Everything is different from Everything Else

2016-08-29-05-04-33a) In the empirical sense, Everything is different from Everything Else. Either in property or position or massive accumulation of differences.

b) Most entities as we conceive of them differ massively because of their apartness in time, space, and physical property.

c) The only consistencies here are the two abstracted entities of “existence” and “difference”. Continue reading “Everything is different from Everything Else”

why beautiful?

What is it we want when we desire? What aspire? Apotheosis?

Finding any human “beautiful” is quite disturbing. I am especially disturbed when I see a stranger or a coworker and find them beautiful despite no knowledge of their internal lives, loves, and how they affect and effect their environment and co-humans. Another facet of my appreciation of these humans is that they are (not always) usually the very inadequate adjective “feminine”. Biologic imperatives aside, as thinking being, how is that my sense of beauty is skewed this way? If beauty lies in certain proportions of facial and body features, why should something as constructed, ethereal, flexible, and earthy as “gender” affect my preferences? Instinctually I distrust all category, yet those same instincts shade my preferences to certain and not all hues.

Intellectually, I can understand a preference for healthy scapes. A healthy looking desert or mountain always looks more beautiful to me than one that appears sickly or polluted. But it is the case that the humans I find most beautiful are not always the most healthy. If the appearance of health alone were a judgement-hinge, then why go further? But I do go further. Certain people are beautiful to me, more than other people. There is a sense that knowing someone well is to further appreciate their beauty, so I accept that. That still does not explain why so and so X at my workplace is more beautiful than so and so Y despite their similarities. Nor does it explain the same phenomenon when I see people on the train home.

I can say with confidence that all the friends I know well are extremely beautiful to me equally but in their own ways. And I love them all equally but in different ways. This is no cause for alarm. But why should a less deep appreciation for total strangers beauty be unequally divided among age, “gender appearance,” and other properties?

The shallow appreciation is unremarkable as I don’t know these people at all; I stress the unequal division of this appreciation. Another puzzling fact is that sometimes the appeal of a total stranger seems to be quite deep. Am I as prejudiced as all that? (Yes.)

icebubes, vapor, and water

How very arbitrary everything is. An attempt to make order of it all leads to the greatest acheivements of human beings, science, art, structure. Everything exists, as do I. And my continued existence is dependent on All That Is. If that All were not there, nor would I be. Be, that is. Is. The mathematical orbits of atomic particles echo the orbits of planets and galaxies. Difference returns to congruency, always and always. We humans are bound to time: flowing, flowing, always flowing. Continue reading “icebubes, vapor, and water”


Two dots. I reason that humans are able to perceive time because we are able to remember difference. That essentially, difference is dependent on memory to even be noticed. “When it was different,” as a means of cogitating the universe. But if one looks at these two dots . . one is able to perceive and remember difference without the aid of memory at all. The two dots are. Memory learning is needed for seeing and perceiving the difference between words and letters…but not for noticing these two dots : thence is a hole in my original idea.

sexual fantasy

Is this sexual fantasy deeply narcissistic? Is the friend-partner just a female me? Does this fantasy assume that someone would be as content with such a gaze as I would? Does this fantasy assume that my visual appreciation (quite a male trait, I hear) is more important that the types of fulfilment desired by this partner? Do I have a specific partner in mind (I do, somewhat dismayingly.) Does this fantasy not place sexuality outside the home (as in grand-patriarchal tradition), and yet even deny any kind wet fulfilment to the partner? Isn’t the fantasy quite a selfish one, really? It assumes a trust. It also assumes a frame between the everyday and the hour or so a week within. It is essentially Platonic. Am I now a bad human for this desire? There are frames where the desire to penetrate is one of violence and violation, an implementation of male force. I’m safe on that count. There are also (more recent) frames where the non-consummation is a denial of a sort, a violence of emotion, a manipulation and eschewing of pleasure-giving. Then I am guilty. Also there could be read an aversion to emotional responsibility here. But at the same time, to assume the emotional dependence of another seems to me a quiet sort of sexism.

The essential thing about a desire is that it is a projection outward of some very rooted instincts. Most humans share the same sorts of instincts when it comes to desire, and I pass no judgement on the colourful forms it can assume. Continue reading “sexual fantasy”

all of her

She was a point, but she felt pointless, so she became a line. But no one listened to her line, so she expanded into the worlds of width, breadth, and height. Here she encountered endless shapes, but her point had vanished. And her lines were constantly mutating into other angles. With no defined shape, she decided to expand into a four dimensions, but found she was yoked into dragging the other three with her into an ageing future. Five and six were similarly, just pointless variations on a theme. So made an effort and found her point again, though others criticized her as one-dimensional. After a certain point, she vanished.