Log in

Asinine Thought
formerly known as Cheeri-Oats
Recent Entries 
30th-Dec-2006 04:05 am - Satan and Headphone Cords
There is a radical sect of Progressorthdox Jewish theologians that have postulated a tantalizing link between the evil Serpent of Genesis and the modern mystery of the phenomenon known as Spontaneous Headphone Cord Entanglement.

The theory suggests that the Serpent, ever an eternal source of mild to vaguely ominous irritation to the human population as a whole, has imprinted itself so deeply in the recesses of our minds that when we design anything of a serpentine nature, we subconsciously transmit these snakely mal-essences into them, which then manifest themselves in the inexplicable and tedious tangling of cords, cables, and ropes, although the most prominent of the offenders is by far the headphone cord. The fact that the headphone cord is forkéd like the tongue of the serpent has been referenced as physical evidence, while psychologists claim that the tongue of the snake and the headphone both exhibit severe cases of multiple personalities (which seem to be in vogue for dieties and divinity; take the Trinity as an example).

Personally, I think its a load of bunk. It's obviously the work of vagabond leprechauns.

6th-Dec-2006 04:43 pm(no subject)
If the Earth truly is a computer run by mice, then the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything cannot possibly be 42. It must be 10,110.
3rd-Nov-2006 03:32 am - Thing, Is, and the Becoming
Things become what they are only when the becoming is a thing that is.

Therefore, to become (thingly) without first establishing a precedent for ising within the contextual paradigm of one's existence, being is forfeit and replaced with a spatial and temporal ellipsis.

To give this postulate political and social relevance, remember the existing nonexistent WMD's. The truth claim of WMD being was assumed but not properly solidified, thus the WMD was replaced with the ellipsis WTF and nothing ever came of anything, since nothing could become what it was due to the becoming not being an ising thing, at least in the conventional sense of thingness.

This is, incidentally, why Britney Spears drops babies, not because she is exhibiting an evolutionary mechanism designed to keep the gene pool free of worthless DNA, unfortunately.
26th-Sep-2006 06:43 pm - Confucius and the 1960s
Confucius (Kung Futzu) argued for the pursuit of an ideal Noble Man; through the acquiring and practice of proper learning and virtues, one could attain Benevolence and become a gentleman or noble man.

It would then follow that if one were to pursue a life of vice and maintain a steadfast refusal to learn, one would eventually achieve Malevolence and become an asshole.

Unless of course you happen to be female, in which case neither of these philosophies applies. Ladyship, being a more complicated theoretical matter, only began to fully addressed by the advent of cloistered nuns. This, understandably, directly explains the feminist revolt of the 1960s.

Confucious, in effect, precipitated bra burning by not addressing how the Way applied to those with more interesting genitalia and letting the issue fall into the hands of future, less Chinese generations.
(as written by mysticalglitter and mylifeisdukka86)

The phenemonological leanings of many of the leading authors discussing the nut led to a dearth of materials dealing with the possible unreality of "nut" as a meaningful perceptual and conceptual category. While many authors delved into such issues as taste and ability to be stored, the deeper epistemelogical issues were largely untouched until the Nut Rennaissance, which is widely considered to have begun on December 14, 1923, when many thinkers were forced to consider the possibility of the nonexistence of nuts, as they no longer had the strong empirical evidence which underlied previous assumptions.

Then they fucking starved to death.

The deaths of these thinkers led many to abandon the contemplation of the nut's nonexistence in favor of a return to more experiential interaction with nuts. Which, of course, led to a return to the religious roots of Nut worship, spawning what has since been called New Age Nuttery, in which the nut is viewed as the organic model embodying the insular nature of the universe, with God as the benevolent tree. God of course is never referred to as such, but the idea remains the same: a pandimensional, omniscient being from whence all knowledge and experience emmanates.

This led to a counter-culture movement that denounced the Tree-As-God notion as merely a phallic fallacy. Feminist nut gatherers preferred the alternative Hole-in-the-ground-As-God theory, however were marginalized for their divergent belief system. The alternative model of the feminuts postulated that the God-as-hole-in-the-ground model was representative of God's ultimately protective and nurturing essence, being the soil in which the nut thrives and becomes a tree. God is not the tree; rather, evolutionary processes bring organic beings to an eventual tree fulfillment, where it becomes the moral duty of the organic beings to begin the cycle anew. This lies in direct conflict with the previous clockmaker tree theory, of let go and forget. Many criticized the feminut model as excessively vaginal, to which the feminuts responded that the real pussies were the New Age Nuttists and their unwillingness to explore other theological possibilities.

This conflict, interestingly, gave birth to a philosophy that essentially synthesized these views into a paradoxical core belief statement: "God is the tree as much as god is the soil. The nut is us, who will eventually become god, and then eventually us again." While not significantly talented with words, the NeoNuts neverless hold firm convictions in karmic reincarnation and hold the chipmunk to be the holiest animal. The linguistic connection between chipmunks and monks, however, according to the NeoNuts, is completely coincidental, and has no bearing on the animal's spiritual significance. "Chipmunks, after all," they claim, "are not bald. They also do not hum in a silly way, or wear stupid sandals." It's this fine distinction between what constitutes chipmunkery and classical monkery that is the radical contribution to postmodern philosophical paradigms--and, vicariously, contemporary Nut Literature analysis.
10th-Jul-2006 01:18 am(no subject)
Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
8th-Jul-2006 12:29 am(no subject)
Are fish being discriminated against by not being included in the meat category, or are the fish simply being elitist?

If the former is the case, would advocating affirmative action in the deli section of your neighborhood grocery store be a proper course of action, or merely an unhelpful distraction that does nothing to change the basic nature of our courses of food?
29th-Jun-2006 06:20 pm(no subject)
Do you think airplane black boxes prefer to be called African American boxes?
18th-Jun-2006 01:02 am - Western Philosophy
Socrates is oft and widely credited for laying the foundation of Western philosophy. If his dialectic method is the foundation, can Kant's "critical philosophy" be said to be the eyeshadow, and Freud's psychoanalysis the lip gloss? What then constitutes the eyeliner and colored contact lenses, Hegel and Jung? Are Derrida and Nietzche the rebellious g-string and clit piercing?

More importantly, is western philosophy a tramp of the streets, or merely a confused young woman cursed with a gaudy fashion sense?
This page was loaded Jul 27th 2017, 12:29 pm GMT.