perhaps the challenge is to find continuity through this post and thus debunk its description as a non-sequitur. because it occurs in a particular context (globatron, in this month of this year, near all of the other posts made around the same time), it would be almost absurd to say that it does not follow–particularly given the poster’s conscious designation of it as a non sequitur. that is to say, the author cannot extract himself totally from the context in which he comments; it is connected in some way.
No. You have a valid point. I don’t think it’s possible to take yourself out of the time line. Because no matter the response there you are in the time line. As I mentioned before, no matter what you do you are for, against or apathetic to a cause or the current political events and or line of communication. And in some sense apathy can be read as being against the cause I believe. So I agree.
The idea of being a Non Sequitur and being able to be outside the chain of events and acting from a vacuum is an interesting concept. Especially in a linear format such as this.
It does tend to throw one for a loop regardless of the definition, as I don’t believe I’ve yet to view something quite as ludicrous as this Puss in the Boots video. On this 4th of July I am in mourning for Christopher Walken.
- 4 July 2009 at 3:38 am
Logocentric said:
i’m with you on the last point. have you seen “Country Bears”?
i was listening to the Radio Lab podcast last night, the ‘are we coins?’ episode, and they described how the brain utilizes randomization as a means of making arbitrary choices, and how that relates to the discovery of new, perhaps, mutated ideas.
the way you guys have attacked this post is fascinating.
there is an element of reductionism i’ve been feeling and i wanted to break free of it somehow, to get back in touch with our creative, willfulness. does that make sense? it is not a criticism, just an attempt to caution against submitting too wholly to the supremacy of idea structures.
actually, how i found puss in boots was by accident. actually this reveals how the internet uses a kind of random generation of intelligence, as we have taken it. i was looking for the scene in Biloxi Blues when Broderick’s character asks Private Epstein why he insists on making trouble, on resisting Christopher Walken’s character, the drill sargent, and he has this amazing speech about how we must take sides, we must be involved in ‘the fight.’ he criticizes Eugene for being a voyeur, sitting back and recording the action rather than being in it. well, i thought that would be a more direct way of revealing the danger of a fascination with ideas, but then i couldn’t find it, but what i did find was Puss in Boots, and I could not believe my eyes.
and we are left with the most important question: Was puss in boots a more direct route, and if so, how do we interpret this in terms of metaphysical truth about reality.
Akbar
- 4 July 2009 at 3:58 pm
Logocentric said:
great points, excellent comments, and ultimately a very pertinent post. i’m not sure how to characterize what the site as a whole is doing, but i do detect a shift in my own thinking recently that may in fact be related to puss in boots.
- 4 July 2009 at 9:06 pm
Leave your response!
Featured Comment:
crystl37 said: Well, globatron, I see we are going to have some very interesting discussions! As far as I have been able to decipher- there are entirely too many prophesies, mathematical formulations [...]
2 July 2009
9 Comments
what are you, some kind of republican?
point taken. this has confused me to such a degree I had no comment for two days. that rarely happens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur
perhaps the challenge is to find continuity through this post and thus debunk its description as a non-sequitur. because it occurs in a particular context (globatron, in this month of this year, near all of the other posts made around the same time), it would be almost absurd to say that it does not follow–particularly given the poster’s conscious designation of it as a non sequitur. that is to say, the author cannot extract himself totally from the context in which he comments; it is connected in some way.
am i being too literal?
No. You have a valid point. I don’t think it’s possible to take yourself out of the time line. Because no matter the response there you are in the time line. As I mentioned before, no matter what you do you are for, against or apathetic to a cause or the current political events and or line of communication. And in some sense apathy can be read as being against the cause I believe. So I agree.
The idea of being a Non Sequitur and being able to be outside the chain of events and acting from a vacuum is an interesting concept. Especially in a linear format such as this.
It does tend to throw one for a loop regardless of the definition, as I don’t believe I’ve yet to view something quite as ludicrous as this Puss in the Boots video. On this 4th of July I am in mourning for Christopher Walken.
i’m with you on the last point. have you seen “Country Bears”?
it took six comments to get to ‘Country Bears’, experiment complete!
i was listening to the Radio Lab podcast last night, the ‘are we coins?’ episode, and they described how the brain utilizes randomization as a means of making arbitrary choices, and how that relates to the discovery of new, perhaps, mutated ideas.
the way you guys have attacked this post is fascinating.
there is an element of reductionism i’ve been feeling and i wanted to break free of it somehow, to get back in touch with our creative, willfulness. does that make sense? it is not a criticism, just an attempt to caution against submitting too wholly to the supremacy of idea structures.
actually, how i found puss in boots was by accident. actually this reveals how the internet uses a kind of random generation of intelligence, as we have taken it. i was looking for the scene in Biloxi Blues when Broderick’s character asks Private Epstein why he insists on making trouble, on resisting Christopher Walken’s character, the drill sargent, and he has this amazing speech about how we must take sides, we must be involved in ‘the fight.’ he criticizes Eugene for being a voyeur, sitting back and recording the action rather than being in it. well, i thought that would be a more direct way of revealing the danger of a fascination with ideas, but then i couldn’t find it, but what i did find was Puss in Boots, and I could not believe my eyes.
and we are left with the most important question: Was puss in boots a more direct route, and if so, how do we interpret this in terms of metaphysical truth about reality.
Akbar
great points, excellent comments, and ultimately a very pertinent post. i’m not sure how to characterize what the site as a whole is doing, but i do detect a shift in my own thinking recently that may in fact be related to puss in boots.
Leave your response!
Featured Comment:
Blogroll
Recent Comments
Archives
Recent Posts
Most Commented
globatron.org
Globatron is a work of art.
Globatron is not a blog. The structure of the blog is utilized in order to surrender to this new form of social connectivity.
Read more...