DISCLAIMER: I'm feeling ... like I'm in kind of a mood between bad and neutral, so I will probably end up sounding angry and impassioned, like I'm trying to rally troops for some needless Wandyteeth-type cause; this tone can be off-putting, even on good days, so if you're not in the mood to think I'm the man, please just don't read this until you are. I don't want you to think I'm not the man, and reading this if you do isn't going to help change your mind.
But I'm also feeling ... snackish:
* O.K. Soda was so, so delicious. Even if it truly, objectively wasn't.
* Waffle Crisp, which was abruptly discontinued a couple years ago, is BACK in ACTION.
* Capri Sun, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, and Pringles are all now significantly less perfect than they were in our preteen years, although they are still pleasing.
* Nacho Cheesier Doritos taste differently from bag to bag. Some bags taste extremely great, and these bags' chips can be distinguished from lesser bags' by their zesty, red bell peppery aftertaste; this savory subtlety is the first thing to go when the chips' cheese powder is too potent or garlicky. As far as I know, this has mostly to do with the age of the bag.
* The science of flavor is obviously in its early stages of development if experts think Splenda is okay to put into food and drinks.
* Taste-Alikes you'll go "whoa, weird!" at, or else, more probably, you'll disagree with because they demand too much of a paradigm shift regarding such an unoffending topic for you to feel like you're overestimating your ability to discern flavors in foods with significantly unlike appearance and texture: (1) Trix taste exactly like Fruity Pebbles. (2) Peanuts and raisins, eaten togther, taste exactly like a PB and J. (3)Squirt tastes exactly like Orange Fanta, challenging as this may be to imagine; do a side-by-side sometime, with your eyes closed, and be prepared for disappointment if you're like me and always liked Orange Fanta way more than Squirt. (4) The Italian Night Club (i.e., #9) at Jimmy John's tastes like a bologna sandwich, unless you ask for No Ham (although the ham, by itself, tastes nothing like bologna). (5) Vault is just Surge, renamed with an "energy"-oriented marketing twist. (6) Blue raspberry flavored candies are usually just blueberry flavored. And a few Do-Not-Taste-Alikes: (1) Twizzler Pull 'n Peels do not taste like Twizzler Nibs. The P'nPs are what can only be called "spicier." (2) Off-brand Froot Loops do not taste a thing like real Froot Loops, despite this merely being the result of packaging differences. (3) Diet Dr. Pepper does not taste just like regular Dr. Pepper. Neither does Mr. Pibb, although the resemblance is uncanny. (4) This isn't taste-related, really, but: Orange juice CAN justly be called milky. Because it's milky. It's really seriously opaque. IDK why, but just because it doesn't have milk in it, people seem ready to disagree.
No now switching to a more irksome topic, because now I'm feeling a little argumentative. One more taste-alike: (7) When publicly subscribed to, Atheism is almost always just reduced to antideism, i.e., the belief that there is no godlike diety; which is a valid belief, but by itself one that hardly defines Atheism. Atheism literally means "without religion," and it's more of a state of mind than a system of beliefs. That being said, it's really just a term that exists solely for its usefulness in naming that sort of religionless lifestyle choice; in reality, it's definitively impossible to be an athiest, to believe in nothing, since even a belief in nothing requires that you believe in your ability to believe in nothing--which point is the competent, scoff-free version of "a belief in nothing is still a belief in something."
Like it or not, we're a species doomed to Agnosticism, i.e., the ultimatum of uncertainty. I suggest you like it, rather than not, since it's more fun that way.
Let's put a common, common, common misperception to rest regarding the intent of religion. No offense, but you'd have to be a silly, stupid asshole to believe the original author of Genesis--not its first scribe, but its original conceiver--set out to defy reason and instigate the highest mass-ignorance in human history. He was just storytelling, just trying to make a point in words, and you have to admit God is a really really clever idea for a main character, just overall, even compared to like Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen. And "God" was just the result of what everyone's been doing since the dawn of interaction: resisting Solipsism.
Solipsism. That self-concept to end all self-concepts. That unimaginary philosophical black hole. That question to every answer to every question. That word that probably shouldn't be a word. Solipsism is the necessarily private belief that "I beget the universe begets me," or more commonly and kind of misleadingly, the belief that life is a dream. Unfortunately, this latter definition sort of gets it confused with some kind of meta-schizophrenia, like Truman Show syndrome on an intergalactic scale, and so it's almost always disregarded as a bankrupt philosophy.
Obviously life isn't a dream, because there needs be a difference between what we call dreams and what we call waking life, if only just to keep from overgeneralizing in a needlessly confusing manner. But yeah that's what we HAVE to say, since no one wants to be the asshole who admits he believes the universe revolves around him; that's the dreadful, inescapable irony of it. I mean, the fact that there's a word for it is probably the one property of Solipsism most responsible for its unpopularity in the first place. So long as it has to be introduced, whoever learns the word "Solipsism" will obviously be approaching it with a bias toward practical interaction, both the practicality and interactivity of which are mutually exclusive with the lack thereof inherent in Solipsism; in other words, there's no good way to tell you that you're Solipsistic. You just are. Good luck coming to terms with it, is about all I can say. Saying anymore just gets confusing.
Why You Shouldn't Worry, It's Okay to be Solipsistic:
The Explanatory Gap, i.e., the impossibility of explaining consciousness, assures us that, on top of being doomed to Solipsism, we are doomed to be incapable of expressing the full extent to which we are doomed. But that just means that, logically speaking, you and I can both be Solipsistic at the same time--and even have a conversation about its merits and drawbacks--because even the most friendly, presumptuous dialogue is still a failure to contradict the possibility that "you" and "I" are only illusorily discrete to begin with. Physics would suggest that this is so, anyway. Indeed, Solipsism and science work just fine together. Even the most orthodox Sciencist won't have to feel alienated by his Solipsistic fundamentals, though what he perceives to be his fundamentals might have to adapt in accordance with his ever-changing understanding of the universe. The rules for Solipsism are not written down anywhere worth looking into, as they are highly subject to change; don't let this dissuade you, though, from thinking you know what they are.
Solipsism passes even the strictest tests of Well-Then-What-About-[Insert largely undebated fact here], including all of those pertaining to physics and evolution and stuff. It rejects no factual understanding of the universe, but simply assimilates that which it didn't already have; that is, you have to be as clever as the things you know if you want to understand your own Solipsism; and here, I'll finally say it: any deliberate rejection of Solipsism is just a failure of intellect.
An Atheist, on the other hand, should have a hard time explaining what he/she believes Physics is without some reference to their being an existent existence, which referent they cannot possibly have any belief in. (Richard Dawkins is just a fucking contrarian riding a wave of popular misunderstanding; I'd say he's a moron, too, the fucking bastard, but he's mostly brilliant and his Selfish Gene theory is one of the profoundest (and most profoundly misunderstood) in its field.) An Agnostic would probably just refer to the ease with which one can simply ignore the very hardest questions everyday and all the time; agnostics are regularly unconcerned with their uncertainty. They are happy being distracted by the seventy or so years they've got going for them. And this is justified. I mean, I get distracted pretty much all the time; when I'm not pondering the nature of my Solipsism and/or existence, I'm more or less just doing the whole non-meta experiential thing: talking to people, talking to myself, thinking to myself, thinking about doing things, doing things, remembering things I've said, or thought, or done, wondering what I've forgotten, wondering what I haven't forgotten but can't remember right now, wondering why, worrying and worrying and worrying, etc.
Sorry I haven't been very good about predicting where I was going with this whole blog post. Sorry. It's late and I'm just more interested in getting this all off my chest in whatever order it's caked on than I am in making this neat and cohesive. Seriously, though, I'm sorry.
The whole big part not pertaining to snacks can basically be summed up like this: We have two moods: Solipsistic and Agnostic, and while these are mutually exclusive concepts, they are nevertheless both how we are, all the time. Rejection of either of these is just a complicated mistake; faith in God, for instance, is precluded by a belief in your own soul, which belief is an intrinsically Solipsistic one. And to those who would reject Agnosticism, one should just ask "Why?" a few dozen times until the rejector has his/her much-needed epiphany and becomes an acceptor.
...
And all of a sudden, I feel like I'm done. I've made the same point enough times. I'm tired of feeling like Solipsism is a secret and/or a mistake. It's neither. It's inescapably logical. I don't welcome you to disagree, because I don't want to be that guy who retorts with "You just aren't thinking big enough." Just know in advance you'd be wrong, and be cool with it. It isn't simple, Solipsism isnt. It really isn't. Because physics isn't simple, nothing as simple as magnetism is simple, nothing where "time" is a dimension comprised of quanta is simple, and nothing as big and as strangely shaped as our entire universe is simple. The fact that we can't personally recall a time when we weren't thinking isn't simple. The fact that we can't do this really really really isn't simple. So don't feel like Solipsism is quaint, like it's cute or clever but not for you. If it isn't for you, it is, all the moreso.
If you think it isn't for you, then I beg of you: Just pretend, for real, one time, that see things Solipsistically. See it as a daunting, horrific challenge that awaits you whether you plan to embrace it or evade it. See it as the promise that you will never see another sunrise again, so that it makes you stare at every one you *do* see as hard as you can, and then some, so that it makes you wonder what the promise meant, but at the same time makes you understand what it meant, and makes you wonder why the hell you understand yet still keep on wondering. See it as something you can forget about if you so choose. And then, if you do that, then okay you can bitch about how longwinded this post is.
Towel, out.
Posted by suppletowelcuddle at May 19, 2009 3:17 AM