back and develop them again

the fake dog

we are not gonna chase the fake dog
or the dog
the dog doesn't need chasing

the Big Dog is there
immovable

2010

in 2080 or 30
the accepted modes of common expression will say

in 2010 everybody had a blog

and they shouted away

what of it?

the trash bin

i don't believe in magic tricks
the world out there is as phantom as we are
lest we put ourselves in a high pedestal
we reserve for ourselves a special place
that's nonsense

and all the philosophical theories that are based on that are smashed into the head
like the vase with a hammer

those who still believe in that have the tendency to believe in sci fiction
are turned on by it or turn to it

i have a special place for science fiction

the trash bin

supreme

the supreme court uses a technicality to support its argument

the supreme leader uses a technical detail to support his ego

isn't that the nature of things?

the nature of things is not clockwork

And The Supreme Nonsense follows

Πάνου - Λύδια - Στανίση

η Πόλυ Πάνου μπορεί να σε ρίξει κάτω
η Λύδια μπορεί να σε ανυψώσει (στα επουράνια)
η Στανίση μπορεί να σου στρίψει το λαιμό (αν σε βρει στην κατάλληλη στιγμή)

προφανώς οι περισσότεροι προτιμούν την ανύψωση

αν και οι άλλες τρεις καταστάσεις είναι γόνιμες και υπαρκτές

The Powers of 2 and Why They Are Divisible by 2

[of course that's the provocative title which tries to obscure the answer that it gives
it's not a one thing it has two parts and the second tries to obscure the first
so a subdivision into two is necessary to discover the truth

subdivision into two ad infinitum?

of course the other way is to meld two into one
and they better be real not fony ones

ideally complimentary

here we have the evil intent to dissimulate by combining a straight statement with an evil dissimulatory one i guess that what the church calls the devil

you try to glue together two broken pieces of the same original one

not combine two pretentiously constructed elements

good vs evil

god and devil

or at least one is pretentiously constructed

and the melding of the two leads NOWHERE]

i wonder if that's what the salesmen mean when they say this beat up old car is brand new


ah the power of dissimulation

to make it appear

the appearance is the appearance

everybody gets the same perception / appearance (we will assume the retina is the same for all for now)

but how and where it is processed in the brain changes
]

i was thinking how to find a number that gives the longest possible division into 2 without being of course a power of two

i'm sure there is a theory somewhere developed or about to be developed or

we don't want the high brainy math
we want to keep it to the ground. you get me?


you got to start with an even number
because if you start with an odd you lost right off the bat

all powers of 2 have the pattern 2 4 8 6 2 4 8 6

in their rightmost digits

but then what?

what comes next to their left viccinity?

has it to be an even or an odd?

2 divided by 2 gives 1 so that loses right there if it also has an even to the left (which will be divided even to some number and leave no repercussions left for its rightmost friend)

so then you need an odd left to 2

such as 12 32 52 92: all divide to an even number so we still have hope for further subdivisions

what of the 4 he needs an even to its left otherwise he will fall into the odd hole when divided by two:

e.g. 14 -> 7

while 24 -> 12

and so on

and it doesn't matter what next the subdivision is guaranteed

112 -> 56

212 -> 106

now if you want two further subdivisions we got to choose a partner

an odd gives better subdivisions 112 56 28 14 7
212 106 53

and what if you chose 3 in the previous round to pair your 2

32

132 66 33
232 116 58 29

so that obviously has to do a lot

i'll stop right there since my brain is burning

and i'll go to a secluded place where there is no turning back
unless somebody hits me with a hammer in the head

and 2112 gives you a lot more repetitions subdivisions than 1112

obviously that has to do with the peculiarities of the numbering system

if you got a system with 3 digits 1 2 3 (ok and the 0)
2 would be 2 3 3
but then 4 is
10

oh jee that throws off my whole sceptics
but for the number 10 numbering system you get what you get


the other approach would be to ask how near to a perfect power of 2 it would have to be or how far

112 is closer to 128 than 212 (and 212 is closer to 256 then)
but 114 is closer and 114 -> 57 and that's it you fall into a hole

where in the landscape of numbers (whole numbers that is) would they be located?

it appears there are some "sweet" spots

let's try and graph these

and here for some higher intensity

(these are not normalized; i don't care for that)


we see the sweet spots are periodically populated  (the black is the abyss of the odd numbers)

see the dump see the vector of occurrences

c [1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 5, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 6, 1,
2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 5, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 7, 1, 2, 1,
3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 5, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 6, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2,
1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 5, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 8, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1,
2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 5, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 6, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3,
1, 2, 1, 5, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 7, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1,
5, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 6, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 5, 1, 2,
1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 9, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 5, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1,
2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 6, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 5, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4,
1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 7, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 5, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3,
1, 2, 1, 6, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 5, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 8,
1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 5, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 6, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1,
2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 5, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 7, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2,
1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 5, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 6, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1,
5, 1, 2, 1,  ]

you see the 9 in the middle for 512


that could be described by a recursive

it has the self similar of the fractalness

it abhorrs me to see these nice slithery pictures

we are creating a shiny surface here
and we leave the 2's and the 1's to live their lifes

το κακο

το κακο δεν αργει να συμβει
και δε συμβαινει σε  συγκεκριμενη χρονικη στιγμή
το κακο συμβαινει οποτε του αρεσει αυτο
και μπορει να συμβει σε οποιο χρονικο διαστημα όσο μικρο κι αν ειναι αυτο

September

with the first rain of September
everything becomes calm even for a moment

let yourself walk bare in the rain
for a few seconds
maybe you connect to the animal inside you

ears

"to all those with ears to hear"
sure that sounds a little defensivy to me
that's the humanly aspect
he was not a saint
do yo want to make him a saint?

do you see your self as a saint?
i'm sure you are as hideous in your private life as anyone of us

no matter the facade you stand

what are we gonna say about all the garbage of you
who voted for the iraq war?

prove that you have an intellect my friend

and stop hiding under your professorial desk

100

if you get 1 in 30 to vote down you will think
is this gonna stay the same or in 3000 votes i'll get 100 down?

 you have to have a representative sample

who is gonna guarantee me a  represntative sample?

if you do these and these you will decrease the probability of ..
and increase the probability of ...

it's a more or less then
a pat in the back "good job"

go to hell

a philosopher should be reserved for the very general subjects
being truth and maybe a few others such as limits to knowledge consciousness although that starts already going in the psychology direction

if you start epistemology of science and epistemology of brick layering

everyone is a philosopher and nobody will do philosophy as the old gnomic goes

"whats wrong with categorizing philosophers?

Nothing!

in fact the ego starts overtaking you without even realizing it

and you can't do anything about it

you can fight it
but you can't punch it out of existence

if you come to your senses you will think its embarrassing
what does "come to your senses" mean?

the culturally epilayer?
and what does "embarrassing" mean? something that doesn't conform to the others

some people have a 1000 followers and some 2
i wonder if jesus from nazareth had 12 or 15 followers
or were they the crowd (if that was a crowd) who amassed to hear him his followers?


to me clear and precise thinking is
we put down our penises and see whose is longer

does that constitute a man ?
surely it's part of your personality your being

but is that you?

it's a vantage point

and as with all vantage points it has its pros and cons

the pro is that you get exact and precise measurements
the con is you don't really get a sense or even a meaning what is

phase

it's a phase now we attack ourselves
now it's a phase we attack others

it's a phase now i attack myself
now it's a phase i attack others

and thus discredit myself
isn't that the teleology of all?
the obliteration of the self?

β

- βρωμάν τα χνώτα του
- γιατί:
- από τη στατικότητα
  όταν αποφασίσει κάτι δεν το αλλάζει με τίποτα
  είναι σαν πεθαμένος που αρχίσει να σαπίζει
  και τα μυρμήγκια μαζεύονται τριγύρω του

ανόητα

όλα ωραία και καλά
όλοι λέμε τα ίδια ωραία λόγια

αυτοί έχουν την εξουσία και χαμογελάνε
εμείς χαμογελάμε ανόητα

air

Edward Burns wow that guy is full of air

when i watched it a few years back it didn't notice on me
now bang it hits me the face his brain works at a different level than his seeming acting

he has a big bunch of air in him while the other guys are compact
I don't know if it's the air of the conceit or the air of the director or something else

I don't know what's with all those directors who want to be actors as well

at least woody allen makes a complete orangutan of him self  (lest we forget he was a standup comic) and thus keeps entertaining

spare me a moment

the Big-bangers and I solely mean the physicists who believe in such a moronic theory
do they mean that as a hyperbatic moment?
then it's well-respected it's another name for it
let's build a temple for it

do they man that in real space?
then the question becomes what came before it?
"well then we have to consider..."
give me a crap spare me a monent

0

the world we live
is the initial moment where everything happened simultaneously and thus for time 0's
sequential unfolding

clarinet

LeMont Young's drones are the only ones that have provably (that is repeatably) caused me headaches

there are other musics that would drive me nuts if i hear them again (like Reich's repetitive madness)

Xenakis is ok he has his extreme points like when he squeeshes that tape or something

In fact Luc Ferrari's direct incorporation of cicada sounds, LeMont Young's drones and Xenakis abrupt music (based on the grenade fragment he suffered in his ear) have something in common as they are based in nature and seem to point to a basic drone tone that exists and may be primordial

the same in electric guitar saxophone and electric clarinet (as is employed in Greece) as a modern substitute for that primordial drone