My father loved two American cities: Washington, D.C. and San Francisco. Both cities host little to no industrial decay and have beautiful architecture. In the late 50s or early 60s, the US Army drafted my father. Ironically enough, in Corpus Christi, Texas, Dad shared barracks close to Elvis Presley. The rest of the recruits, including my father, hated the “King,” a phenomenological, horny talent, whose white car became red by the end of the day.
Why?
Use the comment function to post any responses to the riddle posed. Good luck!
Friday, August 28, 2009
Guerrilla Warfare on the Potomac (circa 1992)
Ever since you beautifully articulated a part of Guru Nanak’s teachings to me over the phone (last year, we spoke of guerrilla warfare on the banks of the Potomac River), I have been preoccupied with what you told me: in one sense, your stance seems horrendously Gandhi-like (pardon the linkage) in the negation of the self (i.e., if you do away with desire, you do away with misery). In another sense, those thoughts pose a possible pseudo-epiphany. Be patient, I will explain. But, please, whatever you do, do not throw a book in my face.
My confusion or apprehension to acceptance of your philosophical dialect stems possibly from Rand’s influence. As you are aware, Rand regarded an individual’s happiness as the paramount realization of justice and beauty. However, Rand pits Government against the individual; Government is the greatest roadblock to an individual’s happiness due to its capacity to tax its own citizenry, thereby depriving individuals of their right to enjoy the fruits of their own labor. The plausibility of this conclusion may be questionable and, henceforth, unduly questioned and, hopefully, put to rest.
In the Dialectic, Descarte concluded: “I think, therefore, I am.” However, this philosophic self-discourse may be a futile strategy to arrive at truth, justice, and logic, nes pa’? I already know that I exist, understand? I am more concerned with existing beautifully and living a good life (not just ‘the good life’). But, I do think that Descarte had an interesting methodology.
Without Descarte, there may never have been colonialism and the subsequent globalization of human interaction, because he aligned the pursuit of science and technology with the existence of Golf (I mean GOD, oops). Anyhow, if we concern ourselves with our senses as tools for measuring and experiencing the material world and treat them as gifts (from DOG spelled backwards) rather than taking our senses for granted, we can proceed from here, yes?
Because we interact with one another, create things, actualize tasks and projects, and, ultimately, use our senses spontaneously (like memory and sight – if you open your eyes, you see, etc.), then we must owe our “individuality” to something outside ourselves and simultaneously to what comes from within our own souls. But, because we are separate entities (you and I), we are individuals in the most basic sense of that word. Don’t you think, in some sense, then, our achievements (anything considered worthwhile by anyone) flow from our individuality because, ultimately, ambition or desire “pumps” our desire and ability to achieve?
Without desire, achievement has no value. So, how can one say: “if you rid desire, one becomes closer to obtaining happiness but happiness shouldn’t be a goal?” For clarity’s sake, I didn’t say that happiness is the only goal. Then, ultimately, the question becomes: “Is existence, by the virtue of being human, sacred in itself?” THE ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING: YES!!!
Yours,
HippoParamus
P.S. Don’t let them fool you; a FLAT TAX is inherently progressive: simple, fair, and just. The more money one makes, the more one pays. Fact: the American middle class – and not the corporations and fat cats that we continuously bail out - is footing 80-90% of all gross federal tax receipts. Get mad. Get very mad!
My confusion or apprehension to acceptance of your philosophical dialect stems possibly from Rand’s influence. As you are aware, Rand regarded an individual’s happiness as the paramount realization of justice and beauty. However, Rand pits Government against the individual; Government is the greatest roadblock to an individual’s happiness due to its capacity to tax its own citizenry, thereby depriving individuals of their right to enjoy the fruits of their own labor. The plausibility of this conclusion may be questionable and, henceforth, unduly questioned and, hopefully, put to rest.
In the Dialectic, Descarte concluded: “I think, therefore, I am.” However, this philosophic self-discourse may be a futile strategy to arrive at truth, justice, and logic, nes pa’? I already know that I exist, understand? I am more concerned with existing beautifully and living a good life (not just ‘the good life’). But, I do think that Descarte had an interesting methodology.
Without Descarte, there may never have been colonialism and the subsequent globalization of human interaction, because he aligned the pursuit of science and technology with the existence of Golf (I mean GOD, oops). Anyhow, if we concern ourselves with our senses as tools for measuring and experiencing the material world and treat them as gifts (from DOG spelled backwards) rather than taking our senses for granted, we can proceed from here, yes?
Because we interact with one another, create things, actualize tasks and projects, and, ultimately, use our senses spontaneously (like memory and sight – if you open your eyes, you see, etc.), then we must owe our “individuality” to something outside ourselves and simultaneously to what comes from within our own souls. But, because we are separate entities (you and I), we are individuals in the most basic sense of that word. Don’t you think, in some sense, then, our achievements (anything considered worthwhile by anyone) flow from our individuality because, ultimately, ambition or desire “pumps” our desire and ability to achieve?
Without desire, achievement has no value. So, how can one say: “if you rid desire, one becomes closer to obtaining happiness but happiness shouldn’t be a goal?” For clarity’s sake, I didn’t say that happiness is the only goal. Then, ultimately, the question becomes: “Is existence, by the virtue of being human, sacred in itself?” THE ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING: YES!!!
Yours,
HippoParamus
P.S. Don’t let them fool you; a FLAT TAX is inherently progressive: simple, fair, and just. The more money one makes, the more one pays. Fact: the American middle class – and not the corporations and fat cats that we continuously bail out - is footing 80-90% of all gross federal tax receipts. Get mad. Get very mad!
A Humorous Vignette from a Friend at Van Ness: Circumcision
Were you circumcised without your consent? Has this left you scarred for life? If so, our legal team will ensure that you obtain the financial compensation that you deserve for any physical mutilation and trauma endured.
So pick up your phone and call us at 1-800-444-SKIN. That’s 1-800-444-S-K-I-N.
Jerckov, Wanker, and Associates. Let us handle your penal matters.
So pick up your phone and call us at 1-800-444-SKIN. That’s 1-800-444-S-K-I-N.
Jerckov, Wanker, and Associates. Let us handle your penal matters.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
I Have Faith
Y'all:
A system of love: philosophy
Would anyone trade his or her own eyesight for all the money in the world? I doubt that anybody would or will upon this supposition.
Thus, everyone who reads this essay has by thought and perspective in tandem become by an ontological proposition, a trillionaire.
A great philosopher once stated: "Time is more important than money because one can always make more money but never obtain one last second passed, in accordance with universal circumstance. Time is not money - money, however, by its essence is meaningless and life precious."
Geezie weezie - who wrote that? Could it be a philosopher whose first name starts with a "P" and last name begins with a "B?"
Yours,
HippoParamus
A system of love: philosophy
Would anyone trade his or her own eyesight for all the money in the world? I doubt that anybody would or will upon this supposition.
Thus, everyone who reads this essay has by thought and perspective in tandem become by an ontological proposition, a trillionaire.
A great philosopher once stated: "Time is more important than money because one can always make more money but never obtain one last second passed, in accordance with universal circumstance. Time is not money - money, however, by its essence is meaningless and life precious."
Geezie weezie - who wrote that? Could it be a philosopher whose first name starts with a "P" and last name begins with a "B?"
Yours,
HippoParamus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
