You blog about things that nobody cares

> so what's to write?

I prefer more subtle, gently percolating thoughts to those burning for release. Whereas the former can lead to the seeming miracle of a blank canvas suddenly becoming what one at first couldn't have imagined, the latter seem more a blindness enveloped in fear of getting it all down absolutely perfectly before any of it fades or is otherwise forgotten.

> The joke is on anyone who believes this woke bullshit to > be honest.

Without question. In fact, being “woke” is merely modern-speak for being in a state of pride, which is well-documented as tending to precede – if not precipitate – falls.

> Just back from a 3-day beach getaway with the wife and > child, where I learned to enjoy existence without ever > looking at my computer.

Kind of merely monkey-wrenched-related, but I suspect literally looking at your computer (i.e. the device itself) is way closer to being here/now than getting lost in screen stuffs.

> I'm definitely in an “I don't care” mood tonight. > > Don't care what I do, don't care about the media fiasco > that has been happening all day, everyday, for the past > several years (or more), don't care what happens next in > the world, don't care if climate change inevitably ends > civilization (which I believe whole-heartedly that it > will, in our lifetime), don't care if people think I'm > crazy (it's one of my best characteristics), just...don't > care much.

But you clearly still care about being read. ;–)

I have to believe not caring is a more enlightened state than caring: a lightening of thought, of the weight of thought part and parcel with one or more cares.

> It is quite a miserable shame that people now, in 2020, > after years of sound research STILL think they need > to be inundated with massive amounts of animal-based > protein in order to keep their blood pumping from one > day to the next. Vegetables and fruit will do the trick, > trust me. And for those STILL sucking down heart-stopping > animal flesh for “flavor”, I lose no sleep for what > happens to them. They don't necessarily die, not with > any brevity nor dignity anyway – instead they slowly > grow ill, look terrible, feel worse, and simultaneously > double down on the flesh that got them to their horrendous > disposition in the first place. No sympathy for the devil, > and no pity for the dumb. That's my crass take on things.

Hey... what happened to not caring? ;–)

I'm going to stick to “live and let live” to the best of my abilities.

> Abstract ink brush strokes turned into figures, landscapes > or other abstractions.

Love it!

> So as not to leave off the mornings blog posts on a > negative tone (although, some people need to hear), I > will address the fact that i have (still) been obscenely > delinquent with my reading habits. Several blog posts here > on r.w.a have spoken of improved reading habits, and I > have yet to kickstart mine properly, even after ordering > two fabulous books for my perusal, and promising myself > that I would carve out a chunk of my day for reading.

I used to care <double wink> about not reading enough.

But it turns I can easily get more caught up in what might be called “content stats” (e.g. how much? how often?) than enjoying the content – not dissimilar to what happens with respect to exercise.

And then, well, does it really matter what provokes thought given it's all thought-to-a-thinker in the final analysis anyway? Does it matter that a given thought “just came to me” or was something I read? Isn't the underlying, base experience the same?

Furthermore, is there really much of a difference in quality of thoughts? For example, how is thinking about nuclear fission “better” than thinking about a leaf riding a small stream along a curb?

> > Walking is increasingly mediated by technological gadgets > > worn on wrists or gripped in hands. We spend an increasing > > amount of time ‘screening’ the world – taking in > > most of life through a contracted frame that captures > > objects of immediate interest. To live with eyes on the > > screen is to be attached, stuck in the frame, taking in > > what is presented to us and re-presented to us again. But > > representation – even in fine-grained pixilation – > > is not experience. To experience is to perceive. When we > > look at a screen, we might see something, but we don’t > > perceive. To live life through representations is to live > > passively, to receive rather than to experience.

To me there are degrees of trance accompanying said passivity.

But does it matter?

How could it apart from thinking it does?