Thursday, March 31, 2011

Dinner with Friends

I had dinner with friends tonight. I met with the newlyweds at a Brazilian restaurant. I really enjoy Brazilian food and being completely broke it was convenient to have someone feed me in such a lovely setting. For all my readers I do wish to remind you that I have many friends who take very lovely care of me. I want for nothing and want very little, I am quite happy at present.

Do you ever wonder what I am like in person if you don't know me personally? I mean people read this blog from countries I have never been to. I just wonder if you ever wonder what type of person I am in person? When I read someones blog I wonder about what they are like. In some manner, I believe reading another person's blog give me a better understanding of them than if I met them in person first. It is on blogs that we reveal more than we do to strangers because we know our readers are strangers.

You might have to read that last sentence twice. What if I am actually a 20 year old girl and this is my alter ego, a 51 year old man. What if this were some sort of experiment, a college paper. What if it was a way to create a fake persona for someone in the witness protection program? What if this were an FBI blog used to validate some lie for an informant? The possibilities are endless; but, the truth is that it is just me.

Perhaps you wonder why I write this blog. There was a reason in the beginning and I achieved it; but, I kept writing. Maybe so that some readers might think they begin to understand how I think, this ain't gonna do that. LOL. Maybe because I love to write, partly. Perhaps because I like the fact that I can give people quicker access to certain news stories that they might have missed, yeah that too. I am an old stage manager and if you have an audience, you should have a show.

I write it mostly because if there are readers than my writing has some value. I write because there are readers, because of you, the ones I know and the ones I don't.

So where do we go to from here? We have talked about so many things, corruption, pensions, God, sin, love, the odd things going on in the world. The two most popular posts were on "Carl Jung, Jim Carey and DMT" or something like that and "Pastor Carol Daniels". The one on Pastor Daniels was not typical of my writing as far as subject matter goes, it just really effected me. The one on Jung was a little more typical.

Should I write about the most popular things, cater to my audience? No, I cannot do that, this is for me too and not just the audience, we both have to win. It comes down to why do you read what I write in the first place. If you read it is either because you like the vagaries of what you will get or because you have a reason to read it.

I was on a plane with a man, he was the chair of Philosophy at a university in the east. He introduced himself and attempted to prove something to me that he had just given a speech about before the worlds philosophers (apparently they have conferences too). He didn't know it; but, he had lost the argument the minute he began it; but, it was a long flight so I decided to have some fun. 20 minutes before the six hour flight ended, I decided it was time to reel him in. He never saw it coming and had to concede that what he had just spoke on was illogical. Political Scientists should be philosophers too, organizing society should require that one be philosophical and that is what we train to do.

I don't know what to write about anymore. I enjoy writing about God the most. I have an award for Constitutional Law. I always compare reading the bible to reading the constitution, we shouldn't reword them, we should try to understand what they meant at the time. I read the bible to try and figure out the context of what occurred.

How bout we just see where this goes?

2 comments:

jacob nuesca said...

i wish you would explain more in detail how you proved that philosopher wrong.

Pimpernel said...

Drat. I don't remember and would have to replay the whole conversation in my head. Basically, if there is no afterlife then none of this matters, it won't be remembered, pain and pleasure are meaningless if there is no memory therefore there can be no absolute right or wrong, it just doesn't matter.

If there are no living beings to hear sounds and a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound, it doesn't matter, there is nobody to hear it.

It is old school basic philosophy. I think therefore I am kind of stuff. We trip ourselves up by getting so complicated that we reverse ourselves. He didn't start from basics, he was trying to prove a point that he felt was important to his view on life, not find the truth. It was a justification rather than a creation, it had to fail. That is the short answer.