Jun. 30th, 2006

oneirophrenia: (Creegan)
Ecce Homo is, fundamentally, about Human relationships, among one's own society/species, among others', and organic Human intelligence's place in the cosmos (or, at least, a little bit of our spiral arm). It explores cultural conflicts, race conflicts, and developmental conflicts utilizing different Human "species" as metaphors for Human societies and races and cultures we're all familiar with...though it was accidental that the Xanthians, who are prettymuch just the Chinese with bigger bodies, also have bright yellow skins. Don't look at me like that, goddamnit--their planet is rich in sulphur and organsulfuric compounds! No one species is completely based on any one group of contemporary Original Humans, but...they are all fundamentally Human in terms of biology, neurology, and so forth--so you'll find plenty that is familiar in the characters' and their worlds despite the obvious biological differences, which serve to really make the cultural and societal differences stand out with greater fictional impact.

I've already very tentatively drawn up a plan for the next book set in the Ecce Homo milieux. No title, no characters--nothing like that yet...but I do know what it's going to be about. A certain Human species decides that it's the Master Race and goes on an interstellar rampage of conquering. The questions this one will deal with is...if your culture/species is clearly superior to others' in terms of technology, biology, anything like that, what do you do with that knowledge? Is there a time when cultural imperialism can actually be a good thing? And, of course, when you have human species in conflict over who's better/who's best, one thing is always guaranteed to happen: genocide. Sorry, idealists--genocide is a part of the Human experience (and probably the postHuman, as well), and I'm not about to say that it's Always Bad. What happens when you encounter a species so irreparably nasty, so ferocious, and so virulent that the only way to contain them for the good of everyone else is to eradicate them utterly? Or so pathetic, so clearly unfit to survive in any environment, that there's just no point in keeping them around? Tough questions.

But we'll see.


Jun. 30th, 2006 01:26 am
oneirophrenia: (r0b0t)
Also, while I'm thinking about it...I've been reading a lot about string theory, M-theory and related brane theories, and such since...well, cosmology is one of my favorite on-again/off-again hobbies. And it seems to me that the reason why it's been so difficult to rustle up a Grand Unified Theory of Everything can be reduced to one fact: causality. Everyone is so desperate to figure out why there's apparently a directionality to time (the arrow of time, that is) leading from "past" to "future" and to avoid or otherwise rationalize away violations of causality, but every established law of physics is completely symmetrical in terms of time: the equations work whether you run them "forward" in time or "backward" in time. Causality is almost certainly an artifact not of the structure of our universe, but of our brains.

Consider: Our brains evolved to parse information provided only by the dimensional "3-brane" sheet that macroscopic matter, as we know it, exists on. Being that our brains are material, made of the "stuff" present on our native spacetime membrane, they need only parse input from that same subset of the greater universe. The illusion of time and causality (irreversible chains of events) is created by the dimensional structure of the brane we exist on...but there are other branes, other physical dimensions, that our mathematics have clearly indicated are out there. The only reason the maths get confused is when we try to force our limited "causal" interpretations on it. We need to stop thinking in terms of the "understandable" universe apparent to our senses and our most basic mathematics and start looking at things from a >4-dimensional perspective, at which point I'm betting causality will be shown to be a limited construct valid only to activities within a specific dimensional subset and not on the "grand scale" of the 11(plus-or-minus)-dimensional whole of the universe.
oneirophrenia: (Default)
This article, from Pravda's English website, is absolutely hysterical: "Ten things men hate about women."

The article is nothing but generalizations and badly-translated to boot, but it still makes for some amusing reading, especially if you're a borderline misogynist like me. Let's take a quick look at the breakdown Russian "opinion polls" have deduced about what men hate in women:

1. Men don't like women pretending they're virgins but secretly being ho'ish. This is definitely an issue I've noticed in Western culture in general, since there are strongly competing cultural influences for both modernist "doing whatever you like" and "being the traditional good girl" at work in our collective civilization...but I've never noticed this in particular. I say: Dowhutyalike.

2. Men hate it when women criticize other women. Men criticize other men just as much, and snarkiness in all its forms drives me crazy--even though I'm probably one of the snarkiest people on earth.

3. Women are crazy jealous and this drives men nuts. Idaknow...I've never really met a lot of jealous women. Anyone (male or female) expressing more than a little token jealousy gets pushed aside as quickly as possible, because I flatout refuse to deal with that bothersome "all-too-human" crap.

4. Men do not like to be treated as emotional support systems. OK, finally something I can wholeheartedly agree with--if only in a personal sense. I'm always there to help a friend out when they're down, going through a rough spot, or anything like that...but when it becomes obvious that all I ever do in a relationship, be it friendly or more serious, is keep propping someone up when all they want to do is wallow in their own misery, I'm out the door. I'm nobody's crutch. I'll help anyone out, but if you can't stand on your own, you'll fall on your own.

5. Women use "codes" when talking to each other. HUH? I've never dated a Navaho Code Talker, but something tells me it would be pretty fucking cool, especially considering how much I'm into cryptography. I've never experienced anything like this--must be some kind of weird Russian phenomenon. There are times I have no idea what women are talking about, but that usually stems from the fact that I am damnear clueless about women in general.

6. "Some women want all the spare time of their men to be devoted to them only." I've encountered this occasionally, but that's just because I'm a psycho- and/or incredibly-needy-emotional-wreck-magnet. Again, I don't think this is a problem with all women, just those I seem to end up with.

7. Women are too emotional. Oh, I can agree with that 100%. But, then again, a lot of men are too goddamned emotional, too. I can't stand emotionality anymore, coming from anyone...especially myself.

8. Women shop too much? Was this "survey" taken in the 1980s? I've NEVER met a woman, of any age, who "shops too much" or spends money recklessly. I've known plenty of people who don't have any financial sense whatsoever, but...that's not the same thing as "shopping too much." Way to perpetuate a stupid myth, Russia.

9. Women talk too much. Really? I've never noticed them being worse than...well, anyone else. Some are loud and boisterous (I dig this), some are quiet and secretive (this makes me paranoid). Just like everyone.

10. Women use sex to get their way. I guess this means "witholding" or something. Idaknow...only works on a man with a sex drive. Mine stopped working a few months ago, and I don't miss it one bit.

So, all in all...silly. THat's putting it mildly. But, still, there are a few statistical trends noticeable in there that I've noticed to be real--but they apply equally as well to men as women.

Simply put: human beings are more annoying than not. No wondewr I never leave my house anymore.
oneirophrenia: (Mr. Rogers)
Texan archaeologists say they've found it.

I call bullshit. Bull-Fucking Bullshit. The article says they found "something that looked like it was made of wood" on that mountain--and they very likely may have. Someone's old hunting cabin. Or any other kind of wood construction that someone might've built on a mountaintop a few thousand years ago.

Here's news for you scrotes: people build stuff on mountains. And that stuff is usually made of wood (or, if they really want it to last, stone). You're scrounging around for evidence for a mythical boat in a region that has been inhabited and heavily-used by people for thousands of years--just finding some remains of civilized construction on top of a mountain does NOT equal "Ark."

oneirophrenia: (Drunk Russian!)
Soviet propaganda posters from the post-War Stalinist era.

The art is actually really good--but, as I've always said, the Russians are AMAZING artists. Their poetry, prose, visual arts, and especially their music (Alexandr Borodin, anyone?) cannot be beat.

But they flatout cannot govern themselves.

Now I need to start hauling boxes of CDs into the attic. Oy.
oneirophrenia: (Default)
Osama Bin Laden reported to be making a new video!

Though no specific details are available yet, it seems this one will feature music production by the Neptunes, a cameo appearance by David Hasselhoff as "The Capitalist," and a whole bunch of bootylicious rap-video chicks in satin daisy-dukes and burqas with rhinestones on them reading "Cave Bitch." Also, sources report that Bin Laden has inked a deal with Hollywood Grills to feature one of their full-mouth platinum teeth inserts reading FUCK YOU GEORGE.

As long as it's just not him sitting in a cave playing an acoustic guitar and trying to look indie, like he did in the last video.


oneirophrenia: (Default)

April 2007

89 1011121314

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 06:23 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios