Literary Stick Figures –The Remedialization of Modern Linguistic Prose

Literary Stick Figures –The Remedialization of Modern Linguistic Prose

If a picture “is worth 1000 words”, are “1000 words worth a picture” ?

 

Show a man a stick figure, constructed of 5 lines and a circle. It’s a pretty simple concept, right? Well of course it is, because who hasn’t seen a stick figure?  And therefore I’ll bet that we only need an amuse- bouche, not even an Hors d'oeuvre of words to describe the stick figure. Let’s try an imaginary empirical use case involving test subject “Bob”.  We clarify that our test subject knows very little about anything, and sees the world only through his own eye.  So here goes:

Comments U.R.B.A.D.

Comments U.R.B.A.D.

I think that I may have discovered that my comments feature may not be working. Unless of course ever since the all-power and mighty G bought Blogger they have introduced an Commentary Anti-Narcissism Trammel( C.A.N.T.), or possibly a User Response Banality and Denial (U.R.B.A.D.) protocol, since in their opinion, leaving comments for yourself must be Evil, and since the "greatest super-power on earth and beyond"( in their collective opinion) made their first Commandment of Internetity:"Don't be Evil", the second most important action was of course to ensure that their will was exacted: Judge, Jury, Technology

From the Archives 2009: Remember when Twitter was still a Novel Idea? And as such, a mechanism to Annhiliate the results of Twittering was needed, and Fast. Here was my thought at the time...

Unexpected Applications of Physics in a Social Media world where Viral “stuff” is believed to overcome the laws of nature….

From the Archives 2009: Remember when Twitter was still a Novel Idea?  And as such, a mechanism to Annihilate the results of Twittering was needed, and Fast.  Here was my thought at the time...NOTE – I never had time to finish this though piece, it is a interesting view on the subject, and I am well aware that it was never concluded or edited, so yes, it has as many holes as Swiss has cheese, so I welcome all contributions.

From the Archives: Remember when Twitter was still a Novel Idea?

Want and Desire: Misunderstood and Universally Accepted

Want and Desire: Misunderstood and Universally Accepted

I recently came across a debate regarding “want and desire”.  This is the sort of semantically accepted explanation for motivations and their subsequent actions that troubles me a bit.  Want and Desire are Results, are outputs from very basic psychological equations.  Wants and Desires are not in themselves foundational variables in these equations, and this concept is so often left unconsidered, that the resulting impact is the complete and utter lack of understanding in regards to human behavior.   

"Mean Aversion": Avoidance of all that has become "the new normal"

[ Sorry, it's a bad joke if you happen to be a Finacial Engineer familiar with Mean Reversion]

The infectious ubiquity of that, which already exists, contains enough viral inversion to comprehensively vaccinate the "Mean" contributor such that the remission of symptomatic innovations is inoculated so thoroughly that the sick get healthier and "healthier" becomes so synthetically conceptualized that it is forcefully emancipated from the essence of original thought catalysts.

You say WHAT? But I actually said it first.

The Time Before Time:

The Time Before Time:

"If man made time, would that not suggest that before the age of man, there was no linear sequence of events that could be expressed in some other way than: **all happening at once? **

Thinking about Thinking: How many humans does it take to create a Thought Event?

To begin: Something I have written about in other forums…The Cogito.

Part I

Cogito Ergo Sum – I think therefore I am.   Am what?  What has this “thinker” become?  And is Thinking an atomic level Essence indivisible from “I am”.  Applied to humans, the implication is certainly that without Thinking, you are Not.  But again, Not What? Human?