Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Time passes strangely, not unfriendly
too real sometimes, unwelcome
but other times,
everything is shaggy
It doesn't stay that way
but its encouraging, comforting
to know its out there
Monday, October 06, 2014
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Sunday, September 21, 2014
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
I read Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki and His Years of Pilgrimage: A novel in two days, because wow. As always, I feel stunned after finishing one of his novels, not sure what to say, and unable to describe what I've just read in any way that could possibly do it justice. Loved it.
Posted by Extra Gravy at 09:06
Self is Response
We know that our conscious awareness accounts for a minority of actual brain activity, we know that we cannot force ourselves to remember, sometimes we must wait and the memory will come, in its own time. We know that we were waiting on something else, that we do not control but that cooperates with our conscious awareness. We are more than our conscious awareness, our capabilities are greater than this and more loosely connected than we often know or admit.
How can we know ourselves? We can know ourselves by our responses, by our behavior. How do I respond to given situations? How I respond defines my current self. My responses are the imprint of my full self upon circumstance, from these I should be able to improve my understanding, increase my self knowledge beyond my conscious self. Self is response, when our responses are stable and predictable then people can trust us and know us, because when responses stabilize a self is formed and persisted until new responses are appropriate.
We are not knowable until a self stabilizes. My current self, who I am, is expressed in my responses. Look at my responses and know me. Maybe there is more to me than my responses, but there is not less. My responses are mine, and whoever I might truly be, it cannot be distanced from the testament of my own behavior.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
The need to talk? Does a need to problem solve drive the need to talk? Does all discussion seek to solve a problem?
When someone speaks to me should I understand them to be communicating in order to solve or avoid a problem?
Actions are part of an agent's response to circumstance.
Agent's are under a response imperative.
Speaking is an example of conversational action.
Speaking is a change that an agent makes to itself, resulting in a change in circumstantial impressions.
Conversation is initiated as a response to circumstance.
Conversation is continued as a response to conversational circumstance.
Conversation is ceased as a response to conversational circumstance.
I should understand people to be speaking for a reason. That reason may not relate to conversation content, and that reason may not be mutually beneficial. Also reasons range from the trivial to the deeply significant, and from the selfish to the caring.
Misidentifying a conversation's structural attributes leads to inappropriate responses. I should make myself more aware of conversational structure and my position within it.
Thursday, August 07, 2014
Friday, July 11, 2014
Microsoft just cancelled my gold membership, and they sent me an email to let me know. They had an old credit card number and it needed to be updated, which is very common these days due to all the hacking, etc. Other companies send me friendly emails when an attempted charge fails and I go and update it. Microsoft tried to charge the old number six different times, but only contacted me once they had finally cancelled the account. Why would they not try and keep me a paying customer? I was paying for my Gold membership more out of momentum than actual usage. If they had given me a courtesy email I might have stayed but now I'm cancelled so I reviewed the membership benefits... Not what you want people doing Microsoft.
Posted by Extra Gravy at 07:14
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Tuesday, June 03, 2014
Friday, May 30, 2014
Friday, May 23, 2014
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Thursday, May 01, 2014
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Thursday, March 06, 2014
I've been working with a pain/pleasure type feedback system lately and one of the problems I was working on was requiring me to determine if pleasure could be meaningful when consecutive with pain, or if pain necessarily disrupts the pleasure which only returns when the pain is removed. Decisions were made related to the code goals but the question was interesting, I've found myself thinking about it several times since then. I also feel a bit more appreciative of the potential depth of Epicurus's philosophy.
must a moment be free of pain
before we can call it pleasurable?
Posted by Extra Gravy at 11:48