Another Muddled Exposition of The PaAaSaF Argument

A Concise ( Reduction ) of Elemental Arguments

For The PaAaSaF Argument 

 

Introduction :

                   This introduction should perhaps be at The End of The Summation, But i was thinking;

Why Not just get it out of The Way — ( !!! )

The The PaAaSaF Argument suggests that Humanbeans are Incapable of True Thinking along with The Corollary Idea that Logic is Bunk. That is; Even if there Existed This Think called ‘Thinking’; It is also Impossible, Based on The Simple Observation that Using Its Anti-Thesis; Jiggery Pokery, or Joke ‘Logic’, You can Create Arguments that are Indistinguishable from ‘Real’ Logical Arguments— That Can Create Irrefutable Arguments to Prove Anything.

The Anti-Thesis of That; Is that Real Logic or Real Thinking should only be able to Prove True Things. Real Thinking should only Allow ‘Thinkers’ to ‘Believe’ True Things.

i would be willing to ‘Allow’ that in A Functional Pragmatic World; These Thinking Entities would be able, or allowed to ‘Act’ on ‘Assertions’ with very low Fractional Truth Values; But— The Thinkers would never Delude themselves into ‘Believing’ that these Assertions were ‘True’, & The Thinkers would most Definitely have a Very Thorough Understanding of The Very High Criterion for ‘Believing’ that Something is ’True’ & Elevating that Belief to ‘Knowing’ that Thing ( ? ) !

In Short :

To Believe something; You have to firstly ‘Believe’ it, & Also Have very Good Reasons for Believing it.

To Know Something; You firstly have to Believe it; Have good reasons for Believing it, & It must also be True.

How you ‘Know’ that something is Really True is The Big Trick !

- -

 

Thinking is Distinguished from Non-Thinking by This Single Criteria That The Functionality of Thinking Allows The Thinker to Take Reliable Observations of Reality & Extend those Impressions to Additionally Reliably ’True’ Thoughts.

There are many kinds of Non-Thinking; But we are only concerned at this time with this one kind of Non-Thinking that Humanimal Brains Perform. This Particular Kind of Humanimal Non-Thinking was Tinkered together by Darwinian Evolution, A Reasonably Intelligent Creator or Transcendental Angels, with or without The Supervision of Gawd— To Create a Highly Functional & Reliable, Emotionally Driven Hammer that would provide Each Biological Robot with a Good Survivability Potential & A Much Greater Survivability Potential for Their Genome in A Chaotic Environment that is Really Too Complex & Unpredictable for Any Thinking Device to Equal The Survivability Prospectives of A ‘Reactionary’ Device.

And this is Why; Although Machines; Computers or Mechanical Cogitators may be able to Express Genuine Thinking; Humanimals Can Not. Even by Attempting to Simulate Real Thinking; Our Brains will simply Rebel Against It ( !!! ) The Human Brain will Not Allow Thinking to Take Place in Our Neural Networks.

- -

Failures of Thinking :

The Most Readily Available Technique for Solid Symbolic Thinking is Propositional Logic, which may be Extended in its Functionality to Real World Antecedents with The Inclusion of Fractional Propositional Logical Operators. These allow The Antecedents & Succedents to take on Fractional Truth Valued from 0 ⇢ 1, Instead of The Usual Propositional Logical Approach of Only Allowing Statements to Be Either Entirely True or Entirely False.

Nothing in The Real World is Entirely True or Entirely False. Even Nearly All Mathematical Declarations have a measure of Variability !  Only Rigourously Defined Expressions for Use in Locally Restricted Arguments are Exactly what you claim them to be ( !!! )

#                 name          f.p.logic

......

1                 Null            0

2                 Not Or        1-(Max(p,q))

3                 Just Because                                                     Min(p,(1-q))

4                 Not q          1-q

5                 I Said So     Min((1-p),q)

6                 Not p          1-p

7                 Not Equal / XOr                                               ABS(p-q)

8                 Not And      1-(Min(p,q))

9                 And            Min(p,q)

10               Equal / Not XOr                                               1-(ABS(p-q))

11               p                 p

12               Because      Max(p,(1-q))

13               q                 q

14               If Then       Max((1-p),q)

15               Or               Max(p,q)

16               Tautology   1

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

These Operators have Never been Used in Any Way to Apply them to Any Real World Sentences or Analyze Any Real World Problem.

There is a Another Kind of Propositional Logic called : Boolean Logic which is supposedly used in Computer CPUs to do Their Thinking; But These CPUs are actually built on Layers & Combinations of Not-ANDs to create a very wide spectrum of Specific Computer Functions; Such as ADD ( Which is Used for All Arithmatic Functions ! ) & moving Data Around. This is also Not-Thinking.

Another Kind of Symbolic Logic allows for all sorts of Clever Inclusionary Set Functions; But this has Never been Applied to Real World Problems or Analysis Either.

- - -

The Most Salient Problem though with Attempting to Convert Any Structural Approach to Logical Analysis is that you must Initially Provide a Truth Value to all of your Initial Premises, Statements & Axioms. How would you do that ?

                   How ‘Sure’ are you that there are Elephants in Africa ?

                   Are their Unicorns in The Caves on Mars ? There isn’t really any Data at all for this One Way or The Other; Yet many Humans would be more than passively eager to set this probability at 0% & feel that this is The ‘Scientific’ Response ( !!! )

                   Who Murdered JFK ? Does Oswald deserve a 40% Probability ?

                   How certain are you that Neil Armstrong Walked on The Moon ? 100% Sure ?

                   How Much does a loaf of Bread Cost ?

                   Was The Man you Grew Up Really your Father ?

                   Under The Most Favorable Circumstances; With The Simplest of Constructive Arguments; The Best Imaginable Result will be A Tiny Probability that your ‘Conclusion’ is Pretty Much True.

                   So that without all Structural Nonsense; This is what our Humanimal Brains do, on The Fly, Instantly providing us with ‘Best Guess’ Solutions to Survival Strategies.

                   Which seems to work, often enough.

 

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Glossary

 

tpa                                                                The PaAaSaF Argument ( The Passive Argument )

PaAaSaF                                            People are About as Smart as Fish

thinking                                             Rational Judgment that Leads to Truthful Knowledge

logic                                                            A Methodology of Producing Reliable Proofs

Proof                                                            The Demonstration of an Assertion’s Truth Value

Deduction                                          The Assumption of Validity in Observed Instances, that Adhere to A General Law or Principle

Induction                                            The Production of A General Principle from Collected Facts

Jiggery Pokery / A System of Alternative Propositional Logical Operations which produce The Effect of Allowing An Argument to -Prove Anything- .

Creativity                                           Creating a Novel Idea— & Recognizing it as Such. A Simple Computer Program can Generate an Endless Stream of Original Ideas by simply combining Ordinary, Common Ideas in a Variety of Ways. The ‘Imaginative’ Step, which pushes us to Give Human’s The Credit for Doing Something Remarkable; Is so Take these Crazy Ideas & Recognize The Ones that are Useful or Applicable in Some Way. A 7 Sided Box is a much worse idea than a 6 Sided Box, which can easily be Stacked, but a 4 Sided Box is even Better, because they are even more easily Stacked & Easier to Produce.

 

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

What is Thinking ?

 

                   The Promise of Thinking is that it allows a Sentient, Cogitative Entity to Juggle A Variety of Empirical Observations, Imaginative Thoughts & Logical Associations & Operations around in a Conscious Environment & Produce A Synthesis of Novel & True Statements, With The Emphasis being on Their Accuracy & Truth Value.

- - -

Can a Machine Think without FreeWill ?

If People are Lacking The Attribute of FreeWill; Can They Think ?

If Thinking is A Mechanical Process that Machines Can Participate in; What prevents A Human from Performing this Task ?

- - -

What Truly Distinguishes Genuine Thinking from Faux-Simulated Thinking Is :

                   Thinking Accepts Indecision.

                   Thinking insists on believing True Things.

                   Faux-Thinking is more concerned with Acting, tacitly assuming that inaction is more disastrous than Acting Inappropriately.

                   Faux-Thinking accepts that Survivability through Darwinian Evolution must try Random, Careless Actions that completely disregard any consideration for Truth.

- - -

i was just this moment watching a TV Bit on Making Legos, The Toy Bricks, & This Machine was turning out a Dozen or so at a time from an Injection Process, Entirely Perfect in One Go.

That is; They were Stamped, Injected & Dropped into a Bin, Entirely Finished, Ready for Packaging.

Lego Bricks, & M&Ms are i think, About as Perfect as Perfection can Be.

These Two ( & many other Examples ) would seem to lend a Very Convincing Argument that Serious & Compelling Thinking went into these Processes ( !!! ) If only Human Technological Applications were extended to Everything on This Level of Perfection !

 

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

What is Not Thinking ?

 

                   The Most Obvious Examples of Not Thinking are The Holding of Beliefs for which The Instinctual Mind has No Good Reason for Believing such Things—

                   Or Alternatively;  The Instinctual Mind’s Possession of Complex Behaviours which allow The Entity to Participate in Reliable & Dependable Survival Actions which Nurture their Ability to Produce Large Quantities of Progeny.

                   Habitual, Routine & Imitative Behaviours.

                   Instinctual Behaviours. People are thought to have very few of these, but we have our share; & it may well be that we have even more than are recognized, but have softer edges that we can tweak or bend to adapt to novel situations; more flexible than birds making nests & more directed & purposeful than ants chaotically digging out a colony.

 

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Best Arguments for Thinking

 

                   Engineering : The Production of Buildings, Automobiles, Appliances, Furniture, Power-Networks, Electrical Dams, Computers, Pharmaceuticals, Surgical Procedures, Art, Music, Literature, Scientific Research, Mathematics; et. al.

- -

                   Clever Behaviours : People are consistently engaging in all sorts of very clever, very complex behaviours.

 

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Best Arguments for The Assertion that Thinking is An Illusion

 

                   Allegedly Smart People often Believe Very Stupid Things.

- -

                   Engineering : Devices are Created from A Long & Progressive History of Tinkering / Pharmaceuticals are Introduced into Commercial Markets after prolonged experiments on thousands of animals to ‘find’ an Active Agent in Collected Plant Substances or Laboratory ‘Inventions’. / Art, Music & Literature are all Subjective Cultural Contrivances. /

- -

                   Taboos : Taboos are a Judicial Codification of Law, Behaviour & Cultural Expectations, which are specifically designed to be as Non-Sensical as Possible; Since their Intention is to Very Severely Punish Anyone that Breaks ‘The Rules’. Their Functionality is to hold a given Society together by ‘Easily’ Identifying anyone that doesn’t understand ‘The Rules’.

- -

                   The Judiciary : It is very curious that after ( conservatively ) 6000 years of ‘Civilization’; The Judiciaries in The Most Technologically Advanced Societies are still struggling to produce a unified & uniform, or consistent hierarchy of Ethics & Morality which may then be reliably translated into a codification of law which is predictable & adherent to The Corollary of An Agreeable Ideal of Fundimental Human Rights. ( which are entirely arbitrary )

- -

                   Logic is Bunk : This Asserts that The Foundations of Logical Reasoning are indistinguishable from a Well Constructed & Emotional Benign Argument using The Principles of Joke or Riddle Logic. ( Jiggery Pokery ) / The very -fact- that many well established & serious historical arguments for a wide variety of scientific, mathematical, philosophical & ethical principles have been exposed as having been assembled using The Operations inclusive to Joke or Riddle Logic— Demonstrate that for ‘Any’ Given Contemporary Argument, The Certainty of Its Logical ‘Promise’ for Truth is highly dubious & suspect. Thus; The Functionality of ‘Logic’ as A Truth Prover, is Compromised. e.g.; Logic is Bunk.

- -

                   Paradoxes : Paradoxes are a Logical or Philosophical, or Linguistic, or even Optical Demonstration that ‘Something is Wrong’ with our Ability to Discern A Statement’s Truth Value or Separate The Statement from a Context of Confusion & Ambiguity. Very often; These Paradoxes are ‘Left to Stand’ as A Confirmation of Logical Interminability; But Paradoxes are actually Failures of Sound Reasoning, And more importantly; Our Ability to Discover or Determine ‘How’ The Paradox is ‘Wrong’.

- -

                   Scientific Principles : Ideally— The Theory of Science or Scientific Methods, are intended to make a thorough & accurate appraisement of The World Around Us, So that we might use this information for Technological & Medical Advancements. / But What Science is usually obsessed with, is ‘Explaining’ Things. Even if A Given Phenomena is entirely inexplicable, Pragmatic Scientists feel compelled to proffer an Explanation of it, Even if this requires ‘Filling in The Gaps’ with nonsensical assumptions which they elevate to ‘Fundimental Axioms’. / Or Alternatively; They Simply ‘Label’ Things & Insist that this is Sufficient as an Explanation.

- -

                   Bubbles : Tulip Mania in Holland. / The Dot.Com Bubble in The 1990s / The Everlasting Art Grift / AmWay /

- -

                   Clever Behaviours : While people seemingly engage in all sorts of clever behaviours, so do animals, so do very dumb animals, & if any further analysis were performed— We might note that The very dumbest animals seem to routinely engage in The very cleverest behaviours, while mammals, that are supposed to be The Smartest Animals with The Biggest Brains, typically engage in The most mundane grazing, or laying about all day, or swinging through trees or howling at The Moon.

                                      As for people’s clever behaviour, very much of it is obviously habitual, routine or imitative. It is only very rarely, & only with a very tiny subset of The Damp Masses that create clever ideas or perform something novel & what we might assume is creative. So then The Question becomes; What is Being Creative ?

- -

                   Given that Thinking is A Mechanical ( Progressive ) Process that Machines can Participate in; What prevents Humans from Thinking ? / The Human Brain is prevented from Thinking in This Mechanical Sense, Because it’s been specifically designed to operate on an Alternative Premise that is much more based on An Emotional Perception-Reaction Set of Behaviours. Human Behaviour only seems complex & imitative of Mechanical Thinking because of its chaotic complexity & other Tricks.

- -

 

ASCII Anomaly with Illustrations !

An ASCII Image is simply an Ordinary Photographic Picture that has been reduced to a Gray Scale of 16 Shades of Gray, Then Converted to A Set of Characters from a Given Alphabet.

The ASCII      Conversation Program ( written for this series in ‘Scratch’ ) then Samples The Picture at Various Points to Determine which Gray Shade is at that location— Then it Selects from a List of Characters, One which Ostensibly Conveys that Same ‘Sense’ of ‘Darkness’ or ‘Lightness’ —

e.g.;  A very Light Swatch ( Pixel ) in The Photograph will be rendered on The ASCII Image as a :    . , ‘ or a -

A Dark Swatch ( Pixel ) would be Translated into a :   W M R or K

The Internet has many such ASCII Conversation Programs Available for you to use;

But i have found that many of them; Nearly All in fact, Are very lazy about choosing which Characters are used for Which Shades of Gray. Even if you were to find an ASCII Conversion Program that Uses more than 16 Shades of Grey; Say— 24, 36, 128 or 256; The Generic Approach is to Use One Single Character for Each Shade of Gray; So that there is a Consistent 1::1 Correspondence with Grey Swatch to Character Used.

The Problem; As i Perceived it; Was that this approach created Regions in which a Single Character was Used Exclusively, & Worse, Far Worse ( !!! ) — Was that when a Given Gray Region would Buttress another Gray Region; The Boundary of these Two Regions would create an UnSightly & UnNatural Looking Ridgeway ( ! )

When there are Several of these Ridgeways Defining a Larger Swatch which in The Photograph looks like a Smooth Gradation from Very Light to Very Dark— When it is Translated into as ASCII Region, It becomes a Garish Series of Stripes ( !!! ) That is Unbearable !

So The Solution that i incorporated into my ASCII Program; Originally Pioneered on my HP48sx Programmable Calculator— Was to allow The Program to PseudoRandomly Choose a Character from A List or Region in A Continuum of Characters for Each Gray Shade !

e.g.; A Given Shade of Middling Gray may be Either a :   y 2 3 6 9 or P

This Results in a ‘Noisier’ Gray Region,

Which seems to ‘Imply’ a Greater Resolution !

Such a Rendering Looks Something Like This :

The Chances of Two of The Same Characters Appearing Side by Side given that The Two Gray Swatches are Equal is The First Character x The Second Character from a List of Six Characters or 1 in 6.

Three Characters Sides by Side would be 1 x 6 x 6 or : 1 in 36

But.

i thought that this would be ‘Too Often !’

So i wrote a little Loop into my Program that would try to Find a Unique Character 3 Times.

So that; Now— Two Characters side by side would be 1 x ( 6 x 6 x 6 )

or 1 in 216.

But in a Very Large ASCII Picture, is is bound to happen many times.

But 3 Characters side by side would 1 in 432.

& that would happen many times still, When— The Three Gray Sampled Patches are all Equal, which happens pretty often.

So for there to be a Truly Anomalous Region to Exist;

There has to be Quite a Bit of Repetition, & Additionally; By my Reckoning, There has to be Several Lines, Vertically Arranged, in a Particular Horizontal Region—

In Other Words; A 2D Blob of Repetition !

The Bigger this Blob is; The More Anomalous it is. ( !!! ) ( ? )

The Chances of this Occurring, According to my Calculation is :

Something like 1.0 with 57,132 Zeros after that.

In other Words; Very Unlikely for this Tiny Swatch.

This one as shorter Horizontal Repetition Sequences,

Each only Bucking The Odds to Something like 10_million per line,

But then they are arranged Vertically, about 7 high;

So that makes it about ( ? ) 1 with 300,000 Zeros to 1.

Very Unlikely.

So when one of these shows up :

What does this mean ?

The Fact that these are occurring very irregularly;

Means that The Program is Working as it should, most of The Time.

Nearly all of The Time, The Distribution looks exactly as it should.

What is Going on ?

i’m thinking that it -Must Be- somekind of weird anomaly in The Scratch Application, but How or What is it doing ( ? )

This is The Whole ‘Kaden’ Image that The Really Weird Patch Came from; With The Other ‘Anomalous’ Regions in Red.

Is Discrimination ( per se ) Bad ?

Monday, April 6, 2015 8:13:01 PM

Is Discrimination ( per se ) Bad ?

 

It seems like every once in awhile, some group (x will claim that they’re being discriminated against & will demand equal rights.

What is curious, is that no one ever fights against Discrimination ‘itself’ because everyone wants to reserve their right to Discriminate agains some ‘other’ group in The Future.

Consequently;

Negros, Women, Gays, Jews, Mormons, The Irish, Southerns, Any Neighboring Country & its Nationals ( Citizens ), Communists, Arabs or Muslims, Socialists, The Poor ( Class Distinctions ), Persons with Opposing Fashion Sensibilities, Young or Old, Intellectuals, or The Horrifically Dumb; Nerds & Geeks, Christians, Asians, Native Indigenous People or Aborigines, Neo-Nazis, TransHumanists, The Proletariate, Lizard Headed Aliens disguised as British Royalty, Lowly Service Providers, Sales Clerks, Lawyers, Chiropractors, School Teachers, Bureaucratic Administrators, Bosses, Gentlemyn Criminals & Gypsies, Sissies & Nancy Boys, TomBoys, Environmentalists, Excessively Tall Women And Child Molesters — have all had to fight their Battles against Discrimination One Battle at a Time, Clawing their way up to Social Acceptance while all their misfit brethren hid behind thick shrubbery or fought against them to show that they were part of The Established Orthodoxy.

Which Groups are still ‘UnRecognized’ ?

Each of these Groups was thought, at one time, to be Invisible, & Subhuman, undeserving of The simplest acknowledgement of social inclusion.

So that — Any Groups that remain ‘UnRecognized are hard to Spot.

They are Invisible.

It takes a keen eye to spot The invisible Flying Saucer, Bigfoot, Ghost or Brownie.

Candidates :

The Ugly. The Ugly are clearly discriminated against, but who amongst them wants to march in a parade to fight for their equal rights ?

Anyone exhibiting any number of ‘Personality Disorders’ which are usually so subtle that to discriminate against them is an act perpetrated by The Victim’s own Awkwardness or Indifference to Social Conventions.

Unconventionals or Eccentrics. These parakeets might, most certainly, have ‘something’ wrong with them, But merely Thinking outside The Box of Validated Fashions, Social Proprieties, Economic Necessities or Slang Memes is Enough to get you The Cold Shoulder at a local Bar or Skating Rink.

 Any Sneech without a Star on their Belly.

Cultures & Societies are Defined by Everyone within them, Sharing a Fixed Set of Values, Tastes, Rituals, Parameters for Etiquette, Customs & Taboos. If you fall outside this Framework, then you ‘Should Be’ Discriminated Against.

Imagine a World in which True & Real Freedom was allowed.

All The Crazy things The Those Foreigners Openly Do on their own Streets, would be allowed anywhere.

The Biggest Problem with Living in A Free Society,

Is Enduring The Freedom of your Neighbors.

Additionally; Many of our Taboos are Simple Indicators that someone is Dangerously Insane. If someone is Breaking a Taboo, Then They Must, By Definition; Be Crazy.

It used to crazy to talk to yourself. Nowadays, everyone seemingly talks to themselves with Bluetooth.

So that that rule has been discarded.

What about walking around Naked. Should that Be Allowed ?

Girls kissing Girls ?

Boys kissing Boys ? Boys wearing Dresses ? Older men wearing elaborate Makeup that is commonly seen on Women ?

i’ve often thought that it is very ‘odd’ that women are ‘required’ to wear makeup to be taken seriously.

How about Ugly People as Waiters or Waitresses ?

No one, absolutely no one, wants that or is willing to patronize a restaurant with predominantly repulsive waitresses !

Everyone has to play their selected or assigned roles.

No one wants to live in a society of True Equality.

That would be Crazy.

Seriously.

Interstellar ( minus two stars )

Monday, April 6, 2015 7:01:53 PM

Interstellar ( minus two stars )

 

In The film interstellar ( 2014 ), one of The astronauts employs, for The 47th time in cinematic usage; A Sheet of paper, which he folds over to explain ‘Hyper Drive’ or in this case; How a Wormhole works. They do, to their credit, depict The Wormhole, Not as a flat disk as it is portrayed in all previous expositions of a wormhole, But as a 3D Sphere. Unfortunately; This immediately reminded me of The horrifically bad science fiction fiasco with Dustin Hoffman called ‘Sphere’.

Also; it seems to me that when they passed into The Wormhole/Sphere, there should -Not- have been any turbulence or any indication that they passed through anything. The Space ‘Boundary’ should have been a ( i hate to use this expression ) Quantum ‘Illusion’, like The Boundary of An Atom, Electron or Any SubAtomic Particle which appears to be a solid autonomous entity, but actually ( ? ) Fills The Entire Universe.

This last claim may seem perfectly ludicrous, but consider for a moment that The Magnetic Field of each Atom clearly & unmistakably extends for several inches, that you can see; & The Gravity of each atom in The Sun is able to reach out & hold on to The Earth & Keep The MilkyWay Galaxy from Flying Apart.

Those Fields define The ‘Edges’ of these Particles.

But i digress.

What i was thinking on The Bus Today; Was wouldn’t it be fun if one of these Astronauts explained ‘HyperDrive’ a little Differently for The ‘Next’ Film.

When asked how their Star-Drive worked; The Post-Humanitarian Astronaut would shuffle through a drawer or cabinet & find a clear sheet of ‘Paper’, like acetate, & fold it with The Common Appearance of Origami to Form a Tesseract, which would be impossible of course, especially if its folded ‘correctly’. Tesseracts are usually depicted as a cube surrounded by 6 additional distorted cubes extending from each face, but in hyperspace, each of these extended cubes are a perfect cube of 4 Dimensions each. Whether such a thing actually exists in any ‘real’ way, they are quite easy to make inside a computer, where you can see how they ‘move’ when you ‘rotate’ them.

Which is how The Astronaut Nerd would explain this to The Little Girl that is asking him. After using a Sharpie to make a point on each side of The Form, he would then explain that in order for The Two Points to Then ‘Meet’ at a Common Location, It is only Necessary to ‘Rotate’ The Tesseract until The Two Points come together.

With a Star-Ship; The Universe is Not Turned, But The Space-Ship forms a Five Dimensional ‘Photon’ Distortion Inversion Icosahedron which it then rotates within until it finds on its surface, The intended location. ( or some such ) — The cute part is the Folding & Manipulating The Paper Tesseract.

- - -

The other thing that i ‘hated’ about this film, was its depiction of the Four-Dimension ‘TimeScape’ which was nothing more than a house of mirrors. This is The Problem with Depicting 4D Realms, You must have The courage to superimpose some conceptual ‘push’ into 4D Space, Otherwise, what is The point.

The Resulting Stylization is Cowardly ( which is used here, much more appropriately, than how it is repeated ad infinitum on The Television ! ) & Inept ( Tepid or Feeble ).

A Certain Genre

A Certain Genre

While at The Library The other day, i found Season Four of Warehouse 13,

a ( -nother ) knockoff of The X_Files, which itself was a knockoff of The Twilight Zone, Which was spawned by a long history of European, Asian & Polynesian Folklore.

 

This latest spate of cheap burlesque variances included Fringe, The one with The Brothers, Warehouse 13 & maybe some others.

 

Not included in this genre was SU2 ( Special Unit Two ) which followed The Original ‘Keystone’ Principle of The X_Files, which was to have two Buddies of opposite sexes, spend most of each episode driving around & talking about everything except monsters & The Supernatural. i loved that show, but i probably would have gotten sick of it, if it hadn’t been prematurely canceled with Seven Days when Enterprise Ended. ( ? )

 

The Anti-Thesis of This; Which was followed Fringe & Warehouse 13, was to overburden The prevailing Mythos of Each Season with layers & layers of extraneous Gobbledegook !

 

And what was even worse; & what caused me to eject The second disk from my Macbook in mid-episode, was that The Characters kept doing spectacularly stupid things, allowed themselves to be motivated by staggeringly stupid itineraries, & Most Egregious; The Episodes Required as A Fundimental Pretext of The Plot, & Motivation of All The Characters, Was that Everyone had to Constantly engage in Lying to Themselves & Each Other, which included Keeping Secrets which were Destroying themselves & everyone around them.

And— The Pacing of The Episodes was Decidedly Soap-Operatic, Which was manifest by their standing around doing nothing, when they should have been running up & down supermarket aisles throwing heavy ceramic ash-trays at people.

 

The Other thing about Warehouse 13, was that The Principle Actors, where rather unattractive. i endured this show for The first 3 seasons, but i was getting sick of it, so that when i started watching season four, i was already choking down The first four or five or six episodes.

i’m glad that that’s behind me now.

 

One show that i’ve been watching on Netflix is Spartacus; Which Started out as Blood & Sand, then Something else for Season Two, Then Vengeance, & now i think Season Four is going to wrap it up.

Spartacus features an wondrous amount of Gratuitous Violence, but its all so Comically exaggerated ( by assumed 21st Century References ( ? ) ) that it takes some of The Edge off of it. And you also have to overlook their odd speech cadence, which i assume is their attempt to make us believe that they’re all speaking latin or Roman Italian or Whatever ( ? )

But The Stylization & Painterly Quality of this Show makes watching Commercially Produced Television Unbearable.

Its like going back & watching Hill Street Blues, which at The Time that it came out, everyone thought that it was depicting a New Paradigm of Reality, but now; Watching them, It is Indistinguishable from all The Other Shows of that Era, which looked like they were filmed on a High School Gymnasium’s Stage.

 

What we ‘Perceive’ as ‘Real’ is constantly changing, & every time it’s knotched up, Real Reality itself becomes less endurable.

 

,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,

Big Announcement ( For Me )

I'm always the last to hear these things, but I've come to realize that all of the reviews in Amazon are totally bogus !
But.
There is a way to outwit the system, and that is;
by checking out the reviews that give the book or product One Star,
and then read between the lines.
Ta da.

Crazy Google Blog Editor ???

One of the many things that drives me crazy about this Editor is that when I past an .odt document into this space, The Editor will invariably add multiple carriage returns for no apparent reason.
It's one of those things, that I've frequently encountered with computers, where you have to 'double think' what the computer is going to do, and then act 'wrongly' or very counter intuitively, to compensate for some behavior that the computer is exercising and you have no control over !


Gawd! I hate computers !