Thursday, May 31, 2007


Lately I have been writing something of a journal on my computer. Since most of the entries are about ideas anyway, I guess I'll just paste them into my blog periodically. Here are the first three:

Thursday, May 24:

So I thought I would start a journal. I have an inkling I too much only blog weighty stuff. My daily activities and less careful everyday speculations and thoughts might also be interesting. And writing a journal might take something of excess seriousness out of my writings, which I suppose is there at times.

So what happened today? Well, yesterday I noticed that sitting beneath a cherry tree just 10 feet from the road was a robin sitting on a nest which we had noticed a few days earlier had fallen down. She looked pretty silly, and yet was easy to feel sorry for. Upon approaching the nest, she flew away, revealing the two teal colored eggs in it. I decided to try to take a movie of her, but no go. Even though I left my camera on a tripod before the nest and walked away, I guess the tripod was too scary, and so she wouldn't sit on the eggs when the camera was there. I looked up on the net recommended procedure, and followed the standard advice to put the nest back in the tree and tie it down. That's what I did.

Anyway, yesterday afternoon we would see her all confused and anxious scratching about beneath the tree bewilderedly, wondering no doubt where the nest went to. It was in the tree! Just where I tied it. I figured robins hadn't much evolved to deal with the situation of nests getting lifted into trees. So I was pleased this morning when we noticed a tail sticking out beyond the nest, and sure enough, there was the robin on the eggs again. She had found the nest! I hope I tied it down well enough that it won't turn upside down dumping out the chicks or eggs, and that no chicks will get strangled in the twine.

This morning I thought slightly about how sometimes a girl looks like she want to fuck some other girl's brains out, but because this desire is associated with her desire for a male and is quite carnal, she figures her desire must be akin to a guy wanting to screw his competitors to keep them away from his girl. Girls are turned on sexually by sharing sex with other girls, it's just the way it is--these bisexual lust feelings don't really have anything to do with abuse. In fact, I think what sometimes happens is that a girl who is the object of such aggressive lust from another girl is more than likely (if indeed she likes the same male) to want to be totally at ease and seductive about it, or at least would be if she weren't afraid the aggressive girl might accuse her of using seduction to egg her on. I suppose it seems heartbreaking to girls to have their innocent sexual desires rejected or viewed as some wily seduction to be resisted. It's weird that girls can look like they are quite sexually turned on and in love with one another, and yet presumably be too guilty and frightened to do anything about it (e.g., sleeping naked waist-to-waist at sleepovers). A shame, but then it seems rather not very sacred for me, a male, to talk about purely female matters, so it's not something I particularly want to get into discussing much. And besides, it is not the biggest deal to girls, not as big a deal as a female being true to her more important and signifcant sexual desires for a male. Anyway, it strikes me girls often mistake sexual desires for other girls with jealousy. IMO jealousy is an overrated boring and mostly irrelevant phenomenon, probably relevant basically just in your evil people, e.g., sodomizers and rapists, blatant golddiggers, etc.

A couple days ago I was reading Locke and got to thinking about something quite different that was slightly interesting, but I don't remember what it was. Yeah, there are lots of little things I think about during the day that make me think, I should just go right ahead and write about that. But they not really being very significant and weighty, I forget about them enough to a few hours later fail to have a clue what I wanted to write about. Maybe this journal will correct that.

My logic ideas I'm working on are coming pretty well, I guess. The last two things I thought about were how to define quantification--I realized my previous way of looking at it was somewhat off--and a sort of trivial idea that unary logical operators should be written next to the binary operator that immediately includes them. For instance, instead of saying "not A and not B", better to say "A not and not B". That way, "not A and not B" can unambiguously mean not (A and not B). This way of reducing parentheses (awkward during oral logical discourse) is perhaps more readable than the Polish method (which with respect to binary operations basically amounts to replacing opening parentheses for "and" (resp, "or", "implies") with "both" (resp., "either", "then"), and then erasing end parentheses (and even the operators themselves, if easy readibility is not your concern). Ha, this method I am thinking about using is akin to chiasmus and rather makes math discourse sound more like looney poetry or political dialogue. I am glad I figured out to my satisfaction a decent way of getting around my mistake about quantification. When I do notice a mistake I have made in some math idea I believe in (it can be shown that any mistake in math, no matter how trivial, makes the entire edifice of mathematics contradictory, so yeah, it's always a big deal), I can get quite gloomy about it, gloomy in a way that has something profound about it, though--I have corrected an error, thus making me more wise.

Oh yes, political dialogue. This reminds me of a little new thought I had today. Maybe people actually should think about politics more than they do because politics is one of those things that brings insane emotion that people in their ignorance don't rightly know how to avoid. It is too easy to think when thinking about politics to think about what others will think of you as opposed to what your understanding indicates as being the case. This would explain to me the strange almost sacred cool appeal to me of subjects now of practically no interest to a signifcant number people, like the history of Byzantium, the Dutch school of English grammar in the early 20th-century, or spherical geometry. But maybe it's not so strange. Only the good people are probably looney enough to find solace in forgotten obscurity, which I suppose might make the few practitioners of such fields more likable than most. And a field so far as its productions should be studied is only as good as its practitioners, right?

Sunday, May 27, 2007:

This morning I noticed the bird nest was tilting drastically. I pushed it back to horizontal and added a few pieces of twine under one end to shore it up. It is still not exactly satisfactory. If I notice any more tilting, I'll probably use wire next time to give it even more support underneath. There are now three eggs in the nest.

Yesterday I bought two books at Barnes and Noble. All on Fire, a book on William Lloyd Garrison and The Metaphysical Club, a book about how American philosophy developed after the Civil War. Actually, I am interested in the latter precisely because I am struck by how bad American philosophical thought was during that era, and I want to know why. Why would anyone think William James otherwise than ridiculous?

Thursday, May 31, 2007:

Something I have noticed is that the few really cool girls I have observed tend to look very likable and upper class. Mostly money is overrated, but it would appear that being wealthy is useful when it comes to being cool. Somehow I don't understand this. One might equally think really cool girls would tend to be from families where parents have had to struggle. After all, one gains wisdom in how to stay cool by being experienced with how to stay cool in trying circumstances. This is why veteran soldiers can fight more coolly than new recruits. Anyway, occasionally one encounters girls cool and smooth as silky cream, and they mostly always look like they have had priviledged backgrounds, and even as though they went to private high school, etc. As for not particularly likeable girls, I can't really sense more coolness in girls raised poor than wealthy. I guess that suggests a partial explanation. There is a strong correlation in the rich between moral virtue and being clear-headed about what to fear, the tendency to look at poverty itself as disgusting having a strong association with a snobishness suggestive of moral shortcomings. It occurs to me now (hmm, I vaguely remember having had this thought maybe nine months ago) that having travelled greatly (which requires money, of course) is probably the other explanation; probably having travelled much to weird places and returned alive and unscatched gives a sense of perspective that encourages calmness. Or it may be something different, e.g., not having any reason to fear going hungry may encourage one to eat with greater sacredness and regard for taste, and fresh produce tends to be pricey.

Another thing I was thinking of is how high class glamour fashion in a way is better than fashion for poor people. Indeed, intrinsically fashion when it comes to clothes, etc., is about attracting people who don't know you well, who more tend to be people outside your social circle. Thus, fashion is intrinsically anti-snobby and something to be admired. But fashion for rich people in a way is better than fashion for the poor, because there is something unselfish about rich people who care about their appearance to those outside their social set--these would tend to be those more willing to not mate for money. But poor people who are into fashion may partly be into fashion because they want to attract rich people outside their social class, which could be less unselfish.

Models are cool, as is clothes fashion generally. The bad thing about fashion modeling is that it seems to attract many male homosexuals and people with addiction problems. Quite generally, people who go into artistic professions are at greater risk of getting sodomized, because sodomy affects the emotions and so sodomizers tend to go for that sort. Also males properly care less than females about how they look, probably because females tend not to make the first move in relationships and so they have less occasion for judging by appearance to be useful. Males are good at judging by appearances, though. I know what I like, but probably wouldn't be very good at thinking up a style or imagining what it would look like before it be made.

The other girly thing I can think of that I like that might make some people think me unmanly (tssk, tssk), is that I like the way girls exercise. When I exercise there is a sense I want to feel like a girl feels when she exercises--a very fit girl enjoying her springish efficient fitness-inducing movements. Guys tend to exercise in a brutish way that I can do without. The way most guys exercise, the way they feel and enjoy their workout, it is too gay (in a sodomizer way as opposed to a sodomized way) I sense--I like to feel like girls feel, the cool way. I have a difficult time explaining exactly what it is about how girls exercise differently from brutish males, but intuitively I sense the difference, and the girl way is the cool way worthy of imitating. I think this has to do with meiotic selection in the female. Probably some genetic material tends to get ovulated when a girl is fit and trim and other genetic material tends to get ovulated when a girl is not as fit or trim. The former genetic material is more desirable. And this sort of meiotic selection in the female I think is always relevant, e.g., there is no way for the male to be able to regulate the extent to which this meiotic selection occurs. On the other hand, meiotic selection in males basically only is relevant when he is having sex with very lustful females in tantric sex. So ordinarily, females probably don't care much about whether their partners are physically fit. Probably only when the female is full of lust will she care much sexually about her mate's fitness. But when she is lustful, she'll care a lot about her mate's fitness, maybe even more than males care sexually about female fitness. However, she won't get much if any real pleasure from a brutish kind of fitness in her partner because (a) there is an association between brutish fitness and rapaciousness (rapists and more particularly forcible sodomizers work through brute force) and therefore a tendency to sodomize, and lustful females are hurt enormously by sex selecting (haploidly) for anything suggestive of sodomizer traits, and (b) the most important meiotic selection as regards fitness in the general sphere occurs in females and so since in my opinion female lust probably introduces a kind of assymetry in sperm development, making the development more akin to gamete development in females (where many genes end up in polar bodies), the female would want the male to be physically fit in a way that best selects for material in fit females, where the selection has mostly occurred. Abdomen fitness would seem to be the most important kind of fitness, probably, since the abdomen is where gamete development tends to occur. Overall fitness also would be important. Swimming is probably the exercise I can get into the most, I'm guessing because it tends to exercise the abdomen muscles pretty well and pretty much the whole body. (Hah, hah, it is also the kind of exercise sperm have to do, which is however more doubtfully relevant.) I don't get much opportunity to swim, but when I do swim I like to look at fit girls swim and enjoy swimming while trying to feel in my musculature the exercise the way the girls seem to be enjoying it. Of course, it's also cool the way girls can be very graceful when they move, but that is more something I find beautiful to look at than something I tend to want to imitate much. Even if I were particularly athletic, I think it would be pretty hopeless and pointless and presumptuous for me to try to be more graceful than graceful females--I don't really think, being male, that I would have a great deal of ability to artistically inspire people that way. For the same reason, looking at males ice skate or do gymnastics--how dull--but beautiful girls skating, dancing or doing gymnastics--oh yeah--that can be beautiful and somehow can make me even more full of pure clean innocent feelings toward them.

No comments: