Hot Art, Cool Nights

 Hot Art, Cool Nights by Midcity Merchants was last Friday, and was, thankfully, spared the horrendous weather.  Even though the weather seems to have toned down the showing somewhat,  it was a great night.

The unofficial theme for the evening seems to have been demonstrations.   Just the few that we saw were Printmaking at Caffery Gallery,  Belly Dancing by Baton Rouge Belly Dance at Wooden Haven,  and live window painting also at Wooden Haven.  I know there was more, but those are the ones I caught.

 Every where you walked there was a new food truck and live music.  I curse my partner's gluten allergy that forbids this Renaissance of gastronomy from me.  I didn't actually check out much of the music.  It's usually just to loud for me.  Made my ears ache.

 The weather cleared up beautifully for the evening, and kept the temperature down.  The background noise of the evening was birdsong and rushing water.  And mud squelching between everyone's' toes!

One really great thing about the hop is the opportunity to meet the crafters and artists of the city.  They are right out there with there work, ready to talk and share with you.  It can give a bit more depth to an art purchase to have had the chance to speak with its creator, find out what the work means to them and how that compares to what it means to you.  

 If you live in Baton Rouge and haven't caught this yet prepare for White Light Night in November. 

Short sited bullshit

 Found this on my Facebook feed a few days ago.  took me a while to calm down enough to write something approaching coherent.  I'm still on a high horse, but at least it isn't a Pegasus.


 I don't want to know his name. I don't want to see his face. I don't want to know his life's history, his back-story, who his family is, where he went to school, or what he liked to do in his spare time. I don't want to know what "cause", if any, he was fighting for. I don't want to know why he did it, or may have done it, or what possessed him to carry out his actions. I don't want to know. Because that's what he really wants. I'll be damned if I'm going to give him what he wants.

Put him on trial, but don't cover it. Tell me when you decide to jail him for three lifetimes - because that number matters. That's the number of lives he has to now pay for. That's all I want to know about him. Nothing else.

Instead, tell me about the first responders who ran towards the fray, within seconds, fearless. Tell me about the ones wearing the yellow volunteer jacket, or the neon police vest, or even the ones in the regular everyday t-shirt who became a helper. Tell me the story about the first responder who held gauze over a wound until they made it to the hospital. Tell me the story about the volunteer who held the hand of the injured spectator until they got into the ambulance. In six months, tell me the story of those who lost a limb, who beat the odds, pulled through countless surgeries, and are learning to walk again. Tell me the story about the love, the compassion, and the never-ending support of thousands, millions, of people who support the victims here. Tell me their stories. Tell me everything you can, because they are the ones that matter. Tell me of the good that they have done, are doing, and will continue to do, regardless of... No, not regardless of, in spite of. In spite of that someone who would do them harm. Because that's what freedom in this country means. It means coming together in the hardest of times, even in the face of unfathomable adversity, to make life better for all those around us.

Tell me the good stories. That's all I want to hear. Please like and share!

 

 Yes, that sounds good, let's all stick our heads in the sand.  Let's perpetuate the system that causes people to feel that to be heard they have to go to further and further extremes.  Let's continue to unjustifiably marginlize people and persecute them into suicide.  Let us continue to create a soceity where the message is you are free to speak you mind as long as you agree with us.  

 Yes, what the bomber wanted was to paid attention to.  But do people really think that more of the behavior (ignoring, shunning, and disregarding) that caused this in the first place, is going to fix the problem?  I think all it will do is force people to further extremes.   This kind of belief is toxic and selfish.  It is not the statement of someone who wants to work together to build a better society, it is the voice of personal comfort before the needs of society.  It is inherently selfish.  

 I do want to honor the heroes who helped others that day.  This message is right about that.  They are the people who know inherently that we need to work together for the betterment of all, even if some personal sacrifice is involved.   I don't mean to marginalize those acts in any way.  Thank you. To everyone who helped.  And I am sad for all those hurt around this incident, even the bombers.  

• me in my head: i'm going to get my life together and read classic novels and drink green tea and eat really healthy and wear cute outfits and make interesting artwork and spend lots of time outside. i'm going to start biking everywhere and walking and listening to lots of new indie bands that i've always wanted to listen to and take bubble baths and my life is just going to be amazing.
• me in reality: well. today i think i'm going to watch netflix in my pjs and eat ice cream. and if i'm feeling really productive i might shower. 

I see this type of meme pop up on Tumblr and Facebook pretty often.  And the thing that gets me is that it doesn't make any sense. 

I don't get it. If you want to do these things do them. If you want to hang out in you pj's and watch Netflix do that. One is not better than the other, and more importantly they aren't mutually exclusive. But don't whine about how you can't seem to do the things you want. Take that energy and do them.

When I see this it makes me think several things about the person who posted it and none of them are flattering.  These things are about sympathizing and group-mentality, a bunch of people who experience the same thing recognizing each other and getting jollies from it.  I get that.  But why are you celebrateing something that very few people would call positive attributes? 

There are two options: 1)you are to fucking lazy to even bother getting up to live, or 2) you are completely unaware of what you actually want in life.  Both are a bit pathetic to me. 

I'm not saying its easy to get up everyday and wear a cute outfit and whatever else it is on you list of stuff you want.  But if it is really what you want it shouldn't be that hard.  When you want something, its not a chore, its a pleasure. 

If you think you want these things, but they really are chores for you, then maybe you don't actually want to do them.  Maybe you only think you want those things because of a popular image of them. Maybe you want to be a pj wearing fiend that goes to the grocery store in mumus.  You need to admit to yourself that it is ok to be like that.  Own the pjness, wear badass mumus made with Batman patterned cloth and rock that bitch up and down the snack aisle at Target, cause you need snacks when watching every season of Doctor Who ever in a row.

There is also this disconnect in them that I don't like.  The first one talks about the whole of your life.  That's an enormous thing.  It's overwhelming.  You can't actually decide how to live you life.  One Day.  That is what you have.  Work with that.  When you are old and looking back on that overwhelming thing that is life what do you want to see?  Do that thing.  Do it now, TODAY, not in your life because that is just an excuse for procrastination.  Because today is what you have.   Today is a thing that you can handle.  And if today what you want to look back on is bike riding in cute outfits, then get on the damn bike.  If what you want to look back at is good times with a good movie and a pint of gelato then do that.  But don't judge yourself for wanting the wrong thing.  And don't be to scared or lazy to do the thing you want.

Don't whine about how you don't have either the willpower to do the things you want or the mental fortitude to figure out what it is you actually want.  I don't have time for your shit while riding my bike to the grocery store in my Batman sundress to buy cheeseballs for my Doctor Who and watercolor painting marathon.

Week four, Freud...slippervagina.

1. Sigmund Freud in his Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis contends that although one cannot find objective evidence for his theory of the unconscious, it is possible to find subjective evidence for this theory. Please explain this view and Freud’s reasons for espousing it. Next, how does Freud invoke the phenomenon of parapraxes as evidence for his theory of the unconscious? In your answer to this last question, please explain Freud’s claim that parapraxes “have a sense of their own”.

To see that Freud's theroys have merit you are supposed to actually use them on yourself.  Then their rightness becomes self-evident. Freudian slips are people saying what they are thinking instead of what they mean to say. I hate Freud.

1. Freud claims that, “...civilization is to a large extent being constantly created anew.” (p. 27 of hard copy; p. 12 of scribd version). Please explain this remark and its significance for Freud’s view of the unconscious as it relates to human action.

1. Please consider the “Basta!” passage (bottom of p. 60 of hard copy of ILP; p. 35 of Scribd version) beginning, “H’m! That was a surprising reaction, a truly energetic denial.” In this passage Freud uses a rhetorical technique about which we might have doubts. What is this technique, and why we might have doubts about its cogency?
2. What for Freud, is the function of dreams? Next, after distinguishing between his notions of manifest and latent content, please give an example of a dream and its interpretation that conform to his theory. In your answer be sure to explain the difference between dreamwork and dream interpretation.
3. Please take two of the dreams that have been submitted by students in our class, and analyze them along Freudian lines.
4. In his chapter on Symbolism, Freud in Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis makes a number of bold claims about how various items in dreams may be interpreted. For instance, Freud tells us that a king and queen represents one’s parents; that small animals and vermin represent one’s brothers and sisters; that female genitals are represented by receptacles of various kinds including jewel-boxes, and so on. Strikingly, Freud gives us no evidence for such claims. Might it be possible to support these claims with evidence? If so, please offer a conjecture as to what sort of evidence might be sought in support of these claims. If not, please explain how we should respond to Freud’s interpretive claims if they cannot be supported with evidence.

So I really don't want to answer these questions this week.  The class is nice and all but I'm starting to find it tiring.  I think that I'm a little ahead of it.  I didn't want to think that at first cause you know the full cup and all, but as it goes on I'm not really getting anything out of it overall.  I'll finish it for the credit but, it's not really a challenge at this point.

Sunday Afternoon

Slept late after my friends wedding yesterday.  I occasionally bemoan my introvert status, because events like that are so draining.  I literally spent most of today walking about in a bit of a stupor and I'm still kinda out of it.  I have made a list of  TO DOs for today that I have made a good job on.


Edit Wedding Photos
Upload Wedding Photos
Eat something (I know you aren't hungry, do it anyway.)
Read the news
Paint something
Memrise
Coursera
Watch new episode of Doctor Who

I know, I set such heights for myself today.  I'm uploading the pics right now, then I'll share them on Facebook.  Ugh, why does anyone even use that anymore.  Google+ has a higher learning curve I guess, but I really do like it better.

 It's no masterpeice, but it works for getting me to do something other than read smutty novels all day.

I was hoping to go for a run as well, but I'm still having issues about not walking into walls.  Falling down and hurting my self would be bad.

We turned the extra room in to a craft room.  Roommate had this lantern thing so we hung it.  Still have more to do to get the room decorated, but it's coming along.  Plus this thing looks pretty awesome on my shiny black wall.

Know Thyself Week 3

1. Ryle (in Chapter One of The Concept of Mind) considers what he calls the Official Doctrine concerning the relation of the mind to the body. Please explain the main components of this doctrine as conceived by Ryle. How, according to Ryle, was Descartes driven to propound such a doctrine in the face of the new mathematical physics of his day?
   I must have missed the bit about the Doctrine, but I do think I understand what the lecture said about Descartes.  It sounded as if Ryle thought that Descartes was scared.  That the loss of free will would mean the death of morality and that was to terrible a concept to allow, so he made some shit up as an alternative.  This sounds a lot like creationism to me.  I don't like it.  I could write more and I may later, because this is kinda harsh of me.  And it does a lot of assuming.
   
2. Please explain what it is to commit a category mistake as Ryle construes that notion in Chapter One of CM. Next, give an example of a category mistake different from those Ryle adduces in his book. Why would Ryle charge Descartes and others who adhere to the Official Doctrine with committing a category mistake? In your answer, please explain Ryle's view that mental characteristics like 'witty' and 'careful' refer to intelligent behavior and/or multi-track dispositions to intelligent behavior.
   Category mistake sounds like not seeing the forest for the trees. Descartes saw the mind as a thing in and of itself.  Ryle believes that the mind is not a thing, but rather a collection of things and the way these things react together.   These things are dispositions which are merely behaviors that are inclined (or disposed, lol) to be under certain circumstances.  For example a disposition I have is to clean when my home is dirty.  All my friends and family know me as the clean person.  I am also sarcastic and opinionated.   Intelligent behavior is having dispositions that are optimal for the circumstances that inspire them.  The more you have the more intelligent you are. 
3. Ryle holds that dualism and monism are both answers to a confused question. That question is, “What kind of substance is a mind–material or non-material?” Why does Ryle think this question is confused in spite of the fact that grammatically it is perfectly well formed?
   The question is confused because it relies on an assumed premise that is not necessarily correct, in that the mind is a thing of substance.   Relying on an unproved premise will get you a grammatically correct sentence, but perhaps a very silly statement.  "What makes the sky green?"  The sky isn't green.  It's blue.
4. Ryle considers what he terms the intellectualist legend, according to which all intelligent behavior requires the consideration of appropriate propositions, and then putting those propositions into practice. How does Ryle argue against this legend?
    I missed this and am not going back for it.
   
5. Suppose that we agree that human beings possess some property, F (such as the capacity for abstract thought), that no other species possesses. Does it follow that human beings possess property F essentially? Please explain your answer. (In your answer, you may use the following characterization: A possesses property F essentially if and only if A could not exist without possessing F.)
   I think to answer this we would need to define human.  If F is part of that definition then it is essential.  If not then not.  Considering the definition given to F and assuming that the definition of human is a sort of average of our species as it exists now...I would answer that there is insufficient data.  I'm not convinced that most people are capable of F.
   
6. Please explain the Cartesian doctrines of phosphorescence and infallibility as they pertain to self-knowledge. How might Hume’s example of abject terror be used as a counterexample to phosphorescence? How might the “systematic elusiveness of the self” as described by Ryle provide another objection to phosphorescence? Please explain your answer. Finally, how does Ryle’s example of the man whistling Tipperary pose a challenge to infallibility?
   Phosphorescence is the idea that we are all aware of whatever is in our minds.  The counter argument of Hume is that we don't always pay attention, or are not always able to pay attention.  When one is stuck in a state of abject terror, one is not capable of looking at it and seeing that they are experiencing terror.  You can't think.  You can't imagine thinking.  All you are is washed away by the terror.  There is no awareness because there is no person to be aware.  The terror is not self aware and therefore cannot be aware of itself (yay recursive arguments!)   Infallibility is the idea that we have ultimate knowledge of ourselves.  Blah blah blah stuff I don't remember.  Don't remember any of this from lecture, not touching it.
7. In his chapter on self-knowledge, Ryle contends that my knowledge of myself is superior to my knowledge of others only as a matter of degree, and even then it is only a contingent difference that could be reversed. Please explain his reasons for holding these positions. Next, do these implications of Ryle’s view expose him to criticism having to do with the experiential component of the mind? Please explain your answer.
   My potential answer to this is contingent to the blurb below.
   
    This is an add on  thought from the lesson.  In video 6.4 Professor Green says that applying the disposition model of the mind to the experiential part of the mind is difficult.  As in tasting lemon not easy to put in terms of behaving in a certain way due to certain circumstances.  I must be missing something, because is seems terribly simple.  The circumstances are the sensory input and the behavoir (or disposition) is the sensory interpretation.  Something containing vanilla is touched to your taste buds and you are disposed to have a reaction to that touch.  Your brain interprets the signals from your tastebuds as taste and then you experience taste.  What am I missing that makes it difficult?

rainbow bookcases

Do you know what this,

 

and this,

and this,

AND THIS,

 
tell me?  That you don't read your books!  What's the point of having them?  I'll admit it's attractive, but how do you find a book if you don't remember what color it is!?!