06.30.06

the truth, i swear

Posted in aphorisms, emotional math, physics notes, problem solving, psychology at 4:03 am by nonattender

overseen/overheard: 

“stephen hawking is the happiest guy on the planet and doesn’t even know it anymore.”

–card sent to him ” cheer up, buddy:  it’s all (…) ”

“you know that ”yes” moment?  why can’t we engineer ourselves to be more conscious on that level?”  – (bringing an uproar)  (i am too nice a person to take the cheap shot by mentioning that i left during this discussion, but i will say it was a momentous moment)

“name standardization standardizing.  tenses as linguistic meta-narratives representative of different states of being/reality”

“on a quantum level:  two (the numeral concept “2″) = “one” (the numeric concept 1)”

“i’ll just pretend to quote you”  -t

quanta, quantentity, qua(cK)antien, quantum, quan(t)imal

Posted in aphorisms, emotional math, physics notes, problem solving, psychology at 3:24 am by nonattender

(you know how some animals throw out signals to other animals to let them know they’re friendly?  let me blaze my trail:)

my very good (and completely un(screwed) definition of the term: 

any theme which attempts to describe with accuracy AND certainty will necessarily fail, falling short this amount (this amount will be what we give in return:  interest) - (aka confusionism, which, in some ways means i always get to make an interesting decision, but i am (if not “right”-which i’m not saying), at the least “never wrong”.

you cannot have a transaction without having two parties (unless both parties are secretly only one party).  The exchange between these parties = the concepts which, in a physical sense, make up “time”) - (aka creationism)

you only justify the way you want it to be (aka sophistry) - (see also:  love(-ly) (/) bullshit)

the logical 50.1% probabalistic certainty (i call this surety) of 50.1% self-definition.

(one of an infinite spread of spectrum spreading spectrum spreads)^2

06.23.06

the paparazzi market (-dynamics)

Posted in problem solving, psychology at 12:51 am by nonattender

paparuleys:

photographers - do not take photographs unless given permission.

photographers - do not take photographs unless paid.

celebrities - when you give permission, let them.

celebrities - when they pay you, let them photograph you.

viewers rejoice.

(readers rarely notice)

—- wait, maybe better, maybe funnier:  someone makes a reality show out of following the paparazzi.   wouldn’t that fix it?  it’s like a completely whole OTHER super EXTRA layer of BULLSHIT all on its own!   You can then “product place” certain celebrities into the show within the show within the show…  the meta-bullshit show!  that’s fuckin value!  I’d love to see a shit-ton of money go into some things like that!   (what has happened!  I apparently just turned into George Carlin…!)

back to the pitch…

“Are you an overwrought actor/celebrity who hates having his every movement under scrutiny (while, no doubt, being just a wee bit oversensitive about the whole issue, in a “my business manager makes me do it” sort of way)?  If so, go produce this show.”

suddenly i .. do feel like turning on the tv.   hmm.

05.11.06

you are better than you

Posted in aphorisms, physics notes, problem solving, psychology at 2:27 pm by nonattender

is there any psychological testing / passive technical analysis done on college applicants in order to determine their level of DESIRE?  i don’t mean sex.  i mean a measure of how strongly they desire to attend.  why isn’t this considered a meaningful score?  It seems at least as indicative of performance as “intelligence” testing.

i guess you’d then have to contrast that data with whatever the generally held public conception of your company - i mean school - happened to be…  and then try to posit the conception that the applicants might have - so meaningful (true over time) conclusions could be reached about applicants / applicant’s motives - as well as your own.

03.30.06

eyecontact

Posted in psychology at 4:22 am by nonattender

sleepy vision problems lead to thoughts of: 

everyone has the focus on one eye problem with eye contact at close distances
is there an eye that the majority of people favor?  is this tied to “handedness”?

can’t we just ask people when we meet them?

it would make things so much easier, especially as a relationship builder.  hey, what’s your sign and which of your eyes is dominant?  then look into that eye with -your- dominant eye, and tell them which of your eyes is dominant. 

conversely, find a way to figure out someones eye dominance through passive observation, then use that information…..

society breaks into left/left, left/right, right/right relationships.  wonder what, if anything, that information might contribute towards or explain..

is there such a thing as perfect l/r stereo equivalence?  no, of course not (except on some deeper level that i can work out later)…….  everyone has a dominant eye, it’s just a matter of degree.. anyone have or know of stats/information on this type of thing?