The New Porsche 911 (Yes, of Course it Looks the Same!)

But what an amazing shout for the new model the bytes of this video hold together....

Laughing Man

"Stupid Fucking White Man," said Nobody.

How do people justify to themselves allowing themselves to indulge and act through the primitive paths of the brain's personality channels, assigned to function as reactionary sensors that assume malice from every corner and therefore promote with authority the sanctity and primacy of the tribe and its genetic makeup and customs as a defense — even though they themselves are based upon and have developed from the assumption that all other tribes will naturally attack them, kill their men, rape and enslave their women, and plunder everything they own? Isn't it true instead that people who prevail today as the developed world are living disproof of that primitive brain-squid's legitimacy as a prime mode for action?

If ever any God were called upon to legitimize the creation of human beings, the photoshopped construction below could not help but to appear to both that God and its challengers as a sufficiently embarrassing nail in the forehead of any justification that could even be attempted.

Realities Dim In Spacetime Without Coincidence

If roses smell as they do to us, how must they smell to creatures who can really experience odor, like cats? Is there a "like" involved there (some people, of course, "dislike" the smell of roses, while others, such as me, think they smell "really amazing")? Do some cats "like" how roses smell, & some "dislike" them? Or do such puzzling creatures just accept them as geographical markers indicating place without ever thinking of "like/dislike" — rather as most adults do plain grass? It wouldn't surprise me if a child's reaction to the smell of grass mimicked a cat's reaction to the smell of roses. But then again, it wouldn't surprise me if it didn't. Would it surprise a cat?

Where am I?

It would be foolish to posit that the sports car is merely an extension of the Hammer of Thor. Not because the sports car doesn't find its silhouette cast on the foggy mists of the mind by a dense bright speck of lust that shapes it into a rooster-tail plume, and not because the sports car's some sort of suitlike second one may put on to limn lust in a body — for it of course plays the first rôle when cast by the second in the part, and it is always thus cast, of course — but because the Hammer of Thor is itself just an organic symbol and vehicle for the exercise of a different lust, a want, a lack at the center of the self that needs filling. Flesh & brain wish to merge perception and reality to come close to the grace of oblivion because selves themselves have no real support against the sense that reality itself might not after all be just two seemingly eye-shaped cut-outs into a spacetime fence between oblivion and what seems to happen.

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.

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."

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?

Tubelikeness

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?