white space
the archives
about
black
|
2005-05-12 17:09:43
-----------------------------------
"asshat"
while the term 'asshat' is something of a new word, i feel the adjective deserves more credit than the paltry laughs it recieves. one who is called an asshat is said to be wearing someones bottom [his own?] on the top of his head. the idea that one could wear a hat made of ass is rediculous.
the hindus consider the head to be the most sacred part of the body. through various rituals and clensing ceremonies, the godhead is worshiped through the connection of mind and body - the head - and is considered the origin of all knowledge. indeed, the most powerful chakhra is the the area in the crown of our skulls, where our life-energy swirls around as rapidly or as tightly as we may control it.
it is said that water eminates to the river from the spring, yet is conceived in the sediments below. a spring itself is never the source of water, but mearly as channel by which the water comes to light. so too is the head the channel of wisdom, which flows out and through our souls from down below to on high.
similarly, ancient aztec war rites demanded the sacrifice of prisoners[-of-war] to tliztlecpo, the insatiable god of men, the sun and the earth who's thirst for blood would never fully be quenched. the priests of tliztlecpo would slice open the chest of the lucky participant (who had, for the previous year, been treated as a god incarnate on earth, and who was lavished with food, drugs, women, and prestige), grasp his still beating heart, and raise it to the sky in symbolic gesture of penitence.
afterwards, the head of the sacrifice was ritually consummed by the high priests as well as visiting dignitaries from across the land. the head contained the masculinity of the offering, and through digestion, was thought to impart its strength to those who had conquered its own power.
spiritual aspects aside, the head is the 'central processing unit' of our bodies. in grotesque 'scientific experiments,' scientists have kept monkey heads alive and conscious after being surgically removed from their bodies for several days. walt disney himself had this procedure performed on his cryogenically frozen body.
ceremonial headdress can be found in all cultures, and many interpretive anthropologists would argue that every religion venerates the most powerful shaman or priest with the largest of headgear. here, analogous similarities can be drawn to phalic representations: the best shaman is the one with the biggest hat; the man with the biggest hat has the largest penis; the man with the largest penis has the most power.
therefore, i propose an addition to blake's 'cultural universal construct,' the cornerstone of ethnology since 1958: more penis = more power.
power flows through the penis on command. although the vagina (compared to origin and creation since the dawn of time) has its own cycle of flow (which it turns out is more rythmic), it is dependant on our conceptions of time. a period of patience must be disciplined into the wielder of this power, and patience is not always the easiest thing to wait for. but the penis has the advantage. impatience is almost unheard of - when the wielder desires power, the man is [in most cases] ready and willing to produce 'flow.' exceptions arise if the man has already 'flowed' recently, in which case he probably doesn't care about 'flowing' anymore. a woman may 'flow,' but she is forced by nature to wait and prepare for her energy. when the time is ready and the tissue ripe, woman releases an onslaught of energy uncomparable to man-made, cultured 'flow.'
i digress.
to wear an ass on one's head, then, is for a one to put his or her power under the bottom of another. if the case is in fact his-or-her-own bottom, then one's own power is below itself: meaningless.
top
2005-04-29 17:53:03
-----------------------------------
Perfection is theorectical.
mathemat-ics : Greek "mathimatikos" (science, learning)
mathimat- [from Greek, from the Indo-European root "mendh-" (to learn)]
-ics [from Greek "-ikos" (stuff)]
This chick I know named Beth was talking to me today. She's real nerdy - one of those people who takes math classes for fun. Seriously.
Anyhow, she got started on circles and how they're all great and stuff. Then she said that the equation for a perfect circle is in fact flawed. Every circle uses certain functions which, if broken down, end up contradicting themselves. [Indeed, my own musings on pi and its infinite length have led me to believe circles are not what they seem.] She also stated that physics studies are based on mathematical models (obviously), and that by its very nature, physics is meant to be applicable to the 'natural world'.
"However," said she, "you cannot find any instance of a perfect circle existing in nature."
Perfection does not actually exist in the world that surrounds us. Things that exist in reality which we think of as circular (or spherical) are not even close. We can say in math "3 + 4 = 7," but when related to the physical world this may not always be the case. (Someone measuring 3kg of seeds will likely have a different seed count than another.) Problems arise when nature doesn't measure up to our math.
When we assume that our mathematical concepts are correct and 'perfect,' we assume that the things constructed by the use of math are also correct and 'perfect.' We have created this 'math' system in our heads - a perfect language, if you will - but the precision required to translate the realworld is often impossible.
So we create theories.
Little worlds in our heads where things are perfect, and where everything follows the rules: Lines meet ends and circles are sensical.
per-fect : Latin "perficere" (to finish)
per- [from Indo-European “per-” (through)]
-fect [from Latin "facere" (to do), from the Indo-European root "dhe-" (to set, to put)]
inter-est :
inter- [from Old French "entre-," from Indo-European "en" (between, among)]
-est [from Latin "esse," Indo-European "es-" (to be)]
Interesting this: another derivative of 'es-' is.. 'sin'! surprise!
to be is to be sinful. what is sin? materialness? is to not be to be divine?
let me put it into context: i just found out that the word 'sin' derives from the indo-european word for 'to be.' so the claim that man is inherently sinful is true, becuase we all ARE. divinity would be when we ARENT. so what is the opposite of sin? i can't place the word i'm trying to think of. tandy claims that 'virtue' is, which is interesting. 'virtue' derived from the indo-euro word for 'man'.
but nothing can be divine. to be divine is a contradiction, and is impossible for our brains to compute. that's why we create 'the other'. we cannot imagine in our imagination anything that is not there. remember that man is a very visual creature: to be imagined, it must first exist.
|