Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Why Monsters Are Menacing

You've got your sunken & your high/low relief —
let's say you carve
a monster of gold-veined jade
using each technique.

The finished pieces,
one statuary, one mask,
replicate each other in both figure & presence,
but do not reflect at all.

The statue is caught in a flash of presence;
its stone soul makes it a simple object
Utterly and completely unreal.

The mask instead forces its observer to become
that same stone figure, utterly without identity,
in that initial unscripted first glance through the emptiness of
suchlike a shell as we all inhabit.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Note on Morrison's Soft Parade

"If" god[s]/? "is/are supposed to" maintain/? "an" attitude/? "benevolent to the human race," it/he/she/they/? cannot/? "also" be/? "omniscient and omnipotent. If" god[s]/? is/are/? "presumed omniscient & omnipotent," god[s]/? is/are/? self-justified/? "by truth alone with no human consideration."

Friday, April 16, 2010

The Moon

If the moon and earth are the remnants of two of Sol's planets' colliding those eons ago, is the moon too a source of diamonds and gold? Has any human begun to seek land or lease there?
—General Pudstone G. Purview, Liber Aurum

Instead of building bigger & bigger engines to carry small payloads against natural forces, a thing that greatly limits the extent of any "mission" to an obviously unacceptable extent if it is in fact unnecessary, why not figure out how to hold the resistances themselves, and move by eating their inertial energy?

Since we'd be drawing energy from one specific space-time curvature, we'd grab the end-point & travel directly through space-time's curves instead of around them, and the length of our trip would be determined only by the brilliance of our inertial engine in handling the heightened level of sensitivities such a thing would require, & its strength and stamina in enduring that constant seemingly impossible position of stretching for and holding that last tiny point of the correct set of inertial threads.

Yet if one did this, would one tear an irreperable hole in space-time's fabric by eating the inertia in question instead of abiding by the apparent rule which forces one to overcome it instead? Or would spacetime bend point-to-point, & not tear?

And if spacetime's fabric would tear, are we not faced with the implication that a larger spacetime contextualizes our own?

Wednesday, April 14, 2010


What percentage of all things are to what degree tubelike, whether in the way they appear or in the action they allow, or by both standards? And of what complexity is the essential measurable "tubelikeness" of the world, given that the two categoricals need not be related to each other at all?

Do all things either radiate &/or become affected by the radiation of tubelike fields?

If measurable, what shape does the tubelike field take over places featuring confluences of tubes in assortments of sizes, angles, composition, appearance, &/or function? Does the measure of such fields ever inhibit or accentuate the formation of more tubelikeness within them?

If such inhibition or accentuation does occur, does it imply either the consciousness of tubelike objects, &/or the outside radiation's regulatory (if conscious) or weather-like (if not conscious) action?