Shaddap Bitter Crust. — Buxtebuddha

Why, you little... Just wait till I get my hands on you!

Look, you have all these alleged "genres" like Ambient/Synth, Drone/Noise, Electronic (EDM, Industrial, Techno, Heavy metal, Extreme metal (thrash, death, black, etc.), and Punk/Crust/Hardcore from the last two or three decades, but 800 years worth of music for voice you lump together under "Religious Oration/Chants".

Look, here is a seduction scene from Don Giovani (at about 2:50) and here is Gregorio Allegri's Miserere from the Good Friday service, and here is Mao's wife in John Adams' Nixon in China. Obviously this can't all fit into "Religious Oration/Chants". You need more categories of music.

And I didn't even touch on Chinese opera, Buddhist monks producing unearthly harmonic overtone singing called Sygyt in Tuva, go here for a sample, African music, Indian music, Gamelan music, Andean flutes, and so on and so forth.

I think it’s disingenuous to go on about Trump voters (or whomever) and then pretend the same electorate is a reliable source of policy. — Fool

I agree about the disingenuousness of dismissing Trump voters as morons or fools. When people actually vote, that is, pencil in hand and ballot before them, they make emotional decisions. Everybody -- college professor and trailer trash alike.

Personal example: Back in 1978 or 1980 Minnesota had a referendum item on betting. I have been, and am, officially against gambling. I don't like to gamble, I think lotteries amount to an extremely regressive tax, and when it comes to gambling, I am personally risk averse.

Regardless of what my "thinking" was on the matter, I voted to approve the referendum. Why? Some sort of emotional pull towards avoiding "squareness" or "over religiousness" or something like that determined my vote.

Emotional factors came into play in the last presidential election too. People who would normally have voted for Hilary Clinton (based on how they responded to polls, how they had previously discussed the candidates, etc.) were swayed in the voting booth by emotions. I was too. I would normally have voted for the Democrat, and I think Clinton would have made a significantly more competent president than Trump, but I just didn't want to vote for her.

You don't have broadway musicals on your list. There are people who would die without it. You didn't list music for film or music for video games.

You also don't have band music, as in brass band, concert band. Some people like listening to band music. Some people like to stomp around to Prussian marches.

Neither bluegrass nor bagpipes nor barbershop quartets (shudder) are on your list. I don't see opera. I don't see choral music (a cappella groups like Cantus, the King's Singers, Chanticleer, or the Rose Ensemble...)

You need to get out more.

"Classical" is the best choice because, even though it technically does apply to a specific period, it also means everything from medieval to modern--Hildegard of Bingen to Henryk Górecki. Haydn, Mozart, Handel... have to have those three, for sure. Well really, all of them. Sorry, can't narrow it down. It's all good. Except the genre I've never heard of, like "crust". What the hell is "crust"? I've heard some music on the elevator I liked and I'm fond of some disco numbers too. "I want to feel the heat with somebody..."

Obviously, we won't be reinventing the wheel all by ourselves because that would be inefficient. — Posty McPostface

So, how big was the research and development team that invented the wheel first? How do you know it wasn't an early Edison who shrieked "eureka" and rode off into the sun set on his new chariot?

About how misunderstanding arises, would be a good way of putting it? — Posty McPostface

No, because understanding about how misunderstanding arises just doesn't arise quick enough or at all, usually.

a little wallowing here and there — Posty McPostface

I believe you asserted that "wallowing is what you do best". For an extra 50 points, name the popular song from the 1960s where "wallow in the mire" appears. Hint:

Try to set the night on fire
The time to hesitate is through...

And which performers did the best job on it? (It's a matter of taste, so no bonus points for that)

known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns — Posty McPostface

Yes, he was right about that. The unknown unknowns particularly. Fortunately, maybe, we don't know too much about the unknown unknowns. Probably pretty bad. Like, there's an alien fleet that will attack earth (at their convenience) with microbes that will slowly turn us into green slime which the aliens will then ingest. Do we really want to know all about it ahead of time?

In the mean time, everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics.

When I started college in 1964 I had a sort of 5 year plan: finish college, get a job. I did that. I did it a couple of times. Many years later, after some good jobs, some bad jobs, good apartments, bad apartments, mostly good people (a couple of alcoholics I could have lived without), lots of boring stuff, lots of interesting stuff, I hung it up and retired early. That or shoot myself.

Life happened, as it will, and after a stretch of sickness and death, I found myself living alone again after 32 years. It took a year or two to get over that. Then I found a plan. I would go back to the beginning of my college years and do the kind of reading now that I wish I had done back then. And so I have been beefing up the content of my bachelor degree.

It's a worthwhile goal at this stage in life. Maybe it can't happen until this stage. To no great end, all of this, other than to understand the world better, understand myself better. And it's working.

Well, that was unexpectedly enjoyable and good.

I have the feeling there is a sub-text game here. None the less...

We are designed to pick up the rules of language. It starts very early on, and we just learn the rules. Are we talking about how we learn language? Or are we talking about screwy games some people play with language?

Playing word games (of the good sort and the deviously bad sort) is a human thing, and little children learn how to do both, along with simultaneously learning Polish, Mandarin Chinese, and Old English -- if they happen to live in a strange time zone. We all prefer that people just say what they mean and mean what they say. Unless, of course, what they mean and say is really uncomplimentary and altogether too clearly expressed. Save us from crystal clear criticism.

So, Monsieur Posty McPostface, just what language game are you playing here? Are you trying to achieve some devious end by asking unpleasant questions under the cover of Herr Wittgenstein, about whom I know next to nothing?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.

I cannot seem to show or express love or my true self. How do you love? — Danny

Warm, secure, unconditional parental-love is so important because it is the mainspring of human personality. Without it, we have difficulty relating to others, and before that, even, relating to "our own true selves". If you did not get a full measure of this kind of warm, secure unconditional loves as a child, you would certainly not be the first or only person to have missed out.

But I'm leaping to conclusions here which may or may not be warranted. But sometimes we are knotted up in such a way that expressing the love we feel is very difficult. This being knotted up can also make it difficult for us to reveal our selves to others.

One of the knots is self-love. We have to love and accept ourselves before we can effectively love others, and before we can reveal and express who we are -- that "true self". Is this a problem for you? It is not an uncommon situation.

Then too, if we do not feel worthy of love (some more of those knots) we may short-circuit relationships before they get to the point where "love happens". Sometimes we fear being loved, and falling into love. We fear it because we feel we are not worthy, and anyone who loves us will be disappointed, and so on... more knots. Or we feel that love will be abruptly withdrawn if we fail to live up to some ridiculously high standard we are carrying around and which we never measure up to. Knots.

There are steps you can take (maybe a lot of short steps, I don't know) to untie knots and learn how to love.

I guess. How about renard farci au homard et aubergine (fox stuffed with lobster and eggplant)... with a baguette. "Baguette... haw haw haw (but in nasalized french, like this)




Tu n'as pas besoin de moi. Tu n'as besoin de personne. Vous êtes Americans.

Mon français vient de l'école de Google Traduction.

Fou comme un renard?

The two-party system is entrenched in the American government system, and without a parliamentary system (where minor parties gain some seats if they obtain a minimum of votes) it doesn't much matter if there are two or three or four parties.

As it is, there is, in a sense, only ONE party, and that's the party of the status quo to which most Republicans and Democrats belong.

However, parliamentary systems do not solve all problems either. Look at Italy.

I think it’s disingenuous to go on about Trump voters (or whomever) and then pretend the same electorate is a reliable source of policy. — Fool

Yes, it is disingenuous. But...

I believe that it has been demonstrated by political scientists that people don't vote rationally -- not the erudite college professor nor the high school drop out trailer trash.

What? That can't be true!"

When people have pencil in hand and the ballot before them, there is a very strong tendency for emotional-driven voting to take precedence over rational voting. What people tell pollsters is more likely to be a rational (or rationalized) statement not represented in their actual voting.

Personal example: In 1980 Minnesota's November ballot had a referendum question on gambling. It may have been to allow betting on horse racing. I have long been opposed to gambling, and think that things like lotteries amount to a kind of regressive tax. I am risk averse when it comes to games of chance, and I avoid casinos.

Despite all that, I voted for the referendum item on the basis of emotion. I remember feeling that I wanted to vote for the more socially sophisticated position. That feeling really didn't surface until the moment I voted (partly because I hadn't really thought much about it, one way or the other).

People did or did not vote for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton for similarly emotional reasons which may not have been entertained prior to entering the ballot box. I was appalled that Donald Trump had been nominated, and was horrified that he might be elected. None the less, I wasn't happy with Clinton either. I did not vote for Trump, but I wanted to vote against Hillary. (Minnesota was securely in Hillary's pocket.) It was pure small-minded emotion at play in choosing to vote for a down ballot candidate.

My guess is that many Trump voters acted out of similarly non-rational motivation--motivation they need not be embarrassed for following, at least on the basis of how most people make important decisions.

One of the arguments against establishing voter qualifications is that "individual votes, whether they be well informed or not" do not matter. It is the 'mass' of voters who range all the way from superbly well informed to completely uninformed that matter.

Yes, of course, in a close election a few votes may determine the outcome -- but we don't know who those few votes belonged to, or at what time on the day of voting they were cast.

In legislatures, the votes of the representatives are shown on a board (or computer screen) as they are cast. In that situation where there are only a few voters, maybe less than 100 and where their votes are public, we can see who voted, how, and when -- and if they changed their mind at the last minute. But that doesn't apply to secret ballots.

As for maturity, the truth is that "wisdom does not necessarily grow with age". As a 71 year old, I can cite examples of older and younger people who are definitely not mature or wise, and at the same time cite examples of older and younger people who are decidedly mature and wise.

The difference is that some people accumulate wisdom and maturity, and some people don't. Trump belongs in the category of people who haven't, so far, accumulated a whole lot of wisdom or maturity.

There is the opinion that some African countries just weren't colonies long enough -- like Kenya and Uganda, for instance. Maybe 50 more years...

I'm not arguing in favor of ethnic cleansing of course. There are obvious benefits to be derived from herding the Swedish population out of Minnesota into Wisconsin but the UN just wouldn't stand for it. They might send Irish peace keepers to Minneapolis to monitor the safety of the Swedes. Quelles horreurs!

Do you believe that some countries are illegitimate in that they took someone's land with out permission? If so, what should be done about it ideally? Should we give back the the land? To whom? the original owners or the previous owners? — Purple Pond

No. I don't believe that countries are illegitimate if they took someone's land without their permission. The history of our species involves waves of populations over-running other populations. There is no plot of land on earth, as far as we know, that hasn't been contested at some point during the last, oh, 50,000 years, on down to this very moment.

The way peoples and nations behave isn't governed by the rules of etiquette. Real Politic tends to be brutal. I am not applauding that fact, and I am not asking anyone else to applaud it, but that is in fact how things work most of the time.

Yes, it is true that European empires seized ownership of the western hemisphere from the native people. All of the European empires were founded by people who were not originally occupants of their imperial states. Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal had been over run in previous centuries before they started their imperial careers--several times in some cases. The Western Hemisphere had been populated for 10,000 years+ by populations who were definitely not above running over neighboring peoples.

The only recourse that protects nations from being over-run is defensive warfare. Had the Axis been slightly more successful in WWII, and the Allies been slightly less successful, the map of Europe and Asia would look much different today than it does. Had the Axis been significantly more successful, there would probably not be a lot of dispute that the new map made perfectly good sense.

ethnic cleansing — Baden

The idea that diversity is a universal good which communities at all levels ought to seek is a current vogue, at least for the last several decades. "Ethnic cleansing" appeared in print only in the mid 1990s. It was first applied, if memory serves, in the Balkan conflicts in the 1990s--Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, etc. (The disputed issues weren't new in 1995; they had been the subject of conflict there for over a century.)

Since then it's been used quite a lot, per this Google Ngram (representing usage in print)

Whether the employee works the assembly line as co-owner of The People's Communal Motorcars or as a peon Ford Motor Company grunt, in either event, the employee goes equally unfulfilled. — Hanover

If the worker-owned and operated People's Communal Motorcars set up a dehumanizing assembly line on which they themselves or some other unfortunates, labored from dawn to dusk, it would be their own fault, their own most grievous fault.

Marx was preaching salvation, aside from political economy, and what was implemented in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China was Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Company's authoritarian state capitalism, where the state is the owner operator, and as likely to behave badly as any straightforward capitalist, only more so.

The alienation, it seems to me arises from being relegated to being a cog, not from lacking joint ownership in the enterprise. — Hanover

There are two flavors of alienation. Being a cog on the assembly line or a cog in an office or a cog any where else, is one kind of alienation. A lot of people who are cogs on a wheel actually like their jobs. They are, none the less, "alienated" from the product of their work, even though they might like their jobs. This kind of alienation may not even be perceived, and is more of a philosophical concept than a specific experience.

Then there is another kind of alienation where one becomes a stranger in one's own land and is cut off from such comforts and joys as family, community, and faith can provide. This kind of alienation feels awful and isn't specifically related to economics.

There are many more factors contributing to the second kind of... 'existential alienation' than there are contributing to the alienation Marx was talking about.

More confusing and worse, one may be alienated in both senses of the word at the same time.

Marx's comments on alienation are in some scattered locations; what he had to say about it in the philosophical manuscripts are very resonant to what a lot of people are feeling in the second sense of the word (alienation).

But we don't have to rely on what Marx said. A lot of people have written cogently and perceptively about alienation.

Transcendent seems to imply something mystical. I think happiness is just a generalized state of contentment, where you're not constantly chasing the next high, you're not filled with anxiety, you don't feel depressed, things like that. The happiest times in my life were those times I thought the least about my emotional well being. Everything clicked, made sense, and worked. And I knew best my times of happiness when they ended, sort of like stepping out of that perfectly heated hot tub into the winter air. — Hanover

Yes, "the pursuit of happiness", the state referenced in the D of I, is a background not foreground state. It is like "fitness"; when one is "fit" considerable effort can be expended without noticing it. When one has happiness, fitness, learning, and so forth these states disappear into the background of smooth functioning.

Background states are durable states, resisting easy destruction by one instance of foreground anxiety, for instance, or one episode of grief. When anxiety, depression, fear, loneliness, Trump, and so forth become background, happiness is replaced by rough dysfunction.

happiness — Hanover

is a transcendent realm?

Satisfying your urges doesn't always lead to happiness. — Hanover

Like, satisfying the urge to kill only leads to medium range happiness, because getting rid of one asshole merely creates the necessary opening for the next asshole in line. After a moderate period of time, the replacement asshole becomes a total pain, and the killer urge arises again. A cycle develops. Perhaps if one could get rid of the entire line of assholes, one's happiness would be enduring.

The trouble is, we don't know where the line ends. For all we know, the line of assholes is infinite, and therefore there is no possibility of getting rid of all of them, and thus, no possibility of perpetual happiness either.

Transcendent Realms' person religion doesn't reveal how long the asshole line is. What good is it?

Morality was developed among ancient humans, probably before there were words for it. An individual's, family's, and tribe's survival required compliance with the group's demands. The demands weren't very complicated: be quiet; walk slowly, stay close; run! don't eat that; eat this; don't wander away alone. Simple stuff, but taught with urgency. Individuals that were capable of both instilling and practicing the rules had a better chance of survival.

In time morality was formalized in rules, once we had the language required to write them. However, the basic method of instilling morality remains, and it begins with teaching children to obey parents. As far as the young child can tell, love and nurture is dependent on obedience. The modern child internalizes obedience to parental rules, just as the ancient child did.

What is it that keeps children behaving well as they grow up, become parents themselves, and finally grow old and die? It's the desire for love and nurture, and the fear of punishment -- but refined and elaborated into a complex morality.

In other words, it's emotion that enables us to be moral; behave ourselves and play well with others.

It isn't a fool-proof system, but it has worked pretty well for a long time, and it can't require a whole lot of rationality. By the time people are learnéd enough to benefit from rational instruction, it is too late to teach them the basic kernel of morality: we fear losing love and nurture by misbehaving.

dirempting — Maw

Ah, I thought it was a typo.

"noun. 1. a sharp division into two parts; disjunction; separation. Origin of diremption. Latin."

I am not sure how the heart -- that cardiac muscle located behind your ribs, usually on the left side of your body -- was tasked with feeling emotions. Probably it was because when we get excited the heart beats faster. Something like that. We have also assigned feelings to the gut -- gut instinct, gut feeling, having the guts for war, etc. The enteric nervous system which runs the digestive tract is sensitive to emotions, and may have more to do with our lives than we would like, so it is natural that people might think the gut emotional. A digestive tract diagram would probably be more suitable for St. Valentine's Day than the :heart: which doesn't even look like a heart. More to the point would be a great erection.

There are a small number of cells in the Medulla (the brain stem) that control heart and lung function. There is also a network of nerves in the heart that coordinate it's sequential contraction and relaxation. There aren't any nerves running from the limbic system to the heart. Chemicals, yes -- nerves no. (The vagus nerve - Cranial Nerve #10) doesn't traffic in emotions with the heart. it carries instructions, mostly, like "beat now". )

The whole body is involved in the brain, so everything from your heart to your anus is involved in emotion. But there are good rhetorical reasons to focus on the heart. A bleeding-ass hole liberal is even less attractive than a bleeding heart liberal. "From the bottom of my heart" sounds better than "from the heart of my bottom". A rectal throb is more ambiguous than a heart throb. The anus is a critically important structure (just wait until it clamps down for a week) but it doesn't get good PR.

The heart gets gobs of great PR. Why aren't they working on rectal transplants? It would be better than messy colostomy bags. But no, it's all about heart transplants. Heart this, heart that.

Fuck the heart. Up with assholes.

However, I find the recognised alternatives, such as socialism or communism, to be worse than the problems they solve.

This, not least, because the various factions tend to collapse into mutual antagonism. The Communist Manifesto (which isn't a manifesto at all - it's a prophecy) provides a quintessential example. — Shatter

There are intermediate stops in-between where we are and a communist revolution. Like, progressive taxation. At the present time, we (the U.S.) has lapsed into a long phase of regressive taxation which is partially responsible for the chasm between the rich and everybody else. There is also progressive spending, where budgets support enduring future-oriented projects rather than short-term vanishing projects, like building highways which contribute to existing problems and will start fall apart at once (at least in cold-climate areas).

We can not regain the post WWII boom which really did lift a lot of boats, and enabled scores of millions of people to make gains in their quality-of-life. But there are certainly things that can be done, if progressive governments can be elected.

An historian I was reading a couple of months ago labeled Marx as a prophet, and his prophecy less revolution and more an eschatology. He was preaching salvation, a "kingdom of god" without god, of course...

OK, so some focused study should do the trick. Parts of speech and diagramming is the easiest part. Grammar might take a bit longer.

And it seems to me that you (or the hypothetical you) is wearing rose-tinted glasses here. One ought to remember that for every pleasant picnic at the park. — Buxtebuddha

Hey, buxte baby, get your genuine rose colored glasses right here, on sale now! for the next 15 minutes only! And if you buy three pair, you will get 5 Viagra pills, free! But hurry. This offer is good for only 15 minutes!

Frankly, I don't see the point in ruining the occasional picnic by self-flagellation for pausing the contemplation of the world's suffering. One picnic is not 10 more dying children being killed off by impatient vultures. If you take upon your self the sufferings of the world, you likely will kill yourself, to no ones benefit.

there's such a degree of suffering that exists in the world that one's best and only choice is to ignore the vast majority of it. No one with a well-cultivated conscience could go on living if the weight of the world's suffering was in their mind as much as it probably should be — Buxtebuddha

That is true. The suffering of the world is beyond the scope of our imaginations. There is too much, it is too varied, it is too refractory, it is too bound together. Dwelling on suffering does not reduce it. Rather fixating on the unquenchable suffering of the world disables those who might at least salve a few wounds.

Besides, the picnic attendees are subject to the possibility of refractory suffering along with the rest of the world. Refractory suffering has no meaning until it begins up close and personal. Even we fine few philosophers here may become intimately acquainted with suffering--so don't cancel any picnics.

An obsession with sentence diagramming is a previously unseen disorder. Just out of curiosity, what is your interest? Most people won't study sentence diagramming, short of putting a gun to their heads.

Since living things have evolved to exist through reproduction and have been reproducing for a very long time--thus proving that the reproductive drive is very persistent, resilient, and insistent --it seems to me that the only significant question for a heterosexual is "why should I NOT reproduced?"

The best non-selfish reason for having children is that you are "doomed" to reproduce, and unless you consistently go out of your way to avoid reproduction, the odds are on you reproducing.

You are probably looking for something more elegant than accepting your biological doom (or destiny).

If you discovery non-egotistical reasons for having or not having children, does your discovery have any moral effect on anyone else?

On a different note, are we really, relatively speaking, all that alienated? Does a monkey know how fruit is produced? — Shatter

"Being alienated from the products of one's labor" is not an obvious condition for industrial workers, let alone monkeys. "Alienation" in the case of products isn't "a bad feeling" like being alienated from one's parents, for instance, whose love once seemed secure. Rather, it's an insight into one's relationship to production which one might grasp alone, but will more quickly grasp if prompted by someone like Marx.

Workers in capitalist economies are definitely alienated from production. They may be, and probably are alienated in other ways too, where alienation is a psychological phenomenon.

Chomsky argues that anarchism is not disorganised, but is instead organisation without hierarchy. Fanciful as this may sound, it does offer a potential to alleviate the "inherently bad" aspect of (corporate) organisation without the wanton destruction of everything we rely on for our survival. — Shatter

Yes, this is true. Anarchy is an-archy not helter-skelter. I love the idea of an-archical society but bringing about such a society is a daunting project. Ursula LeGuin, a science fiction writer, explored what an anarchical society might be like in her novel, The Dispossessed.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that this is at least theoretically true, is a consequence of this that alienation from production is not an important factor in our lives? — Shatter

Alienation from production is an important part of our lives the same way clean water and fresh air are. We may not notice that the water and air are dirty if we have tasted nothing else, but clean water and fresh air are definitely better for us, once we know what is what. And the cure for alienation isn't a pain killer, its a reorganization of the economy and society so that workers ARE NOT ALIENATED, which means the end of rich people owning everything.

Whether alienation is cured by socialism, syndicalism, or anarchism... the changes would be HUGE.

Chomsky is always worth reading; have you read Prince Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman, and more modern anarchists?

It is not clear what your objective is. Do you want to learn how to diagram sentences more effectively, or do you want to learn how to write more effectively?

If sentence analysis is your goal, then get one book on English grammar and a second book on sentence diagramming and have a ball. What sentence diagramming does for one's writing ability is teach you how to be critical of your sentence structure. Sentence analysis is useful, until it becomes "second nature".

If more effective writing is your goal, then get a book on writing style and practice, practice, practice. The Elements of Style by Strunk and White is an old standby (meaning, many writers stand by its usefulness). It's a small book with pithy content.

It's a bit difficult to assess your writing skill by using your consistently very short posts as samples.

Just got off the line with her. She mainly complained about having a failure of a son who still hasn't left home and spends all his time being a cocky twat on the philosophy forum whilst maintaining he has a 'business' and is trying to 'expand' said 'business'

yeah, sorry. I've got a few friends who listen to his stuff and I just quietly believe them to be morons because of it. Jon Oliver is pretty good agreed

Apologies, I didn't want to cause any inconvenience for the mods. It's just the easiest and aptest way to respond to the poster in question.

Thanks for the link, going to send it to a few Kool-aid drinking friends. Also, 'Ethereum' sounds like an element

well if he's in Exeter then that's a marginal seat

Your short posts are generally conversational in style which is fine when you are writing "casual text". The samples here does not pass muster for formal writing. For instance:

I think that "well if he's in Exeter then that's a marginal seat" conveys meaning quite clearly. Conversational style is often quite effective; but its informal sound is wrong for some purposes. "Exeter is a marginal seat, if that is where he is." comes closer. "If he wins in Exeter, he will win a marginal seat." is the best formal revision I could write.

two errors: "Well," should be capitalized and should be followed by a comma. Why should it be followed by a comma? I can't remember the rule, but there is one. I'll make one up here: "When you begin a sentence with purposeless words such as so, well, you know, or fuck. it should be followed by a comma."

Some individual rules apply to many situations. For instance, Avoid the passive voice. Passive voice example: The dinner will be cooked by the hotel staff. Active voice example: The hotel staff will cook the dinner.

So, [meaningless phrase followed by comma] you might try this site. Why this one? It's the first one that popped up in a Google search. There are lots of on-line grammar sites. English Grammar 101 is another site. That one also popped up first, and it happens to review all the basic grammar terms.

My personal advice: Write a lot more. Write a journal, or some such thing, as practice.

Since our brains and our brains capacities were developed over time through evolution, it's probable that other animals have some degree of consciousness. But a dog, with a less complex brain than ours, won't experience the same consciousness that we do. But still, I am pretty sure dogs experience some sort of consciousness.

No, I don't think any content of consciousness is passed on from generation to generation. What IS passed on is the capacity to assemble consciousness, however the brain does that -- and we don't know how it does. (well, through DNA, but that just moves the mystery from the brain to genetic code. Someday we might figure that out.)

I don't think so, but some people think that it might be possible... like Jung's 'collective unconscious' that is shared by generations, as archetypes. Do crows pass on memories to their offspring? Someone on NPR was speculating about that; don't know.

People believe in all sorts of things and manage to live normal lives.

Who are you to ask who I am? I definitely don't want to get tangled up in somebody else's metaphorical metanarrative.

You can get "Sister Bernadette's Barking Dog: The Quirky History and Lost Art of Diagramming Sentences on Amazon, but it isn't written by Sister Bernadette.

We used to have to do sentence diagramming in high school, like this:



I've since forgotten what a noun, verb, adverb, conjunction, expletive, proposition, etc. is. Are prepositioning something that street whores do, or is that a propositional phrase followed by an unlawful conjunction? It's all fucking confusion. And why are grammarians so interested in predicators anyway -- why they do not worry about the pray?

Disemboweling sentences won't help you write good, any day.

No doubt you were thinking of this kind of barrel furniture.



As for my physique... after a certain age it just doesn't much matter any more, as long as one can haul one's self around. The only thing that makes old bodies attractive is being stuffed with cash.