Preventive Maintenance or Preventive Measures would also have been acceptable... Also, this is, I think, the first in what I hope to be a set of articles finally outlining how I see the world...
Preventive Maintenance is The Things You Do that prevent something from just... Dying. Or quitting. Like if I had a car, preventive maintenance would be changing the oil, rotating the tires, or even something as dumb as filling up the gas. Like... If I had a computer, preventive maintenance could be a whole number of things, like scanning for spyware regularly or cleaning out files I don't need anymore.
Basically, the whole premise behind this idea is that... So many things in life actually require preventive maintenance, and not many people seem to realize this. Things require baby sitting. This could also bleed into a more generic concept that existence and acknowledgement demand committment. This could also be abstracted away. For however cumbersome people few some preventive maintenance, like car maintenance, I feel that that kind of stuff could be made easier. An auto-checkup light or something silly like that. Not everyone in the world has time or the desire to learn how a car works. Or a computer for that matter.
Preventive maintenance. Don't die.
All this mega analysis garbage on personality types... And watching the Broken Hearts Club... And thinking about the Incredibles... It makes me have a soft spot for the misunderstood people in the world. Those who like playing with negative signs and delving into the side of darkness... Is it really dark or is it just misunderstood? That one is from Teen Titans.
And on that. About misunderstood people. God give me the strength. What about people I think are stupid? They're misunderstood, obviously, by me. But what if other people don't like them. Do I continue to give them the benefit of the doubt? Or do I continue hating them, with my laser like accuracy. Hmm... This one, obviously, goes out to Planeteer numero uno. The most misunderstood. But let the record show, you assaulted me first.
So, that's that. Dark magic is cool. And I'm always right. Hmm, funny, that phrased used to ring well, but now I feel kinda icky saying it. Growth maybe?
Dennis (NFJ, idealist, always talking about some long term relationship garbage, haha, kinda decisive)
Cole (SP, in a relationship for whatever, sounds like pleasure, no long term thought)
Howie (T, at least, viewed as uncaring)
Patrick (T, a little cold, critical maybe)
Kevin (NF, young and optimistic maybe? aches. cold people don't ache)
"Pick off a 'mo", haha, I get it.
Holy shit, "We can't all be..." Isn't that a statistical truth of a dichotomy or a trait? To exist is to demand the existence of non existence?
In the Incredibles, the mother tells Dash that everyone is special. Then Dash replies, it's the same as saying that no one is. What a mature line for a seemingly kid-friendly movie! Anyway.
I agree. It's kind of Taoist in a way. The Wikipedia says that there exists two sides for every one concept. That is, to be special, there must be someone that is not.
So, to make a universal claim for all elements in a set that an attribute is true, that is effectively saying there is no attribute at all. If we all have money, or if we all have super powers, then what are we talking about? You must be thinking of some external element that lacks either money or superpowers. All is the same as nothing, and nothing is the same as everything.
Oh, and another thing. If two things are truly binary, then there is no sidedness between them. Sidedness is purely constructed. If there really was a difference between up and down, you're thinking of some higher order function, which is beyond the scope of just up and down, or heads and tails, or 1 and 0.
A triangle can exist on a 2D plane, but it can also be represented on a 3D plane at point sets zero-one of each axis.
If an N node perfect object can exist on an N-1 dimensional plane, it's better represented on an N dimensional plane.
I originally wrote a note to myself a while back to describe the philosophy of solipsism. But luckily, there's also that link I just found in Google to help everyone out. No, I didn't read it.
Given that solipsism has the following premise... All elements of the universe originate from oneself. Think of it like two rays pulling out of a point, making a cone shape field of vision, much like a camera would. And from this camera analogy, we would say that the camera would never be able to see itself.
As I write this, I'm already thinking, hello? Light-based device? Get a light-reflective object like a mirror. True. See Mario 64, where you can see Lakitu, the camera-man in the room of mirrors.
Anyway, I only took the camera analogy because of the style of the field of vision... I don't think there exists any philosophically reflective object that can shed light on one's universe. I still haven't, of course, read the article to which I linked...
My roommate has this friend and this friend has a site. And on this site, which lacks post-specific links, he writes of crunktifornication. Never before have I read such an amusing yet eloquently written piece. A dialectic of two vices, if you will.
Just what is this term, you ask, “Crunktifornication”? It is the very goal, the pinnacle of my existence and crux of my being. It is what I strive for, from the moment I wake until the moment I pass out; I say pass out because it necessarily requires one to pass out from drunkenness. Crunktifornication, its etymology, stems from two phat words. The first, crunk, aka crunktified, crunked, get my crunk on, etc, is quite simply, getting mad retarded primarily through alcoholic means. As you will learn in a moment, this is the easy part. The second word, one that is actually in the English language, is “fornicate”, meaning, fuck, bone, tap, et cetera. Put the two together and we have a beautiful concept that involves two very, very beautiful things.
Again taken from the INTJ Open list (one would just deduce that I'm reading it right now):
1. Those who make things happen.
2. Those who watch things happen,
3. Those who wonder what happened.
Wow, with that kind of demarcation of the world, I definitely want to be a maker.
Taken from in the INTJ Open group:
I am a young single INTJ and for a while I had trouble dealing with loneliness and had difficulty relating to people at the workplace and outside. I toned down my assertiveness and tried to develop my "feeling" side to appear more gentle and approachable to others. I might be suffering from low self esteem at this time, hopefully this board can serve as a support group as well to those in need of more insight. I am constantly trying to understand how i FIT IN with the rest of society. I am lonely is what I am saying, with no motivation to change that. Partly because I like being alone. But I hate this part of me, I have come more to hate being INTJ. For the longest time, I wanted to be more like other personality types, easily mingling with others and actually enjoying idle chatter, instead I find myself at the darkest corner of the room, the anti- social. Can anyone else relate? Here is the survey:is it ok to feel satisfied and content knowing that you are alone?
should you strive to get a social life, a social group perhaps, just so that you fit in, in the eyes of others, show them you are not a loner.
Where do you draw the line as to how much social you need less you burn yourself out. I know we intj's need time to recharge after being around people much.what extend would you go to fit in to the social crowd. would you even take that step to fit in in the first place, or are you comfortable just being the way you are, alone. do you feel guilty for it.
It's cool how I can finally see other people in the world that feel the way I do. Someone even replied with "Paradoxy is the alchemy of the INTJ." If that's true, then I can see why I love Taoism so much. The paradox of Taoism, which I've yet to write about, is enough to keep me going for at least two eternities.
I've always accused certain things in life of being organic, and I never really understood why until now...
In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin cites the Latin canon, "Natura non facit saltum," which I should have been able to translate myself, except I didn't know the word saltum.
It means "nature makes no leap" and that makes so much sense. The things that I've accused of being organic, or natural in this case, have always been gradual, as opposed to sharp, dynamic, or discontinuous changes. Changes must be slow, but more so continuous and gradual. You can have really fast changes, they're just unlikely. So long as they're continuous, that's organic.
Anything else would be uncivilized and featured in an episode of Beast Machines (awesome series, I less than three Mainframe).
Terrible title, I know. But somehow suiting...
I sense that the secret of the world in the next coming generation lies within the cracks... That is, it's not just A or B, exclusive of one another, but both. Not one theory or the other, but both theories.
It's very yin and yang about it.
The thought behind his post originated in my fascination with Final Fantasy tactics, whose graphics system I still adore even today. It had a quick rendering 3D background, very simple, combined with a vast array of well-crafted 2D sprites.
There hasn't been, methinks, any advancement in teaching computers how to make good pixel art. That is, sprites, however computer-esque they look, will always be a human art. The Japanese must know the most about expressing the most information in the least amount of space, with their Nintendos and cell-phones and the like...
3D isn't everything. It can't be. Relax a little. Life isn't all about 3D graphics. I just wish some video game companies would concentrate on level design, balance, and interaction, instead of just graphics.
I've been thinking of a new paradigm, or way of thinking about the world in relation to procrastination... This method has helped me cope with the repurcussions of procrastination, sort of. And this method is a familiar mantra in the form of, "Now or never." It's an ultimatum basically. As John Perry eluded to, procrastinators are rarely unproductive. What matters is what kind of production in which they choose to engage. Anyway, the whole point of this is that with the ultimatum, the procrastinator, i.e. myself, must choose between the lesser of two evils. I know deep down in my soul that if something isn't done now, in all practical senses, it isn't getting done at all. I'd very much like to make the choice of later, but later isn't one of them. It's "now or never", and now is the closest approximation.
The difficult part, as with all things, is the actual execution. The procrastinator must promise to manifest this choice into real action, done now. I mean, right now. Drop everything and do it now now.
I've already thought of situations where it'd be in appropriate to drop everything that you're doing and attend to something of lesser importance by simply choosing now. But I think of it this way. For every thought that you have, ask yourself this question. What happens? Each thought will be fighting for the top of the heap. Quite volatile so far. But some concepts have greater mindshare than others. So, if I choose to do something frivolous now, but then think of something more important at the same time, the more important thought will just over-power the lesser thought by frequency. What matters most, either way, is the fact that I've decided to do something now and not later.