Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

Mr. Manuscript

It has been suggested to me that I ought to start up a journal to record and display some of the bits of funny that come out of my head. Some folks have called it "wisdom," but they don't know what they're talking about. I do occasionally have things to say, though, and I also have stories or explanations that come up regularly, so with this down, I can just provide a link.

Yes, lazy! Lazy roxxors!

As possibly the oldest perv on here, I might be able to think of condescending ramblings posing as "advice" to all you young'ns. Feel free to ignore me as completely as you ignore any other old person until such time as you realize you don't actually have ALL the answers (by which point it is invariably too late).

Now to think... what to type first, what to type first...

Oh, incidentally: A list of all my public roleplays, for your perusing pleasure. And I'm found on the current Post Your Face thread on pages 1, 18, 139, and 173.
 
Re: Mr. Journal

Okay, here's one I originally posted on another profile/blog thingy elsewhere. I never got past this one post, but it's something to think about. This was when I was younger, smarter, and much less lazy with my prose than I am now.

PHILOSOPHICAL CORNERSTONES

Or: Why I Think in This Messed-Up Way

The minimum number of supports you need to create a stable structure is three. Not uncoincidentally, I have defined three guiding truisms in my personal philosophy: 1) life is even more complex than we think, 2) humans inevitably have filters that blinker them to parts of reality, and 3) truth will always end up better than falsehood, no matter how well-meaning the lie. Occasionally complex for truisms, but they are the basis for a large portion of my philosophy. Other ideas may be important, yes, but these three can be said to guide me through my mental acrobatics. It's one thing to sum them up like that, but how do they operate in practice? Well, let's see...

I think it's a human tendency to boil everything down to a few basic ideas. For example: "Democracy good, communism evil." "America, right or wrong." "There is no morality without religion." All of these statements sound simple, easy to understand, but all ignore huge swaths of reality. Democracy is certainly good, if it's true democracy, if the representatives aren't corrupt, if the people's vote is actually counted and actually means something in the governance of the state. America is an excellent nation, but only a fool would say it is perfect, and the idea that you are compelled to support something you think is wrong, even evil, is simple tyranny, hardly what is meant by "the American spirit." And while religion has traditionally instilled moral values, there's also the question of what other values each religion instills, whether the result is more harmful than good, and what's wrong with a code made of rational awareness of the needs of the community and the individual? Things aren't as simple as they seem.

Simplistic maxims go nicely with speeches, but for realistic consideration of the world, they don't reflect the sheer multiplicity of options the universe offers. Sure, you can boil things down to "you're with me or against me," but that's simply not true; there's always at least "I don't agree with you but I'm not going to act against you." Binary choices are an illusion; the universe rarely does anything just one way or the other. And even when it does, one can always add "that we know about," because we simply don't know everything about the universe yet. Science constantly discovers answers that raise more questions, and there's always something new to discover, and I suspect it will be that way until the heat-death of the universe, and possibly beyond. So no matter how much we like to keep things simple, life is not simple. We can approach life simply, but that's coming from our end, our choices and views, not from any intrinsic quality of the universe. So that's one of my guiding philosophical points.

Another comes up when I consider how tied we all are to the conditions of our own lives, our own upbringing. You see it in art and fiction all the time: people thrust into new situations where they have no idea how to cope, giving up the safety of their previous beliefs, their own mental filters, to cope with the new setting where those filters are useless, possibly fatal. What boggles me: many people seem to coast through life ignoring that they even have filters, or that other people's filters might not be the same as theirs. This leads to thinking such as "it's good for me, so it must be good for everybody." We find this attitude ruling the day in politics and business (the majority of which is run by rich white guys, so that answers the great mystery of "why is everything geared toward the benefit of rich white guys?"). It seems as if some people can't believe others don't see the same truths they do, but the fact of the matter is, if you hadn't lived your life the way you had, if you hadn't taken the same breaks, good and bad, then you wouldn't see things the same way, either. And I find it especially baffling when I see people who not only don't recognize the difference, but won't even admit that difference can exist.

I have my blinkers, the same as anyone else. I will always be, at some level, the Midwestern American, Presbyterian, bookish nerd I've always been, no matter where I may live or what I may do or what I may come to believe. That part of me is intrinsic to the whole of me. But at least I know I have filters, and I can identify them, even if I don't always feel the need to remove them. I can attempt to see another's point of view, to judge another person's actions on their own motivations as well as mine. I find that ability useful as a writer. It's not a weakness that I'm able to put myself in another's shoes; if anything, it sharpens my capability to respond accurately and effectively to others. I don't know when basic empathy became a limitation, but I think it may have been when our culture came under the sway of those without it.

My point is, you can only understand how other people work, how the universe works, if you can recognize and try to account for your own particular filters. In optics, if you know you've got a filter that will red-shift any observations, then you can make corrections to determine the true observation. Unfortunately, human filters are more subtle and more insidious, and incredibly persistent, to boot. The best we can do is honestly try, and our accuracy will be marginally better for the effort. That's another of my guiding philosophical points.

And that brings up my third: I think all rational beings dislike lies and hypocrisy. Even professional liars hate it when those tactics are turned against them. Because if reality is reality, then what about a person who says one thing is true, then acts as if the opposite were true? What happens when said person makes a promise to help you if you help them, but once you've done your part, goes and does the opposite of what they promised? Obviously, somebody lied. Somebody's a hypocrite. And if that's the case, how can you believe anything that they say, ever? This is a problem I have with the current government (written in America in the middle of 2006). I mean, previous administrations had lying and deception, but this administration makes a huge case out of how honest and forthright and committed they are, and used that to hammer the opposition into the ground, when even a cursory examination of their actual track record reveals them to be the kind of liars previous administrations only wished they could be. And yet they're getting away with it, and I don't know how that even happens.

On the personal level, particularly with one's self, deception and falsehood are never as good or as lasting as honesty, even in failure. Lies are difficult, because the larger, more complex the lie, the harder it is to keep it straight, and the more chance of being found out. Nobody likes a liar. Of course, everybody lies at some point, and there are levels on which lies can serve good purposes, because life is complex, and people have filters, and occasionally a small lie saves big trouble in the long run. However, the basic idea remains true: you get better results with truth. This is unequivocally true when dealing with yourself, and your own issues and failures. Without an honest evaluation of your own filters and weaknesses, you can never change them. You have to know what to work on before you can do any meaningful work. So the worst dishonesty is that which you serve up for yourself.

I know, after my claims of universal complexity, my reliance on simple truth seems counterintuitive, but I feel surrounded by hypocrisy, and it's wearying. I don't want to be part of it, because I see what it does to others, the community, the nation. What's wrong with admitting your motivations? You want to be a rapacious bastard who's in it for the money? Fine. Own up to it! Doesn't mean I'll like you, or buy your products, but it only hurts worse when you lie to me, tell me you're trying to "spur economic growth," or you lie to me, tell me you believe in the same God I do just to get my vote so you can go forward with your exploitation once you're safely in power. Don't lie to me, tell me I'm safe when you won't even pony up the money for half-effective protection. Don't lie to me, say you're looking after my health when you allow more pollution and poison into the air and water and then slash health benefits and drive up the cost of medicines. Most particularly, don't spy on your own citizens and tell them it's for their own good. That's how tyranny starts, and that's not good for anyone but the tyrants. But I digress yet again.

As for me and chasing ever-elusive wealth and success, I'd be lying if I said money wasn't nice, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't need some. At this rate, we'll never own a house, or take a big trip or anything, beyond visiting other family. But money's not the most important thing. There's justice, and fairness (not always the same), and compassion, and love for the world (any aspect of "world" you want to use). There's things I wouldn't do for money, which automatically puts me a notch above those greedy bastards in power (who then have the unmitigated gall to complain that they're an abused minority – shut up, rich white guys!). With me, you know what you get, because I'll tell you, and I don't like to lie, and I won't change my mind without a good, defensible reason that I can explain later. I'll make mistakes, sure, and I'll make decisions with filters obscuring my view, or with imperfect information (thereby providing the good, defensible reason to change my mind), but you'll know I'm coming from the right intentions. Honesty is transparent, like good government, and that's the only way we can really see Truth, in the grander sense, in an increasingly complex universe. Maybe I'm getting too metaphorical, but I think you get the idea: liars and phonies bad, honest villains bad but not for being honest, truthfulness good. And that's the third cornerstone of my philosophy.



Addendum from the future: Honesty is important, and I like to be transparent, but even I don't show everything in my life to everybody. So I have my secrets, even here. Still, specific instances aside, I think the essay holds up reasonably well.

More later, I suppose.
 
Re: Mr. Journal

In Goatse fashion, I didn't read your rant.

HOWEVER.

You should call this a diary. :3
 
So a few things about me:

I am a maximalist. You know how you go to a play, and you look at the program, and there's these actor bios, and one wiseacre alway says "Blankety Blank is a minimalist." And that's all there is to the bio? Well, I'm like that, only reversed. There's nothing that can be said in six words that I can't express in sixty, if I so choose. The language is its own beauty, and I forsooth do enjoy it. I also like to do linguistic mash-ups, where I start off talking flowery and get ghetto somewhere in the middle. I'm sure you'll see it.

I am a movie buff, and I have been for a long, long time. This means I have seen many excellent films, and hogod so many bad ones. In fact, bad cinema is sort of a hobby of mine; when I first discovered Mystery Science Theater 3000, it was like... "My people!" So I enjoy films, I toss off references and quotes like nobody's business, and I always have a film for the occasion. One problem: I am not really up on the new releases. I blame poverty and the fact that most of them just aren't very good. Netflix helps, but I'm also drawn by 30-year-old Doctor Who episodes and late 90s vampire films or shark attack nonsense... there's just so much out there, I can't be bothered with the latest bland Dane Cook waste of a DVD. Er, for example. Ahem. But that's just something you'll be able to know about me.

I try not to judge people. Not on taste, preference, appearance, or whatever. Everybody's a human being and deserving of love, or at least my respect as a human being. I used to be more judgmental, I used to have strict standards and there were folks who didn't measure up, and yes, I do have people I prefer more than others (and I have people I prefer but don't think of as much as I ought to, for shame me), but everybody is worthwhile somewhere. Everybody has potential. They don't always realize it, and sometimes their faults outweigh their strengths. But that doesn't mean they're not human, and worthy of at least courtesy. Everybody is worthy of courtesy, if only because being discourteous is less telling about them than it is about you. It's the same reason I don't think America should condone torture for any reason: it's not because the terrorists aren't worth torturing, it's because it would demean ourselves if we stooped to that. We're better than that in the macro, I'm better than that in the micro, and we all would be better off deciding something we won't do to someone else for our own sakes, regardless of the other person. Like... say... judging them out of hand. See how I brought that ramble back around?

Oh, and I ramble. This is related to the maximalist issue, but also my brain goes into free-association at times, or there's lots of things I want to bring up when something inspires me, and they're not always related. Also, sometimes it's funny. And like Roger Rabbit, I'll do nearly anything for a laugh.

That's enough for now. More later as inspiration strikes.
 
I did a whole mad scientist thing in the chats, and was proud of it. Misha decided on her own results; I would have gone for something less extreme, but she knows what she likes.

(22:03:19) Mr_Master starts tinkering in the machine shop.

(22:04:12) Mr_Master assembles his machine
(22:04:20) Corporal_Bunny: Did you just make a vibrator?
(22:04:30) vampire_seduction plants charges on the machine and detonates
(22:04:48) Misha_Hiroki makes the explosion only affect VS
(22:05:00) Mr_Master: Actually... I built an old invention
(22:05:05) vampire_seduction is immune
(22:05:06) Mr_Master: The Double-M Spank-o-mat​ic.
(22:05:15) Misha_Hiroki: oooh! me first!
(22:05:32) Mr_Master: I was thinking of building a molest-o-ma​tic, but thought ths would go over better.
(22:05:36) Zalvek: o-o
(22:05:47) Misha_Hiroki: MEEEEEEEEEE​E FIIIIIIIIII​IIIIRST!
(22:05:54) Mr_Master puts on lab coat and safety goggles
(22:06:11) Mr_Master: Okay, Misha, let's get you set up.
(22:06:20) Misha_Hiroki: woo!
(22:06:31) Rubyliday: What the hell
(22:06:50) Mr_Master: Here we have the padded bench over which you bend. Let's just adjust the height...
(22:07:02) Misha_Hiroki: Ruby! Come get spanked with me!
(22:07:08) Mr_Master: now, do you need straps?
(22:07:18) Mr_Master: as in being strapped down?
(22:07:22) Misha_Hiroki: fuck no, but okay
(22:07:33) Rubyliday: LOL!
(22:07:45) Corporal_Bunny: I'd prefer to be pinned down, I think.
(22:07:46) Mr_Master: Sure, for demonstrati​on purposes.
(22:07:59) Mr_Master straps Misha in place.
(22:08:06) Misha_Hiroki giggles
(22:08:18) Mr_Master: now, you're at home, so if I recall correctly, you're likely not wearing pants.
(22:08:24) Mr_Master: Good, good.
(22:08:37) Misha_Hiroki: Correct
(22:08:40) Mr_Master pulls out two spinning wheels.
(22:08:47) Mr_Master: you have the option of paddles or floggers.
(22:08:53) Misha_Hiroki: Yes
(22:08:56) Corporal_Bunny: WHOA!
(22:09:00) Corporal_Bunny: What the hell are those for?
(22:09:03) Mr_Master: I'm not geared up to run both...
(22:09:14) Mr_Master: it's a Spank-o-Mat​ic, what do you -think- they're for?
(22:09:19) Corporal_Bunny: The wheels? D:
(22:09:28) Misha_Hiroki: Then YOU SIR, are an incompetent mechanic
(22:09:35) Corporal_Bunny:
(22:09:38) Corporal_Bunny: Them fightin' words
(22:09:45) Mr_Master: I can make adjustments​, madam, but this is a prototype.
(22:09:46) --+Hahvoc_Requiem+--: HOT WHEELS, yeah.
(22:09:53) Misha_Hiroki sighs
(22:09:57) Mr_Master makes a note on the clipboard.
(22:09:58) Misha_Hiroki: Fine. Floggers
(22:10:17) Mr_Master sets the flogger wheel in place, at the appropriate height and distance.
(22:10:26) --+Hahvoc_Requiem+-- relaxes on the couch and watches the festivities of the night.
(22:11:13) Mr_Master: Now, then... floggers, check... straps, check...
(22:11:21) Mr_Master: Engine...
(22:11:26) Misha_Hiroki: ENGAGE!
(22:11:30) Mr_Master reaches down and yanks on the pull cord
(22:11:57) Mr_Master 's machine resists... resists... coughs... vrrroooMMMM​MMM!!!!
(22:12:15) Mr_Master shouts over the din of the engine.
(22:12:20) Mr_Master: All right! First gear!
(22:12:21) --+Hahvoc_Requiem+--: This is the worst Harry Potter movie ever.
(22:12:32) Misha_Hiroki: gnaaaaa~ *enjoys teh flogging*
(22:12:35) --+Hahvoc_Requiem+--: I want my money back.
(22:12:50) --+Hahvoc_Requiem+--: Wait....
(22:12:53) Mr_Master pulls on the floor level, turns some dials, the floggers spin at a nice pace...
(22:12:53) --+Hahvoc_Requiem+--: Nah.
(22:12:58) --+Hahvoc_Requiem+-- watches with popcorn.
(22:13:01) Mr_Master: flap flap flap flap
(22:13:10) Mr_Master: Okay!
(22:13:16) Misha_Hiroki yelps happily at each strike
(22:13:17) Mr_Master: Second gear!
(22:13:39) Mr_Master pulls anotehr floor level, cranks a wheel on the walll
(22:13:50) Mr_Master 's floggers increase speed...
(22:14:06) Misha_Hiroki: weEeEeEeEeE​eEeEe~!
(22:14:23) Mr_Master shouts over the din
(22:14:29) Mr_Master: Ready for third gear?
(22:14:41) Misha_Hiroki: Yeeees~
(22:15:28) HollowHearted dances
(22:15:30) Mr_Master grinds some machinery into life, and the whole area starts to vibrade at a subsonic level while the floggers increase speed yet again...
(22:15:43) HollowHearted: master your silly
(22:15:48) Misha_Hiroki gets very moist
(22:16:05) Mr_Master monitors some dials, which waver toward the red
(22:16:23) Mr_Master: Do you want to go for fourth gear?
(22:16:31) Corporal_Bunny sits on the vibrating floor.
(22:16:52) Misha_Hiroki: Iiiiis theere a fiiifth?
(22:17:04) Mr_Master: I can't skip gears!
(22:17:16) Misha_Hiroki: Do it anyway, bitch!
(22:17:39) Corporal_Bunny: Put it on Bunny speed.

(22:18:45) Mr_Master grinds into fourth... a red warning light starts to circle and flash, steam gouts forth from the machinery, a rumble starts to shake the room, and the flogging wheel develops a shimmy that starts to waver the striking area all around Misha's ass....

(22:19:21) Misha_Hiroki: Hooooolllly​yyy craaaaaaap this roooooooooo​ocks!

(22:19:54) Mr_Master: Fifth Gear!
(22:20:15) Misha_Hiroki: Skip it bitch i'm sooo cloooose!
(22:20:17) Mr_Master opens a cover on the console, revealing a large red button...
(22:20:24) Mr_Master smacks the button
(22:21:12) Mr_Master 's machine starts whooping a warning klaxon, the grinding of gears and smoke and literal flame shoots out and the floggers go so fast they can't be seen individuall​y...
(22:21:30) Mr_Master hides behind the blast shield
(22:21:30) Misha_Hiroki cums a whole lot
(22:21:47) Misha_Hiroki 's ass is very very bloody
(22:21:58) Mr_Master pulls the power cord
(22:22:10) Misha_Hiroki 's ass is just about devoid of skin
(22:22:12) Mr_Master 's machine slows down, stops.
(22:22:43) Mr_Master unstraps Misha.
(22:23:02) Mr_Master: So, I should set up dual wheels, you say...
(22:23:03) Misha_Hiroki: Quick! Touch my ass to make me orgasm!
(22:23:06) Mr_Master: any other tips?
(22:23:12) Mr_Master spanks Misha with his hand.
(22:23:19) Mr_Master gets a wet-wipe to clean his hand
(22:23:22) Misha_Hiroki orgasms and passes out
(22:23:32) Mr_Master catches Misha...
(22:23:43) Mr_Master puts her back over the bench to recover
(22:23:50) Mr_Master writes on the clipboard
(22:24:00) Misha_Hiroki snores quietly
(22:24:05) Mr_Master: Okay... next?
(22:24:34) Mr_Master: anyone?
(22:25:15) Rubyliday hides

I love it!
 
This was something else on the "how did you pick your name" thread that I thought I'd copy over here. For general explanation.

Mr Master said:
I was just explaining my name to someone a little while ago!

1) Suggests some of my interests. Durr.

2) Comes off as a little bit amusing/harmless, much like the rest of me.

3) Semi-alliterative, just like "kit-kat" (now I want chocolate)

4) I have a Master's degree.

5) Additional personal resonance I only explicate to a few, so... but it exists and is a factor.

6) Wasn't already taken when I first tried it out.
 
I thought I should just put this explanation down for all to interpret as they will. It's something that I've had to explain once or twice, so it seems relevant that I ought to have it in print so I can just point to it in the future.

I have something of a polyamorous mindset. This is not to say that I have ever been in a polyamorous relationship (occasional threesomes don't really count, unfortunately), but more to say that my brain doesn't have a problem with it. Let me explain.

Back when I was in college, and my views on sex and sexuality were really being explored, I came to several viewpoints through my experiences (oh, incidental tip: you know the geek dorm in your college or uni? May well have been a bubbling cauldron of sexuality under all those bad haircuts and Star Trek paraphernalia), which seem very simple, but which relate directly to my development. Those include: love and sex are two different "tracks" and occasionally they don't interact the way you think they're going to; for me, friendship love is not actually all that measurably different from romantic love, as far as my reactions go; and sex between friends, when all parties are aware of the situation and standards, can be perfectly workable, and can tighten certain friendships, even.

The sex issues are always fun to talk about, and I do have a number of stories directly related to my college experiences, but really, the most significant element is the idea that friendship is not always different from romance. Add a few years and a few other learning experiences, and I get the sudden realization that I'm not actually entirely un-polyamorous.

You know how some people are in love with party A, then they meet party B, and they start falling for party B, so they fall out of love with party A? Yes, my time spent in law offices is showing. But the point is, those people love serially, and it's the classic viewpoint that you can really only love one person at a time. But while I understand and respect that viewpoint, it doesn't work that way for me. I can be in love, and fall in love, and not fall out of love with either of the others. I love... additionally.

And let me tell you, after a lifetime of loving additionally? This has caused no end of problems. Honestly, if I could alter that aspect of my nature, I would. And there are many things that I have changed in myself over the years; bad habits corrected, unhelpful behaviors modified and/or stopped. But certain things are wired in the brain chemistry for some folks, and something that is alterable for one person might not be alterable for another (related to my tenet that the world is always more complex than you think). So this is something I kind of have to live with. And I try and keep from getting close enough where it would become an issue, but I do tend to have an open heart, and I don't mean for the bypass surgery. So it's a risk.

But now you know. And that's half the battle.



Oh, the polyamory is entirely unconnected with any form of bisexuality. I actually have no problem with bisexuals, because I don't see sexuality as a two-state toggle, but a dial. There's a continuum, and people can be at any point along it. For me, when contemplating the question of homosexual activity, I like to put it in scientific terms: I can get behind the physics, but I just can't understand the chemistry. The simple fact of the matter is, my appreciation of a fine male specimen doesn't extend to actually wanting to be with one intimately. Not unless there's a fine female in the mix, and then there's negotiations to be performed.

So there's that. And this concludes my embarrassing-personal-sexual-fact post. At least my first one.
 
I bike to work. In late September, shortly after my birthday, I had a troublesome day with my train card, and it was going to be more than a week before my replacement could be found. I had some money in the bank from my grandfather, and I was annoyed, so I went by the bike shop near my house at the time and looked at what they had. I ended up walking out with a good commuting bike, a helmet, pants leg strap, and a basket. Yes, I bike with a basket; I need cargo carrying, but I don't like a rear rack because I can't see and wouldn't notice if anything fell off, and of the remaining options, the basket was, like, $40, and the cheapest set of saddlebags was running $100. So I went with the basket, and I don't care that I look like some kind of giant 12-year-old girl. All I need now is streamers on my handlebars...

Anyway. So I was asked not too terribly long ago by a dear friend why it is that I bike to work.

1) Expense. They raised train and bus fares to $2.25 this year. I only take one train to work, so it's not as bad as it could be, but that's still $22.50 a week just in transit costs. In a little over five months of riding, I save enough to pay for the kitted out bike. In a year, I'll have all the repairs and upgrades I've done paid off and be saving more actively.

2) Time. My train commute, including walking at each end, is about 45 minutes to an hour, depending on how soon the train comes once I reach the station. I don't know if you've ever driven in Chicago, but it would take at least that long, if not longer, to drive in, and then I'd have to spend time finding parking and would have to pay out the nose for it to the tune of $30 or so per day. On the other hand, biking in runs me about 30-40 minutes depending on how much I push it. I sail past car line-ups at lights, and I usually give a bus a run for its money, if the traffic is light... and I outdistance the bus if the traffic is moderate or worse. So it's actually faster to bike in Chicago.

3) Health. I suck at exercise programs. Anything I have to take time out of what I have to or want to do, I can do for a little bit, and then I put it off, and then I just forget about it. But the commuting thing works in exercise with time I'd already be spending in transit, anyway. So it's pretty much the one area where I can do it and not only save money and time but also get my exercise in. My old route used to be five miles each way, but the new route is just under 7 miles down, and if I go via the lakeshore on the way north, it's just over 7 miles back. 14 miles a day is not too shabby; it's upping my calorie burn and keeping my arthritic knees limber (shut up, lots of people start developing arthritis early, just shut up).

4) Beauty. Okay, the morning commute is not particularly beautiful, unless it's that kind of beauty of not having to slow down as you approach the stoplight and leaning into the turn to curve across the busy street onto your southbound leg. Oh, that's lovely. But in the afternoon, after a long day's... er... typing on BMR... I get to make my way over to the lakefront and just pedal on north, when the wind is right. Oh, it's gorgeous, with the beach and water, and now that the trees are getting leafy... the bike path is crowded with joggers and other bikers and numbnuts who think biking 3 abreast with faster traffic going in both directions is a good idea, but even still, it's mostly an excellent ride. There's clouds and buildings and sometimes an attractive jogger or two, and when the wind is coming in off the lake and there's birds and not too many others around... just gorgeous. It's possibly my favorite alone-time of the day in RL. There's a little competition, but honestly, it really is.
 
Been wanting to write something about music complete with metatext and commentary, and then something about movies, but it seems rather pointless, now. I just have two more old essays to finally get off my hard drive, and then I can be done with this.

Old essay #1:



GOOD VS. EVIL: TITLE MATCH

Or: Non-Denominational Ethics ARE Possible

Yes, I know. Good and Evil. So trite, so overplayed. What we like is good, what we don't like is evil. Yadda yadda yadda. But that's an oversimplification. For that matter, so is most religious teaching about good and evil. They've got the right idea, no question, but throughout history, the application is flawed. So what's to be done? Well, me, personally, I've got a loose definition of good and evil that works for my personal continuum, and now is as good a time as any to share it. Get it out of the way, right up front.

First thing: I think traditional definitions of good and evil are essentially correct, but lose it with the finer details. They frequently lump in other stuff that confuses the issue. Let's take Christianity, for example (the religion in which I was raised). What is good is basically what's good everywhere: being kind to others, forgiving, living in peace, etc. Being a religion, worshipping only one God is also encouraged. The usual suspects also serve as Big Bad: murder, theft, envy, jealousy, etc. But there is little middle ground. For example, over the centuries people have interpreted religious good and evil to justify horrible actions. Group X thinks that because Group Y doesn't think exactly the same, they must be Evil, and therefore must be killed (though Group Y may not actually be bothering anybody). Galileo saw the movement of planets, and that was counter to the contemporary interpretation of the Bible, therefore his discoveries were Evil. What's evil today might be reinterpreted later as good and True. And what about something that is neither good nor evil, just is? I know someone who believed that if something wasn't conventionally explainable (a karate expert breaking cinderblocks was the example), and it wasn't obviously God at work, then it must be the Devil. Never mind that karate has nothing to do with either, never mind that it might be transfer of impact force or something else, or even God working mysteriously: everything boiled down to binary thinking. "If it's not with me, it must be against me."

And what happens when there's a war on? A soldier follows orders, does what he's supposed to, and kills the enemy. Is that soldier evil? What about the politicians who decided to attack? They don't pull the trigger, their hands are physically clean, but what responsibility do they have for the deaths on either side? If "not killing" is one of your basic precepts, how can you support a war at all, much less participate, and stay faithful? What happens if the enemy actually does kill without motivation (like Hitler in World War II). It's right to oppose him, but is it right to shoot frightened German kids who got drafted? How does that affect the families of soldiers? What if they have kids, themselves? What do we do about war orphans; can we afford to leave them to grow up at risk of serious psychological problems, thereby creating a problem for ourselves in the future?

See, life is complex. There really isn't a single one-interpretation answer that's going to fit every situation. Which is why I tried to avoid specific dogma or a particular specific code of religious ethics when examining my own scale of good and evil. I tried to abstract it a bit, and ascribe the various behaviors to more basic human impulses. So far, it's working for me. And here's how:

The ideas of Good and Evil are just labels. The question is how we decide what actions deserve which labels. My thought is that human behavior can be separated into self-focused motivations and other-focused motivations. It's not exact, because humans are complex beings, and there will always be the occasional exception. But in general, and barring dysfunction, that's how it breaks down. Other-focused activities are fairly easy to get: helping the sick, improving the community, obeying the law, being kind and courteous, basically having the community in mind, whether it's the community of your family, your neighborhood, your city, your nation, or your world. People with an awareness of "other" recognize that their average fellow humans have an equal right to their own lives, to their own safety, to their own thoughts and opinions, and to whatever it is they've earned through their own efforts. Without these basic concepts, a person is a psychopath, believing other people are no more than toys to be manipulated. That's a dysfunction, however, so we'll put that aside for the moment and focus on people with normal, functional ethical systems.

Self-focused activities can be misinterpreted as selfish. I don't think that's strictly true; yes, some self-focused activities are “selfish,” but feeding yourself when you're hungry isn't selfish. Getting an education isn't selfish. Doing art, or singing, or taking a nap... these aren't necessarily selfish. If an actor stars in a movie (or a writer sells a book), he or she negotiates to get paid what the sponsor will allow, and this isn't selfish, because the sponsor intends to make much more than that payment in profits from the masses and those masses pay small amounts, relatively speaking, to get the enjoyment of the performance (or the story). It's all voluntary, and therefore, negotiating for payment is not strictly selfish.

The key is division between good and evil, in this plan: it depends on whether that action is taken at the expense of another. When gratifying your own motivations means victimizing others, that action becomes evil. This brings up the question of whether the person taking the action realizes it is exacting a cost. That would make the action still evil, but the person taking the action not intending to do evil. Yes, it's complex. Welcome to life.

Let's not make the mistake of thinking other-focused activities can't be evil: if you do right by your nation, you may be exploiting an innocent nation. Also, you can act selfishly as a member of a small group: if you enact a tax law, for example, that benefits the rich (of which class you are a member) but puts the cost of that benefit on the less-wealthy, then that's still ultimately selfish, and therefore evil.

In normal, everyday life, people are close to neutral. They look after their own interests, but they've got a mind toward the community so that they don't get in other people's way too much. If you strive to do good, you focus more on the other-centered activities, such as helping out in the community, or giving up recreation to spend time with your kids. It's possible to go too far in this direction, wrecking one's own health in the course of helping others, and that's not healthy. However, given most people have a strong sense of self-interest, that's rarely a problem.

Self-interest (including small elite groups) is not, in itself, evil; the evil comes when self-interest is at the expense of others. This is obvious in individual actions, but larger-scale evils also exist. When a mugger decides his need for money outweighs your right to keep what you've earned (or your right to be unharmed), then that mugger is doing evil. If a rapist decides his desire is stronger than a woman's right of refusal, that's evil. If a mother would rather smoke a cigarette and watch her soap opera rather than attend to her crying baby, that's a special kind of neglectful evil. To scale up, coming up with an excuse for a war to satisfy a sense of revenge, and/or to see to the profit of a certain group: evil, made worse because it's also an abuse of power and public trust.

Tricky question: is a soldier at war doing evil? Well, any soldier should serve out of a focus on the "other" of nation, which isn't bad in and of itself. And killing enemy soldiers is the job they're trained to do. Killing another human being is a negative thing; it flies in the face of "other-focused" concepts, and in itself it has serious psychological effects (if it doesn't, then there's something dysfunctional already present). But the enemy soldiers are trying to kill the example soldier, too, so it's kind of self-defense. And the example soldier is following orders, so it's not entirely his decision to make.

Ultimately, in my judgment, killing doesn't have to be an evil thing. It's negative, and it should be avoided, but it may not be evil. What makes it evil (or not) is the context, and that includes the motivation, the reasons behind the conflict, and the ultimate purpose of the action. Does that make the question less tricky? Not really, but it does identify what the factors are, and admits right up front that killing is wrong, whether or not it's evil. I admit there are times when you can be a nice person, trying to do good, and find yourself compelled, via one means or another, to do evil. Does this mean you are evil, yourself? Not necessarily. Depends on your reaction, and what you do in the future. As I've said, I believe humans are largely ethics-neutral in their day-to-day lives, and I don't think that taking a single action has to tip the balance of ethics permanently one way or another. Each day is a new opportunity to make choices; it's when one gets used to victimizing others to make one's own life more comfortable that the choices dip toward evil on a more regular basis.

I don't consider humans to be inherently either good or evil. They simply are human. When you're born, you have no conception of other, all you know is self. As you grow, you figure out what other people are, and you learn to care, around the time you also learn how cause and effect works. Babies and small children can't be good or evil, because they don't know enough to make the choice, and all their existence has to be at the expense of others, because they are absolutely incapable of supporting themselves. As they mature, children become able to make judgments and take actions regarding self and other, and whether or not to act at the expense of someone else. It is only through time and maturation that children become capable of discerning the difference, and thus become ethical individuals.

That's my non-denominational ethics scale. As with all life, it's potentially complex, it relies on judgment and decisions and information (some of which may be imperfect), and it's still a work in progress. But who knows? I may chuck it all and reduce myself to something simpler, or let some other authority do the thinking for me.

Sure. That’ll happen.
 
Old Essay #2:


GOVERNMENT & GOD

Or: Why Do You Have To Go And Bring Religion Into It?

Not trying to make this an all-religion-discussion kind of essay page, not at all. It's just rather in my face all the time, so it's on my mind all the time. So might as well put down what I truly believe, and let that be that about it.

It's common for believers to talk about how the Founding Fathers were all Godly men. The Godliness of the Founders is essentially true, but what modern commentators on the subject seem to ignore is that for all that, they didn't really agree very closely as to what God actually wanted from them. Those were times where Catholics killed Protestants, not just in Ireland but all over the place, and the difference between Baptist and Methodist was a source of conflict. Yeah, they might have mostly believed in God (whether or not they acted in what we would consider a proper Christian manner, which is also debatable), but their beliefs were widely different. I would venture so far to say that the divisions between Protestant denominations in those days was felt as keenly and viewed as strongly as the divisions between Christianity and Islam are felt and viewed today. The fact that they were able to come together and hammer out a Declaration, and thereafter a Constitution (followed immediately by Amendments, incidentally), is wondrous, in retrospect.

It also puts the lie to the modern claims of "what the Founding Fathers wanted." Frankly, they wanted a hundred different things or more. They weren't at all unified in their views, goals, or visions of the nation they were striving to build. But they hammered it out, as I've said, and I keep using that imagery because that's how I feel it must have been done: with effort, in the blazing heat of summer (oh, the days before air conditioning...), and slowly, like blacksmiths putting together a fine tool. Because that's what I see our nation's documents as: tools.

There's a Joe Pesci/Brendan Fraser movie, With Honors. It's a decent little flick, notable in my mind largely for Pesci's speech to the pompous professor. In it, he basically says the beauty of the Constitution is that it can be changed. The Founders were old white rich men, to be sure, but they knew that they didn't know it all, and couldn't account for everything the future would throw at the nation. So they made their documents changeable, and threw their trust on the future.
This leads to many issues of the day, such as various Constitutional Amendments, claims of what the Founders meant by one thing or another. What people seem to ignore is that we've already changed it drastically, in several particulars, and we're likely to change it again. If something really doesn't work, such as Prohibition, then we'll take it back out. It'll take time, and it'll cause a lot of grief, but it can be done.

One of the things that people seem to want to change, getting back to the supposed point of this essay, is that whole pesky "separation of church and state" angle. I'm all for spirituality, and I'm even supportive of organized religion for those such as needs it and manages to trust it. Me, I'm as distrustful of religious authority figures as I am of governmental authority figures, with the extra difficulty that religious figures claim they know the unknowable, speak of faith as a certainty, when the point of faith is that you're uncertain, you could be wrong, but you believe anyway. Religious authorities claim to interpret the universe as happening in a particular way, by specific interpretations of their religious texts. All well and good, but what happens if you don't believe their interpretations? The universe is always more complex than you think, and not everything is going to fit into a limited range of definitions, so what do you do with the extra stuff that doesn't fit? Your interpretation can't claim to be comprehensive if you don't account for it, but there's only so much that documents written thousands of years ago are going to be able to cover.

Yet the folks that limit the universe to definitions found in ancient texts are the same people who want to put religion back in government. But the Founding Fathers already thought of that. Not only did they have to deal with a wide range of differing religions in their own community, they also had the experience of dealing with the religious ruling structures of Europe. And their solution to the whole problem? Keep religion out of it. It's that simple. That's the only way you can be fair to all citizens, and avoid religious persecution.

This nation was founded on the principle that all people are born with equal rights in life. Admittedly, the definition of "people" was rather more limited in those days, but we're still working on that. The point is, all citizens of the United States (and, if you believe in the precepts upon which the nation is founded, all people, regardless of nationality) deserve certain basic rights, regardless of whether they're rich or poor, popular or outcasts, intelligent or stupid, or what their whole belief system is. We may not do particularly well in granting those rights fairly, but the idea of them is ingrained in the very fabric of our nation. The difficulty with allowing religion to interfere with governance is that you can no longer guarantee that objective fairness can be maintained. Because the very basic essence of religion is that it's about who's in and who's out. Believers are saved, believers are "one of us," and non-believers are heretics. So if you're in a position of governmental power, and there's a religious influence on your thinking, then you've got a problem, because the tendency is to pass judgment based on other people's beliefs and how they compare to your own, when what you ought to do is look strictly at the letter and spirit of the law.

I want to pause a moment and point out that many people in power claim to be believers, claim to be religious, but not all of them actually practice what they claim to preach. In most governmental structures, claiming belief is an expedient way to garner support, and with support, you can get the things you really want done, such as gathering money and power unto yourself. How many Christian conservatives are sitting in government at this very moment, who got into power by appealing to the religious beliefs of their voters, but aren't doing anything on the religious front? Such as ministering to the poor (always a big element of Jesus' teachings), or brokering peace (also a common refrain from the old Carpenter), or advocating interference with genocides in Africa (some of which are being perpetrated against a largely Christian population, no less, which you'd think would really motivate a true believer). But no, it's much more important to vote in tax breaks to the rich, and roll back an estate tax that doesn't even kick in until the estate hits the $1.5 million mark. Yeah, that's going to affect a lot of people (somewhere around 130 families a year, I believe, out of, what, 3 million citizens? Try and tell me that's not rich white men looking out for their own...).

So religion in government, as it is currently practiced in its limited way, is largely a lie. There are exceptions, but I'm more likely to see officials seizing convenient topics to drum up support from the religious quarter than I am likely to see them actually pursuing religious motivations. Would making government a more Godly institution help this at all? I really can't see how. For one thing, whose version of God are we going to institute? What happens to those who don't believe in that version? Are we going to include the Bible as a founding text? If so, which version? There are numerous editions which not only differ in translation but differ in content, some omitting or significantly changing certain inconvenient passages, and anyone who claims the Word of God is incorruptible probably doesn't know this. The fact of the matter is, it's as corruptible and open to alteration as any book, it just has an assumed power with believers, which lends it an air of invincibility that it doesn't really have.

And it's not like we've seen great success with religious government other places in the world. Differing versions of Islam are constantly at odds with each other. The aggressively anti-religious Communist China (taking strict Communism as their religion-analogue) are as oppressive against faith as any Inquisition was. And supposedly Christian sects don't seem to have much problem killing each other off when it's convenient, in Ireland or anywhere else. So it's not like religion is going to help matters any great deal, regardless of what its proponents say. It's just that they believe they will personally benefit from it, in one way or another. True believers probably think it will be an objective good, but their focus is too narrow, and they seem to trust that people won't be able to mess up what they see as God's essential truths. They've got their blinkers on, is all I'm saying. It's understandable; it's just human nature. But there's nothing that's been put out in the world that people can't mess up. There is no philosophy, no truth, no guiding principle that can't be eventually perverted into something opposite, if a person has a mind to do so.

I was watching the raunchy puppet comedy Team America: World Police this evening. I felt I had to see it the once, because it's from the South Park guys. Frankly, I wouldn't recommend it to all audiences, although there are some hilarious bits. But I was actually struck by one of their manipulative comedy songs: the lyric went on about how "freedom isn't free." The administration of the day would have you believe that preserving our freedom means we have to venture out in the world and fight anybody who might try and attack us, as if that's going to keep us free. There's a lot of possible debate about whether or not going out and attacking other nations is going to stop individuals from making terrorist attacks on America, but that's not my purpose here. What the administration seems to ignore is that the price of freedom is indeed vigilance, not against outsiders, but against those in power. Terrorists aren't going to be taking away our rights to travel, or be safe from illegal search and seizure; that's our government. Terrorists aren't tapping phones willy-nilly, spying on innocent people who have done nothing but disagree with their leaders. That's the Feds, my good reader. So, yeah, freedom isn't free; you have to fight your own government for it. And you might have to fight your religion for it, too. Wouldn't it be horrible if they were one and the same?

I fully support people's right to believe whatever they want. Have a faith, don't have a faith, do what you like. It's not going to affect the way I view them as citizens, as fellow Americans, or fellow human beings (if they don't happen to be from America). My religion is a personal matter of mine, and it affects who I am and what I believe to be right and good. That's unavoidable. But it has no direct effect on my views of social governance, of what's fair under the law, of what the good people of my community deserve from their leaders. My beliefs are strong enough, well-developed enough, and grounded well enough in the secular world as well as the spiritual, that I can make my arguments and put forth my stance without having to fall back to matters of faith. Faith is good, but government isn't faith. Government doesn't rely on belief in the face of doubt, it relies on proof and the law and the needs and demands of the citizenry. Or, at least, it really should. We'll see if it continues to do so.
 
You know what? Fuck it.

Deserved Value

I've been told a lot of things recently about what people deserve, what people are worth.

The universe doesn't care what anyone thinks anyone deserves. Do you think people deserve what happens to them? Do the greater proportion of the women on this site (and in the world) deserve the rape or molestation that's been given them? (God must like vacuum and rape because He sure made a hell of a lot of both.) Did the dinosaurs deserve extinction? If we all got what we deserved as people and citizens and what have you, there'd be no want, no war, no sorrow. But the universe doesn't operate on "deserve." It operates on... well, physics, but you can argue that it operates on competition. Atoms drawn together from competing gravity sources; which will be a star, which will be a planet? The competition determines it. Plants compete for light, animals compete for survival. People compete for attention, or money or any of the billion other desires that people are prone to. The six billion desires, every instant of every day.

And people are fucked up and people are stupid. Even intelligent people spend a good portion of their day basically being stupid, if not intellectually than emotionally. Thank God people are also lazy, so the stupidity is mostly spent sitting around. But people are stupid and crazy and so they compete for stupid, crazy things. And if they get their crazy, stupid, bad-idea things, do they deserve them? The concept of "deserve" has no place in nature; there is no "deserve" quark in your atoms, no "deserve" allele in your genetic matrix. It's a purely human concept, as alien to the universe as "compassion" and "trade deficit." And yet we have all of these concepts, and they rule our lives in a very great degree.

I'm not a big fan of determining what people deserve, because I recognize it's a human concept, and I recognize that all human concepts are at heart fallible, prone to corruption and inherently, absolutely affected by personal taste. There is an objective reality as to the composition of my computer monitor; the elements and components are known, identifiable, reproducible. There is no objective reality to Justice. There is no universal set standard for Good. And there is no single yardstick to determine what people Deserve.

We have, of course, social rules in common, our personal concepts are shaped by the environment in which we are raised and the rules that we encounter as we develop. Nurture and experience. But at the heart of it is the truth that it's just as much a nonphysical value judgment as anything else, and nonphysical value judgments are always individual and personal.

Therefore it's not up to me to decide what people deserve. I'm not qualified. I'm not a universal observer with the knowledge of everything that makes up a person. There was a story I read about this murderer who dies and goes to heaven, and he's not judged by God, you see. God is instead called as the Prime Witness. And while the dead-human judges confer after God's testimony, the murderer is left alone momentarily with God, and asks him why they're judging him, and not God. And God tells him about the marble he lost when he was five, and how he cried when his mother died, and what he felt the first time he committed a crime, the sickness and revulsion. God can't judge, you see, because God sees the totality, and God loves. To know someone that intimately is to have to love that someone, and therefore to be unable to judge. And I can't know anyone like that. And I'd have to, to know what they deserve, what motivations govern their actions both good and bad. But I can't. Therefore, in good conscience, I can't judge, and I can't decide what people deserve.

And what people "deserve" is also intrinsically linked to their "worth." I have a serious problem with the idea that some people are worth more than others. On the societal level, that's the basis of every discriminatory practice in the world: this person isn't worth as much as this other person, so it's OK to subjugate or kill them. On the personal level, "worth" is even more blatantly a nonphysical value judgment than "deserve." Every single argument I have made as regards "deserve" is also applicable to "worth," and there's more, besides.

People get into trouble when they decide they deserve too much, like "it doesn't matter what other people think or have, I deserve to have it, so I'll take it from them." And people get into trouble when they decide they deserve too little. But a lot of that is also tied to worth. Self-worth or the value that others put on you, worth is just a judgment. And everybody's got their own criteria for what's worthy, what counts. Is it skin color? Economic background? Ideas about society? Personal value to the observer in question? Doesn't matter; it'll be different for the next person who comes along.

And just like I don't have the right to say "you deserve this" or "you don't deserve this" because I'm not qualified to judge, I'm also not qualified to tell someone their worth, or the worth of anyone else. I do it all the time, of course: a friend has a problem with an ex, and I tell them "he's not worth it." Because the guy has demonstrated his inability to behave like a rational caring person, so in my view, he's not worth wasting thought on, since it won't help anything. When I tell someone about someone else's worth, the implication at the end is always "by my value system." And that's fine, that's expected.

But I'm not qualified to push my value system on anyone else. I can't invade a country and say "this is what values you work for, now; this is what's worth it for you." I can't expect anyone else to agree with my value system; my friend may still moon over her ex and cause herself stress. And that's her right, because she's looking at qualities I don't see, qualities I can't see. I may disagree, but it's not my place to impose, because it's not my value system she's using, and it's not my right to impose it.

I try to convince people all the time, of course; that's a natural human tendency, to try to get people to think like you do, alongside you. Grouping and social dynamics at work, perhaps. But I don't impose, and I try not to judge. I can't. It's not my life, it's not my mind, it's not my place.

I do have my own standards, though. And they're fucked up and stupid, because humanity is fucked up and stupid, and much as I dislike the fact, I too am human, with all the fallibility and mistakes and sheer idiocy that comes along with that. And I have been idiotic, oh yes. But my values remain in place, and despite the pig-headedness of my day-to-day existence, I stick to my values. They're fucked up and wrong and people will not understand, because they're not coming from my life and my history, but they're mine, and they've served me reasonably well these two-score years.

But maybe it's just pointless, anyway. Because not everybody has the same restraint as I do, and I'm as much subject to others' value systems as anyone. Ultimately, we are all potential victims of each others' whims, on the internet particularly.

And the universe doesn't care about that, either.





EDIT: Crap, I had a whole thing about the hypocrisy of Ayn Rand to work into the "worth" section, and I forgot about it completely. I should make notes next time instead of just writing freehand...
 
I'm going to do a whole music thing when I have the time to sit down and really write it out, because music's important to me, but not so important that it's effortlessly woven into everything I do, like cinema. But this is not it.

No, this is a minor subset of my feelings on music, which is specifically about cover songs.

So I was pedaling into work, and the Asylum Street Spankers came on, which is a group that does sorta jazz/early roots style songs with a wicked sense of humor, raunch, and a postmodern flair. They're most famous, I think, for "Stick Magnetic Ribbons On Your SUV", and I've also linked to their country murder ballad/gangster rap fusion song "Hick Hop" before, and I really do like "The Scrotum Song".

Anyway, so I'm listening to a track from their Mercurial album, "Paul Revere", which is basically a Tin Pan Alley-style cover of the Beastie Boys song off their Licensed To Ill album. And I remember that album came out when I was in high school, and everybody was listening to those songs, so it's both a nostalgia thing and kind of a mash-up.

And it just drives home my thought about cover songs. The old days of there were songs and everybody did their version of it and they could all be reasonably similar (the old jazz/blues days, for example) are pretty much over; songs these days are closely identified with their initial singers, so the idea of the "cover" song is much more identifiable now than it used to be.

And my thought is, if you're going to do a cover, you ought to put your own unique stamp on it. Anybody remember... no, of course not. Anybody heard about back when Guns N' Roses did the cover of Paul McCartney's "Live and Let Die?" It was basically identical, except with Axl Rose yowling in McCartney's place, and I thought at the time "What a waste of audio this is!"

If you're going to do a cover, change it up a bit. Slow it down, or speed it up, or syncopate it differently. It's one reason I adore Weird Al Yankovic's polka medleys; you get to see all the songs all changed up polka style, and that's awesome.

My personal tastes are to go fast. None of that Tori Amos going all slow on her cover of Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" for me. I got enough ballads from my classic rock station growing up, you know? Rock me out like The Ramones, baby! I love beautiful music of all sorts, but I really really like it when it can pump me up and get me going. So do that for me, cover songs! Take something slow and ramp it up. Give your rock ballad a ska beat! Thrash metal jazz standards! I love everything Me First and the Gimmie Gimmies has turned out that I've heard!

Anyway. That's my feelings on cover songs: do it your own way or don't bother doing it at all.
 
Oh, Lil Sis, you ain't seen nothin' yet! Wait till I sit down to actually talk about music as a whole! Then you'll think I'm really weird.

Also: went back into my post about cover songs and added links to referenced YouTube songs and to examples I thought would work (as well as various Wikipedia entries about the bands referenced, in case all your tastes don't run to "oldies"). Rexamine and clicky!
 
I've decided to post one of my stories here in the journal. It's one I wrote several years ago as an attempt to provide a) an arousing tale, b) an explication of some of my basic thoughts and beliefs on the subject, and c) an opportunity to see how a basic bibliophillia like mine might convert to a more sexual setting.

Some people have read it on this site; I've shared it "publicly" on other places as well, so it's not like I'm ashamed at all for it to be read. But I'd rather not break it across two pages, so since we're so close to the bottom of this page, I'm just going to try and figure out a couple of posts to fill things out, and as soon as we go over to page 2, I'll start copying and pasting. However, since I don't like to waste things, I'm going to try to think of actual topics I can post on.

Posting the story works well with my idea of using this space as an archive for my thoughts and philosophies. What better way to respond to the question of "how do you feel about that?" than referring the questioner to a basic source? I'm sure Ayn Rand did the same with Atlas Shrugged. Not that my story has twenty-page monologues or anything...

(...although given my status as a maximalist, it wouldn't be surprising.)
 
I posted that where everyone could read it for a reason.

Just cause I'm honest. :D Besides, everyone who shows affection in threads are cheesy.
 
Luna said:
I posted that where everyone could read it for a reason.

Just cause I'm honest. :D Besides, everyone who shows affection in threads are cheesy.
... Well, coming from that perspective, you're entitled to your value judgment. I just didn't like being labeled.

It's just I figure if you like a person, as friends or whatever, why limit how you show it? Seems artificial and unnecessarily restrictive, and I'm not a good one for restrictions. Not on myself, at least. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom