Ok, I need to whine for a second here. I am attempting to read Umberto Eco's Kant and the Platypus. It is a collection of essays that is ostensibly a follow-up to his Theory of Semiotics (I might have butchered the title). It is terribly head-twisting. I strongly suspect that I don't have the theoretical background I need to even open this fearsome tome. Regardless, I will persist but I would raise one point: If Eco is the most accessable of the authors writing on the subject god help us!
I am only in the first chapter but I can already feel myself slipping down the slope of comprehension. In this chapter he talks about being which is, I am lead to believe, the biggest can of worms you can possibly open in a philosophical discussion. I am not even following along well enough to explain to you what he is talking about. It seems in part that he is advocating the idea of divorcing being from itself or reshaping language in a way that makes being explicit instead of a universally applied assumption. Then again that might not be what he is saying at all. I'm trying to figure it out. One thing that I did get (although I am a little embarrassed because I suspect this is something you would learn in an intro to philosophy course) and that I think is rather neat is that being has infinite extension and null intension. Wahoo! Anyway.
I'm a slow learner.
One of the best outcomes of all of this, and, indeed why I keep doing it, is that it's gotten me thinking about my ideas of conciousness. It seems like being would have to be the core or kernel of any awareness. The idea that "I am". In fact it seems like that can be the only foundation. I have yet to figure out a lower-order primitive (ermm.. is this primary indexicality?). Additionally, that awareness makes the next step possible: "they are" and "I am not them". *shrug* Idle hands, devil's toaster- oven and all that.
One other question I have is doesn't being preclude the existence of non-being? I'm confused. *sigh*
Back to your regularly scheduled programming...
-Loop
In music news: Daft Punk's new one <forgotten album name here> is a strange, strange beast. Take eighties dance music or maybe the Buggles and add a modern bass beat and that lame-ass effect from Eiffel 65's Blue and you've pretty much got it. The entire freaking album. Fie on Daft Punk! I guess it is kind of amusing when you're drunk, though. Not that I would know, Mom! :)
In movies: Just picked up the recent release of Drunken Master which is actually Drunken Master 2. If you have never seen this movie go rent this disc. Chan at his best. The downsides: A really lame re-dub and no option to hear the original Chinese with subtitles. *sigh* Oh well.
In tech: Ok. PS2. Got one. Played some games. Not very impressed yet. I hope it will one day deliver this much vaunted power but for now the DC is a better platform. Maybe Bouncer will change my mind. We shall see.
I want to say thank you to all of you guys that came to celebrate St Pat's with the gents of der geekhaus. Cathy,Dave,Ellen,Ethan,John,Kara,Lana,Scott, and Summer. *prays he didn't mis-spell anyone's name* I had a great time. Hope you all did too. One of the best weekends I've had in months. You guys had better come visit again this week.
Just had to share this little snippet from an email from my mom, I about fell out of my chair laughing:
Did you know that earrings are no longer any sign, no matter on which ear, of gayness? A nipple ring, however, is a clear indication. I just wondered if you knew that??For those of you that don't know, I have both nipples pierced. I guess I'm gay now. Doesn't that make it easy? No more angst or anguish, no more coming out of the closet. Just a simple fashion change and you're done. If only all of life was this easy.
On and odd sidenote, my grandma asked me why I hadn't gotten my ears peirced. She seems to think that it would look good. And perhaps it might, but I don't know that I ever want to find out.