|
| http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~wcd/collave.html i agree with dowling! for a fraction of their silly sports budget and asinine architectural adventures they could plant green things and build many delightful georgian buildings. it is foolish to bet on fads when you could purchase a sure thing that stood the test of time. i feel bad when i think about rutgers because what does it have going for it really? the people! that is all i can say like it is this third world country full of nothing but earnest, optimistic refugee campers, oliver twists, horatio algerians, tolstoyan folk sages, and slumdog millionaires to be. in short, way too "plucky." pluck should all be outsourced to poor countries or at least to the south. whereas everyone knows that rutgers is full of italian-mahwah-ian indie rockers, korean-edisonian gangster types, genius foreigners, and a troupe of narcoleptic art students. in short rutgers' people are not its most valuable natural resource, because if so then that would make new jersey part of the third world. they are not some kind of human capital, which is a sick term anyway. they are just great. doing nothing to help any verifiable human beings, in the name of publicity tricker by a state school should be illegal afnd is obviously stupid when you could be on such sure things as 1) trees 2) georgic 3) 24-7 library access [[[[FFFingS. i was reading that some dude at a berkeley alumni meeting actually just stood up and paid like 30G for the library stuff. why does nobody at rutgers do this? perhaps actually just stupid?]]]] moreover there is the principle of it in that even if football is a way to make money and attracts certain kinds of people still an educational institution should not use human stupidity as one of its marketing tools. if education is dependent on stupidity then what is the point of education? in some sense i think that RU is becoming like those poor towns and humans that live and die for football. although it was already said that all of the united states is like that to begin with. i mean, everyone has to live and die for something but the point of college is to give you options what you live and die for, not to seduce you with one big overdetermining "dream." | | |
| how does one plan for the present future? when i think of life planning, i laugh. when i visualize it free from a rational or critical element i do alright. as in, it is not all nostalgia or bound by the things that i already know how to do; this image is not just an elaboration of the rules that have been set by the current one. but even that vision has been based on fantasizing about the far future in which i shall reflect on the things i accomplished in that future's past. is this perverse? if nostalgia is hope turned backward, my hope is like periscoped nostalgia. | | |
| if war is the extension of politics by other means, and also, politics is the extension of war by some means, then what are the politics of peace if not the extension of war by the same means? if we claim a solace of our own, or a separate peace with select peers and a half-conciliation among us, are we not merely letting some war elsewhere fester? i feel that there's a way in which this is almost the case, except that in reality no politics of peace exists at all. that is what this israeli said also. peace is like love, the other and oft incompatible human desire, in that albeit being made between people it is not a public or political activity. people believe otherwise but they're not quite right are they? peace could be called the extension of politics by non-political means - or to use more poetry and not quite as much zen - the end of politics. also the end of war of course. politics, however, is war and not even quite so sports-like (ludicrous?--that is, in a way politics is more serious than war, maybe because it is mutable whereas war always happens). if you sit back and let it happen it is not so pleasant even if what you thought would happen does. i know that i am being elliptical here, but that is because this is just a lesson for myself. do not make war or peace or love or hate within politics, but rather make politics itself. | | |
| Ooch, not so clear. What I meant is, while an animal can't be a plant, and is evil to pretend, also a man can't be a plant. But it is still better for a man to pretend to be a plant than to be an animal pretending to be a plant. At any rate, if you are an animal you may as well be a plant also. But that means that you have to be a plant as really as you are an animal, which is bewildering to me. | | |
| sometimes, when you realize that you are an evil animal, a wolf in the forest, if you are not a complete nazi who decides to act the part of the wolf con brio - what do you do? man is not an animal. but a homo sapiens is an animal for sure. what else can you be, a tree? honestly, i think that a lot of people, when they first meet their lower instincts, go through such a crisis which might be called the question of self-anthropmorphization. do i even have dominion over my own animal? who is the king of the beast that is me? it is a tough question which many, to their detriment, skirt by switching to the stereotypically alternative kingdom. namely- plants! someone once said that the writer john updike was like a sloth, good-natured but clingy, but i think that this is true for many people not only in their obvious and gauche attachments but in the way that they are holding on for dear life to that which is acutely other to them and which they are not. but it can be like saying "oh well, someone else is this way, so i can just be me and hang out with them" whereas actually when you stay close to this or that it is practically your duty to internalize its qualities in the long run. otherwise, despite your good intentions a man wanting to be not an animal, but a vegetable, is merely camoflauging himself to waylay his prey..... | | |
|
