![]() |
U.S. uranium in-situ-leach plants in production (state)
|
Quote:
Wrong thread.. this should be in Bitch About Things That Piss You Off as surely this is by no definition irrelevant ![]() :( |
Quote:
awesome - was this recorded on a phone? - hey, out of curiosity are fireworks legal in Texas? bottle rockets and cherry bombs type stuff? |
Quote:
I forgot about that thread...this just struck me as a random fact that was semi-interesting (sad locating of 3 production sites in WY, one of the most beautiful of the states). Apparently radioactive material has gone missing in Iraq. "10 grams (0.35 ounces) of Ir-192 "capsules", a radioactive isotope of iridium also used to treat cancer." Oddly, the plot of the novel I'm now reading, Clive Cussler's Sacred Stone, revolves around replacing the meteor at the Kaaba in Mecca with a meteor composed of pure iridium retrieved from Erik the Red's legendary Cave of the Gods in Greenland. So when the faithful go to kiss it they all get radiation poisoning. I think that s where the plot will go, I haven't got there yet. |
Quote:
I recorded it on my Samsung. The shit was so LOUD. SO LOUD! I loved it.... Fireworks are legal in many counties in Texas, but certain municipalities do not allow it. For instance, Houston does not allow within city limits, but within Harris County, just outside of houston city limits, fireworks are always sold for new years and for 4th of July. It was my favorite shit as a kid to go get firecrackers, and bottle rockets, and roman candles, andsparklers, and jumping jacks.... |
Having a self-satisfied, smug thread dedicated to smoking "loud" doesn't help matters.
|
I'm female.
|
Quote:
How are you finding the homoerotism? |
Quote:
/2016/01/wayne-madsen-marco-rubio-homosexual-update-with-photos/ |
Quote:
women don't smoke? |
On the morning of February 7th (Super Bowl Sunday), I drove my mom over to St.Lukes in Houston. Eighteen days later, she is still in St. Luke's.
Stage four cancer in each lung, the pleural lining around her lungs also tested positive for cancer. I've been here for the past five days. Hoping to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility back in Besumont later today. |
When are Rupert Murdoch and Jerry Hall getting married?
Mr Murdoch, 84, and Ms Hall, 59, got married at an aristocratic palace in London on Friday. They smiled for photographers together, the former supermodel wearing a trench coat and flat shoes. |
There are a number of different types of sound sensitivity:
|
Just found out that Perfume is performing in Chicago this summer!!!!! I cannot function right now.
|
|
|
Quote:
The Constitution guarantees my right to a killer robot. |
|
Why is it that when I look pictures of hot beach babes, the internet is also feeding me in the side ads images of the most disgusting photographs of toenail fungus recorded. Why is the internet so determined to have me associate hot babes with toenail fungus?
|
Did you recently Google toenail fungus?
|
Interesting weekend. My girlfriend found a chick she'd have a threesome with...I give her the ok. She goes to ask, find out she's a transgender'd person. We don't have a threesome.
|
"..WADA accepted a bribe to eliminate Maria Sharapova from the Australian Open and subsequent events."
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016...craig-roberts/ |
Quote:
not at all! That is one problem I do not have. It is fucking evil that you can't just look up something without having it fed back to you. |
is it. is it really evil. really
|
tesla you've officially tipped it
|
|
The OOO Logic Square: A Map of Different Ontologies
I say this a lot in lectures and in classes but I'm not sure I've ever said it on my blog, and as I've been proofreading, I've come across quite a good statement of it. So here goes: [i]t is possible to think essentialism differently, and indeed that this has already been tried, but rapidly deleted by cynical reason. To do so, I shall make a distinction between essentialism and the metaphysics of presence. Essentialism will here mean that there are real things, despite my thinking them or not. What is not necessary is that this reality be constantly present, underneath or behind appearances, or in Kantian terms—that is within dominant Anthropocentric humanist paradigms sponsored by Heidegger, Lacan and Foucault— in front of appearances insofar as my Dasein or my subjecthood or my discourse makes it real. This will enable me to draw up a logic square in which four positions, three well established (and of those three, two very well established indeed), and one almost entirely ignored, are possible. These positions are: (1) Essentialism plus metaphysics of presence; (2) Non-essentialism plus metaphysics of presence; (3) Non-essentialism minus metaphysics of presence and (4) (the road less traveled), Essentialism minus metaphysics of presence. … At Position (1) we have Essentialism plus metaphysics of presence. Nature, for instance, is essentialist and constantly present, occupying Position (1). So is reality according to an eliminative materialist: there is a reality which consists of atoms or other tiny things which are more real than medium sized things, by dint of the fact that they are constantly present, if only for a time, while humans and spoons are just epiphenomena. We’ll see that eliminative materialism is thus a reactive position within modernity, which is better exemplified by Position (2). Position (1) is also exemplified by traditional Aristotelian and Platonic ontology, and also by some forms of Pre-Socratic thought such as Democritean atomism, or Thales’ notion that water underlay everything. Any form of reductionism occupies position (1). Crude Position (1) assertions are the sorts of thing that Aristotle blew up, things such as Anaximander’s idea of the apeiron or Heraclitus’ idea of fire as the most real thing that underlay the others. In many cases contemporary materialisms map uncannily well onto Pre-Socratic ideas, such that instead of Anaximander we have the physicist David Bohm and his idea of an underlying “implicate order” that transcends time and space; instead of Anaxagoras we have Arthur Eddington (and so on) and his interpretation of quantum theory, that everything is made of the mind, and so on. Yet Aristotle himself also obviously occupies Position (1), with his assertion that morphē is more real than anything else and that this is the substance that underlies accidents such as color. At position (2) we have Non-essentialism plus metaphysics of presence. Position (2) thought considers the enemy to be essentialism, but neglects to address the metaphysics of presence. In this position we find some forms of new materialism and also correlationism. Nietzschean theories of becoming, which substitute a flux for static being, occupy Position (2). So here we have Elizabeth Grosz and Deleuze. There is no essence, but there is a flux that is more real than any instance of the flux, such as a milk bottle or a tiger. Correlationism also occupies Position (2), for two reasons. First, there is usually an unthinking acceptance of some default ontology, such as Aristotelian substance–accidents theory (Kant accepted this), or Newtonian spacetime, or atomism. Then there is also the meta- physics of a constantly present subject that subtends and makes real the things in themselves—the subject opens the refrigerator, if you like, to see if the light is on. Or in Heideggerian thought, Dasein enframes or opens the world. This is not the phenomenal subject, me with my clothes and my habitual patterns and my hairdo—but rather the transcendental one, the giant invisible ocean of reason floating somewhere behind my head. This inaccessible subject is more real than the phenomenal me, and I do not coincide with it. In this sense, correlationism from Kant to Heidegger does allow one kind of being to be weirdly essentialist: the (human) subject. Thus Dasein is not strictly subject to the metaphysics of presence. Still, Dasein in its copyright control of being—and German Dasein as the best kind of Dasein—exhibits some of the troubling features of the metaphysics of presence. The journey from pre-modernity to modernity was the journey from Position (1) to Position (2). In light of Hume, and Kant’s grounding of Hume, Position (1) assertions—including even atomism, strictly—begin to look like uncritically held factoids. Position (2) is disturbing because it admits a certain amount of nothingness into the conversation. Consider the reaction to Kant called “psychologism.” Psychologism holds that logical assertions are percolations of brains. Thus logic is a set of rules for how healthy brains operate. Aside from the infinite regress of a brain determining whether a brain is healthy, we have the infinite regress of the idea “All concepts are brain percolations” being itself a brain percolation, on its own terms. Psychologism (John Stuart Mill and others) thus tries to wipe out the nothingness that is the most interesting aspect of what Kant unleashed. This is why Husserl is interesting—he reestablishes the Kantian gap by arguing that thoughts have a logical form that is independent of thinking. Thoughts are like fish in the ocean, or vi- ruses—or signs. Materialism tries to elide nothingness. Ditto Hegel, this attempt to wipe out nothingness, the irreducible gap between phenomenon and thing, which I can’t locate in phenomenal spacetime. For Hegel, since I can think the phenomenon–thing gap, there is no gap. Thus there is a metaphysically present substrate of phenomena—there are no things except insofar as they are subsumed by Spirit or the Absolute. Rather than substrate, perhaps it would be better to call it a superstrate. While Position (1) favors reductionism, Position (2) favors the kind of upward reduction that Graham Harman has christened “overmining” (see Harman, 7–18). Thus despite its supposedly progressive or courageous assault on essences, Position (2) thinking tends simply to be a “new and improved” version of Position (1), substituting a Heraclitean Nature, where every- thing is fluid, for a reified Nature, in which everything is just real if it is natural. In Position (1) a tree is a tree, while in Position (2) a tree is a moment in the flow of becoming, or some kind of intra-active process, or an instant of tree-discourse, or a thing whose reality is posited by an absolute subject. There is no essential tree, but my tree-discourse, or Dasein, or History (capital H) or the relations of production or the subject make the tree real. A tree is a refrigerator and I have to open it to see whether the light is on inside. I “realize” it, and this realization is more real than the tree. Position (2) is ironically the position from which I deny the validity of French feminism and ecofeminism, although many contemporary materialist feminists occupy Position (2). This is because for Position (2), French feminism is bad essentialism. Karen Barad’s thinking fits in Position (2) because it uses Niels Bohr, who applies Kantian correlationism to quantum theory as the architect of the Standard Model, for which measurement is more real than measured things—measurement at the quantum scale meaning “interaction with other quanta.” Bohr argued that it made no sense to make assertions about what exists at the quantum level—in effect he made Position (1) statements about things smaller than 10 to the minus 17 cm illegal. It’s not quite Protagoras, but perhaps it is something like a posthuman Protagoras: not that man is the measure of all things, but that measurement is the measure of all things. At Position (2), the solid seeming islands of Position (1) start to melt and dissolve. So Position (2) mistakenly thinks that melting and dissolving are more real aspects of things than non-melting and non-dissolving. In a way, Position (2) just is modernity trying to wash off whatever factoids it imagines lurking in the pre-modern view, in the same way that you wash your hands maniacally once you have escaped from the shtetl to New Jersey—you wash your hands, thus making you susceptible to a virus you have been coexisting with forever, polio. The attempt to have a clean body and a clean mind becomes a magnet for more virulent strains of virus, and viral code. We’ll return to this theme. |
Then we have Position (3), which is Non-essentialism minus the meta- physics of presence. At least here you are refraining from saying anything at all, since you hold that what comes out of your mouth will end up being ontotheology. Position (3) is deconstruction, and it has the virtue of refraining from harm. And of course it’s my continuing lineage. But it has the vice of allowing scientism (and other toxic forms of metaphysics) to continue unchecked, by abstaining from saying anything about reality.
Which leaves us with Position (4), which is weird essentialism, or Essentialism minus the metaphysics of presence. Existing means not being constantly present, as in deconstruction, where the process of meaning making is subject to différance and so on. Yet unlike deconstruction, I can say that things do exist, yet they exist insofar as they are shot through with nothingness. In a sense, Position (2) puts the nothingness of modernity in the wrong place—it believes that nothingness means there are no things as such, only processes or discourses or History or Geist and so on. Position (3) puts nothingness at the core of meaning, which is promising, since now at any rate I have decided that I can’t make a definitive pronouncement—I have done a judo move on my modernity tendency to want to achieve perfect geostationary orbit outside of reality, my satellite cameras positioned to capture everything. But Position (4) goes further. Position (4) puts the nothingness at the core of things—toothbrushes, lizards, smears of protein and bubbles. There are things, says Position (4), but I can’t specify in advance what they are, so they are strange strangers, irreducibly uncanny. Since I can’t put them in advance into a box called life or non-life, for instance, what appears is a kind of spectral playground, a sort of charnel ground possibility space in which all kinds of necessarily partial objects float around. There is no top thing, such as History or God or the subject, and there is no bottom thing, such as matter, and there is no middle thing, such as environment or world. Since there are no top, bottom or middle things, there is no whole of which things are all components. Thus things are necessarily partial. There is another sense in which they are partial, which is that things are fragile—more on this in a moment. Position (4) is the position advocated in object-oriented ontology (OOO), and it is also resonant with some positions within French feminism and ecofeminism. There are things, but they don’t come with a handy little dotted line that says “Cut Here” to separate the essence from the appearance. Yet the appearance is not the essence. So there is a weird essence that is and is not its appearance. A thing is strangely physical and semiotic at the same time. Thus weird essentialism is fully up to speed with Kant, for whom a raindrop is a raindrop, not a gumdrop (alas), but for whom the raindroppy phenomena I feel as wet droplets on my head, or even raindrop-ideas I can think about, are not the raindrop itself. Yet we have also decided that I am not the referee of realness, the adjudicator who gets allowed into the realness equivalent of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. To do so would be to fall into Position (2), since for (2) there is an underlying metaphysics of presence, a presence that resides in the adjudicator. In a way, Position (2) is desperately trying to contain the explosion of things in the Anthropocene—fossils, evolution, geological time, biosphere, climate, capital, lifeforms without species or genus. It is trying to contain this explosion by restricting realness to some kind of magical adjudicator, or to some kind of underlying flux. Position (4) is not reactive against modernity. I cannot assert that there just are things and that these things are truly constantly there, like Position (1). Lubricated by Position (3), I can instead say that there are things, and yet there is no top thing, no reality adjudicator. Another way of saying this is that every entity has what Heidegger calls Dasein, which means that an entity does not occupy time or space, but rather “times” and “spaces” in such a way that it is weirdly strung out, as in the case of a tiny yet visible tuning fork in a state of quantum coherence, both vibrating and not vibrating at the same time. The fork is both here and not here at once—it is not metaphysically present, since it is “breathing,” yet it is not just a processual blob that only looks like a tuning fork to me or to History: it is its own weird little vortex, its own weird little loop, a weirdly essentialist thing whose realness is precisely its trickster-like ability to be here and not here at the very same time. |
https://rediposture.wordpress.com/20...graham-harman/
It is held even more widely, and just as falsely, that real objects must have definite material features and exact positions in space-time. |
Today we bury my mother!
|
It is a beautiful day Bytor. I am sorry to hear about your mom's passing my man. My condolences to your whole family.
|
Quote:
No matter how balanced or mature we might be in life this one will always sting. You have my prayers |
Quote:
Quote:
Indeed it was......today is even better! The service was wonderful, mom would have been proud. The best part of all this was seeing pictures and hearing stories about our mom that we never knew. We had six guys from her graduating class serve as pallbearers. I'm so thankful mom's struggle is over and our life can somewhat return to normalcy. Thanks for the condolences & prayers! |
where's symbols? :(
|
He's gone. GONE FOREVER!
|
ok, close the forum !
|
I'm absurdly happy - after fighting with the restaurant Izakaya downstairs for months to fix the horrendous noise from their exhaust motor that runs 14 hours a day outside our apt windows without result, I went down with a can of WD40 and in 2 seconds stopped the shattering metal on metal shrieking. They've had repair people working on the stupid motor repeatedly who couldn't figure this out. An electric buzzing sound continues but I have to run my fan anyway and that covers the buzzing.
I'm just stunned I've had to put up with this harassment for months and all that was needed was a little lube. I think there is a strong lesson here. |
http://gizmodo.com/creeps-are-using-...ses-1773130390
bullies use image recognition software to find porn stars' day-to-day identities and then harass them. But the implications are large. I had to look up "to dox": Search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent (www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/dox). I'm old. |
I just saw symbols. He was walking out of Krispy Kreme with a box of glazed donuts under one arm and a beautiful blonde hanging on the other. Obviously getting ready to party.
|
you ever take a shower, cut the water on, and then it sprays all over you because you forgot to turn the shower head AWAY from the shower curtain the last time?
FUCKS!! son of a bitch!!! |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All content ©2006 Sonic Youth