Wednesday, November 21, 2007


the theory of fruit.
instigated by the reading of the small yellow bordered magazine of goodness. and its articles of leopard seals and frogs and evolution. (national geographic!)

From the plant, for the plant. Fruit is for the nutritioning of seeds and the attracting of the beings to eat the seeds such that the seeds can travel. Because of this the producer of the fruit has better offspring.
From the uncivilized person the difference is that of view. this wonderful packet of nutrients and useful material can be easily located in large quantities and is generally not poisonous. thus the harvesting of such is an efficient use of resources, again leading to a better outlook in procreated life.
When the need for the nutrients becomes unimportant, fruit is… useless. tasty.

at what point is fruit not food, such that enjoyment of it is the only reason to consume? the enjoyment (attachment to sugar and so on) is only stemming from the fact that it is so nutritious. which stems from the adaptation to liking it, because of its availability as a good source of sugars in a small bundle. which stems from its creation as an accessory for reproduction. Therefor fruits are genitalia? By action yes, definition, probably not.
repeat the line:
When the need for the "nutrients" becomes unimportant, "fruit" is… useless. tasty.

As a concentration of energy fruit also brings many theo-psyco-logical questions to thought. Something that is more useful than the rest of the being, or more useful to certain other beings anyway. Why? Certainly why not, but that is an easy answer. As organisms, we all concentrate energy so as to use it later. (Is this because it is a good plan? Or because that is how we evolved?) we have to take bundles of energy in in an efficient as possible manner so as to be better off than the competition. Such is life. From enjoyment to survival. Because of the existence of such packets (quanta!) we consume them.

Entropy is the assumption that everything breaks down from high (concentrated) energy to low. Because we exist in such a way as to make use of such things as fruit (and in saying we I mean all organisms, and some (perhaps all) not so organic isms) (and by fruit I mean all such high energy things, like muscles or stars or communities or edible tubers) and to covert the work of something else into something more useful to ourselves. Could this be different? Alternate realities and all that crap? Somewhere where we give energy to personally gain? Somehow where we spontaneously gain energy and have to give it away to survive?

From that: A world where giving is necessary for survival, receiving is seen as selfless. Everything extrudes energy and needs to stop picking up energy (or something similar) for survival. in such a world you would have to reverse such things as the big bang (imagine a world on top of a thick layer where to be noticeable you have to create less. but you have to give the something you dug up to somewhere/thing else. here the big bang is the very first (expanding) dent in the surface.

Similarities to fruit in this theory. All other concentrations of food for us consuming organisms such as edible roots, nuts, other organisms, the specific components of said organisms. The sources of high energy that is leeched from by these none consumers (plants consuming from high energy sun, for example). The importance of centers of energy (populace, community, society) in international conflicts, such that they are seen as priorities. Batteries.

Libraries, and other such places of thought (universities) and information act opposite to fruit. For when individuals go to such places, thoughts and ideas as energy are not taken or degraded but built upon? Certainly there is some breakdown, but perhaps an example of an opposite force to entropy. If Libraries were fruit and knowledge was energy, instead of eating the fruit, we would take a copy of it, use said copy to power ourselves, and perhaps later we would come back to add to the fruit to make it larger and juicier. perhaps like the previously imagined world. or a 'reason' for the universe.

Fruit are genitalia, we enjoy eating them of course. = predictable
Fruit is an example of entropy. =in more ways than one = ok
International conflicts can be seen by looking in a fruit grove. = zen
Universities are the antithesis of fruit and by extension of entropy = build/burn more universities!

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

lunch spot

I just remembered that taking a break to sit down outside is very important for my functioning.
I need to do so more often, with a sandwich and some water.


I grew up with conversation being formal and with very little written communication.

Socializing started to exist about the same time as online communication, and usually came in one package.

Thus, for me, verbal communication functions best in a formal setting, for example debate, whereas written communiques automatically contain a layer of informalism.


Tuesday, November 13, 2007

I am jack's mistake-making polymerase

I am jack's point mutation

Social Darwinism,
I don't know if I have the right definition, but I don't care.
The effect of natural selection like evolution within society, within culture.
The interaction between society and evolved traits. and back again.

Marxism "died out" because it didn't recognize the individual's utter devotion to it's own offspring. Society selected for interactions that increased the chance of individuals reproducing. As one ant expert put it, Marxism was a "Wonderful theory. Wrong species."

There are also explanations for various cultures living happily in coexistence with one another due to their niche fulfillment in resource consumption. But I meander.

The point is:
Of course we can't get everything right all the time. And what might be good in the short run (even if it is entirely selfless) may have long term consequences that can't be seen.
So what do we do?

I want to create mutations. within society. small ones (point mutations for you biologists) that don't necessarily damage anything short term, but that will spread and grow if they are beneficial.

These aren't meant to become widespread, or else they defeat their purpose of being novel and adaptive.

I am the mutation in jack's great, great, ... great, grandmother that gave jack's lineage bilateral symmetry.

I could also be jack's oncogene...

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Exploded duck, a recipe

No fowl are actually harmed in the production of this despicable activity.

Think of a duck. A small uninteresting bird that ignores you and that you ignore. Imagine trying to make interesting photos of a duck, anywhere. It's bland and anything that could be done has been done.

Now, what would increase the potential photographic experience?

I want to explode a duck. Or have someone do so for me.

It is to be exploded like a diagrammatic explosion, as opposed to a feathers and fire explosion. A 2 dimensional explosion diagram isn't good enough though. It needs to be a full model of a duck.

Made out of whatever works. I'd see hard plastic as being nicely durable, but a nice alternative would be glazed actual duck (ala the various human body exhibits that float around museums). The thing with actual duck bits is that they would be much too small. This needs to be large, the size of a car perhaps.

The separation of the pieces is to be such that there are gaps all the way through and that various levels can be seen. But it must still look like a duck and have all the pieces of a duck. No cutting pieces out, just spreading them apart.

Now you can photograph it. There are forests of tendons and feathers. There is variety for composition: bones, muscle, and a plethora of organs. You can photograph up close and be immersed, or from a distance and with the duck between you and something else.

Isn't that more interesting?

For bonus marks you can make a model that has all the pieces a normal distance from each other at one end, and that increases the distance between bits as you move a way from that point. From nose to tail for example. Or you could go for a variable model. Much like the folding/exploding plastic ball toy that I'm sure someone has run across.