Satire In Politics!
A man in California is putting forward a satirical measure on the ballot next year, which would effectively ban divorce, in response to California's refusal to allow gays to marry.
This Post Is About EVERYTHING:
1: We look for patterns in the world outside our heads.
2: When we find patterns, we call it order; when we don't we call it disorder.
3: The ability to find patterns comes from within ourselves.
4: So order and disorder only exist dependent on how much we want it to be there.
5: To realize that Order and Disorder are subjective, and that all is Chaos, is to find Eris.
2: When we find patterns, we call it order; when we don't we call it disorder.
3: The ability to find patterns comes from within ourselves.
4: So order and disorder only exist dependent on how much we want it to be there.
5: To realize that Order and Disorder are subjective, and that all is Chaos, is to find Eris.
Taoist Chaos Magic
by: Cramulus
Back in college, I met this guy who "used to be" into chaos magic. He was a pretty heavy dude. --in the sense that he was always talking about fate and death and the mysteries of the universe and what have you. Walked around with a staff which he had "sigilized the fuck out of". I asked him if he still did ritual things, and he said no, he was into "Eastern stuff" now.
Like what? I asked
like Taoist chaos magic
What's that mean?
It's effortless, he said sagely. You don't do anything.
somewhere, a bong sounded
Like what? I asked
like Taoist chaos magic
What's that mean?
It's effortless, he said sagely. You don't do anything.
somewhere, a bong sounded
The Supposedly Green Baby Making Machine
she's so green she doesn't watch movies because of film being made from organic beings. She cherishes her liberal guilt like a close relative whose recently lost its legs in a landmine accident. If youre going to eat meat, she says, at least buy free range haven't you seen the PETA ads? Don't you listen to PETA? she only drinks rain water, and seems never to bathe. she speaks often and lovingly about green condos, as if they might be a viable answer to the urban sprawl problem. she sneers at ketchup, but then again, so do I... but wait, there's more... she refuses to use toilet paper, MUCH TOO WASTEFUL! she instead has rags which she washes over and over again. stop and think about that before moving on. she has rags of shit she washes over and over again. shit. and, don't get her started on paper towels, she will foam at the mouth, like she does when she brushes her teeth with baking soda. yes, she brushes her teeth with baking soda. she refuses to listen to music by artists who don't share her worldview, and barely tolerates those around her who don't. she speaks often about moving to the country. moving to the country. moving to the country. moving to the country. she speaks often often often about moving to the country. anywhere to escape the stink of the city. the stink of millions of people crammed together daily. does she consider what we would smell like if we all used rags to wipe the shit from our asses? i wonder.
where does her greenness stop? what is her limit? BIRTH CONTROL, apparently. the woman has four children already, and a fifth one up the stick. five children, my friends. five more mouths to cry for McDonald Happy Meals. five more mouths to grow up and consume. five more bodies to stink up this city. five more bodies to add to the 6,602,224,175 bodies already weighing down and stinking up this mudball we call Earth.
GREEN? don't make me laugh, bitch, i'm goofy enough as it is.
where does her greenness stop? what is her limit? BIRTH CONTROL, apparently. the woman has four children already, and a fifth one up the stick. five children, my friends. five more mouths to cry for McDonald Happy Meals. five more mouths to grow up and consume. five more bodies to stink up this city. five more bodies to add to the 6,602,224,175 bodies already weighing down and stinking up this mudball we call Earth.
GREEN? don't make me laugh, bitch, i'm goofy enough as it is.
Thwarting The System
by: fictionpuss
Now you have to think and stuff, and realise that there may be times when you've wasted years on failed approaches.
It's no longer a free lunch, or free love.. yet I think it's progress.
Fuck it, every revolutionary movement uses the tools in its environment, to do otherwise would be foolish. I mean, I see the angst, but I don't understand where it's coming from.
Cults believe they have all the answers, Disordianism is not a cult. Why then weep at the marvels of your electric toothbrush?
From Dillinger To Bugs In 5 Easy Steps
1) On July 22, 1934 John Dillinger and friend visit the Biograph Theater in Chicago to see the film “Manhattan Melodrama” starring Clark Gable and Mirna Loy.
2) On leaving the theatre, Dillinger is promptly filled with holes by Federal Agents.
3) Due to the publicity showered on “Manhattan Melodrama” following Dillinger’s death Clark Gable and Mirna Loy are thrust into super stardom.
4) Cashing in on his new success, Clark Gable quickly stars in “It Happened One Night” where his fast-talking character munches on carrots. In addition, a character in this same movie is named “Bugs Dooley”
5) Spoofing on Clark Gable’s “It Happened One Night” character, a fast-talking, carrot-munching cartoon rabbit, Bugs Bunny, is created.
DILLINGER AND BUGS ARE BOTH DISCORDIAN SAINTS
do you STILL believe in coincidence?
2) On leaving the theatre, Dillinger is promptly filled with holes by Federal Agents.
3) Due to the publicity showered on “Manhattan Melodrama” following Dillinger’s death Clark Gable and Mirna Loy are thrust into super stardom.
4) Cashing in on his new success, Clark Gable quickly stars in “It Happened One Night” where his fast-talking character munches on carrots. In addition, a character in this same movie is named “Bugs Dooley”
5) Spoofing on Clark Gable’s “It Happened One Night” character, a fast-talking, carrot-munching cartoon rabbit, Bugs Bunny, is created.
DILLINGER AND BUGS ARE BOTH DISCORDIAN SAINTS
do you STILL believe in coincidence?
From the Dawn of Civilization,
we have existed in order to undermine it. Our only enemy is the status quo. Our only friend is chaos. We have no government ties and unlimited resources. If something goes wrong, we are the cause. Every corner of the earth is under our surveillance. If you do it, we see it. Always. We believe the powerful should be made less powerful. We have heard the voice of society, begging us to destabilize it.
WHERE ARE ALL THE BANANAS?
The cabbage view is incredible because it suggests that we can have experience of objects out in the world directly, beyond the sensory surface, as if bypassing the chain of sensory processing. For example if light from your screen is transduced by your retina into a neural signal which is transmitted from your eye to your brain, then the very first aspect of the computer screen that you can possibly experience is the information at the retinal surface, or the perceptual representation that it stimulates in your brain. The physical monitor itself lies beyond the sensory surface and therefore must be beyond your direct experience. But the perceptual experience of the page stubbornly appears out in the world itself instead of in your brain, in apparent violation of everything we know about the causal chain of vision. The difficulty with the concept of direct perception is most clearly seen when considering how an artificial vision system could be endowed with such external perception. Although a sensor may record an external quantity in an internal register or variable in a computer, from the internal perspective of the software running on that computer, only the internal value of that variable can be "seen", or can possibly influence the operation of that software. In exactly analogous manner the pattern of electrochemical activity that corresponds to our conscious experience can take a form that reflects the properties of external objects, but our consciousness is necessarily confined to the experience of those internal effigies of external objects, rather than of external objects themselves. Unless the principle of direct perception can be demonstrated in a simple artificial sensory system, this explanation remains as mysterious as the property of consciousness it is supposed to explain.
The indirect realist view is also incredible, for it suggests that the solid stable structure of the world that we perceive to surround us is merely a pattern of energy in the physical brain. In other words, the world that appears to be external to our head is actually inside our head. This could only mean that the head we have come to know as our own is not our true physical head, but is merely a miniature perceptual copy of our head inside a perceptual copy of the world, all of which is completely contained within our true physical skull. Stated from the internal phenomenal perspective, out beyond the farthest things you can perceive in all directions, i.e. above the dome of the sky and below the earth under your feet, or beyond the walls, floor, and ceiling of the room you perceive around you, beyond those perceived surfaces is the inner surface of your true physical skull encompassing all that you perceive, and beyond that skull is an unimaginably immense external world, of which the world you see around you is merely a miniature virtual reality replica. The external world and its phenomenal replica cannot be spatially superimposed, for one is inside your physical head, and the other is outside. Therefore the vivid spatial structure of this page that you perceive here in your hands is itself a pattern of activation within your physical brain, and the real paper of which it is a copy is out beyond your direct experience. Although this statement can only be true in a topological, rather than a strict topographical sense, this insight emphasizes the indisputable fact that no aspect of the external world can possibly appear in consciousness except by being represented explicitly in the brain. The existential vertigo occasioned by this concept of perception is so disorienting that only a handful of researchers have seriously entertained this notion or pursued its implications to its logical conclusion.
The key to this problem of fitting a spacious world into our brains is to notice that our experience is a 'view' of a spacious world. Things are separated by angles relative to an observation point. The separation of things by angles at a point means that we do not have a sense of depth that operates in the same way as our sense of things being separated in horizontal and vertical directions. Our sense of depth is based upon cues rather than an actual experience of the space between things. As an example, the stars in a planetarium appear incredibly distant even though they are on the ceiling of a room and would appear just as distant if viewed through virtual reality goggles. Visual depth in particular is a set of inferences, not an actual experience of the space between things in a radial direction outward from the observation point. This means that the things that are the spacious world of experience could be as small as just a few cubic millimetres of brain tissue!
If there is anything to be learned from the long history of the epistemological debate, it is that the issue is by no means simple or trivial, and that whatever is ultimately determined to be the truth of epistemology, we can be sure that it will do considerable violence to our common-sense view of things. This however is nothing new in science, for many of the greatest discoveries of science seemed initially to be so incredible that it took decades or even centuries before they were generally accepted. But accepted they were, eventually, and the reason why they were accepted was not because they had become any less incredible. In science, irrefutable evidence triumphs over incredibility, and this is exactly what gives science the power to discover unexpected or incredible truth.
We should remember that the following considerations are also part of informed commonsense.
- What we perceive is often dependent on our organs of perception and their condition. If we had compound eyes, as flies do, we would receive information about the visual world in a completely different form. If we had jaundice, things would look yellow. If we had other sense organs altogether, like infra-red detectors or echo-location devices, things might appear to us in ways which we can’t even imagine. (Let’s call this ‘perceptual variability’).
- Even our current perceptual apparatus is obviously not infallible. We are all familiar with perceptual illusions of various sorts. A major sub-classification of such illusions relates to whether the sensory organs are malfunctioning (as in jaundice) or whether they habitually misrepresent objects to us even in full working order (e.g. the Müller-Lyer illusion).
- Sometimes these perceptual illusions extend to cases where we think we perceive things which in fact aren’t there at all (rather than just misperceiving the properties of things which are there to be perceived). This is a more radical case of perceptual error than simple illusion. (Call it ‘hallucination’ or ‘perceptual delusion’).
The basic claim is that in cases of illusion or hallucination, the object that is immediately experienced or given has qualities that no public physical object in that situation has and so must be distinct from any such object. And in cases of perceptual relativity, since objects with different qualities are experienced from each of the different perspectives or under each of the relevant conditions, at most one of these various immediately experienced or given objects could be the physical object itself; it is then further argued that since there is no apparent experiential basis for regarding one out of any such set of related perceptual experiences as the one in which the relevant physical object is itself immediately experienced, the most reasonable conclusion is that the immediately experienced or given object is always distinct from the physical object. (Or, significantly more weakly, that there is no way to identify which, if any, of the immediately experienced objects is the physical object itself, so that the evidential force of the experience is in this respect the same in all cases, and it is epistemologically as though physical objects were never given, whether or not that is in fact the case.)
The naïve realist theory of perception is not threatened by these facts as they stand, for they are accommodated by that theory by virtue its very vagueness (or ‘open-texture’). The theory just isn’t specific or detailed enough to be refuted by the (actually very rare) occurrence of these cases.
The cogency of this argument has been challenged in a number of different ways, of which the most important are the following. First, it has been questioned whether there is any reason to suppose that in cases of these kinds there must be some object present that actually has the experienced qualities, which would then seemingly have to be something like a sense-datum. Why couldn't it be that the perceiver is simply in a state of seeming to experience such an object without any object actually being present? (See the discussion below of the adverbial theory.) Second, it has been argued that in cases of illusion and perceptual relativity at least, there is after all an object present, namely the relevant physical object, which is simply misperceived, for the most part in readily explainable ways. Why, it is asked, is there any need to suppose that an additional object is also involved? Third, the last part of the perceptual relativity version of the argument has been challenged, both (i) by questioning whether it is really true that there is no experiential difference between veridical and non-veridical perception; and (ii) by arguing that even if sense-data are experienced in non-veridical cases and even if the difference between veridical and non-veridical cases is, as claimed, experientially indiscernible, there is still no reason to think that sense-data are the immediate objects of experience in veridical cases. Fourth, various puzzling questions have been raised about the nature of sense-data: Do they exist through time or are they momentary? Can they exist when not being perceived? Are they public or private? Can they be themselves misperceived? Do they exist in minds or are they extra-mental, even if not physical? On the basis of the intractability of these questions, it has been argued that the conclusion of the argument from illusion is clearly unacceptable or even ultimately unintelligible, even in the absence of a clear diagnosis of exactly where and how it goes wrong.
AMAZING RANDI'S MILLION DOLLAR CHALLENGE CONTINUES!
It was announced about a year ago that the Amazing Randi's JREF organization was going to be disscontinuining the challenge, as it was a strain of both time and effort, but fear not those who would choose to break the laws of physics - the contest is not ending!
read more...
A Conversation Between Sigismundo Celine And Sigismundo Celine
I am Sigismundo Celine, not the man in the moon.
But then he was the man in the moon. Earth was a distant light in the sky far, far away. Various famous Lunatics were gathered around explaining moon-logic to him. “You never get ‘outside’. What you call ‘outside’ is another part of ‘inside’. See?”
“Yes,” he said. “I have never experienced another human being. I have experienced my impressions of them. Even in sexual intercourse I did not, strictly speaking, experience the other: I experienced my experience of her.”
“Then the whole universe is inside my head?”
“But your head is inside the universe. How do you explain that?”
“Well, then, I must have two heads, so to speak. The universe is inside my actually experienced head, but that head and the universe itself must both be inside my head logically necessary conceptual head. Is that it?”
“Yes. My conceptual head contains the universe, or a model of the universe to be strictly precise, and inside the that model is the model of my conceptual head, which is of course also my experienced head.”
“Careful now. You’re building up to an infinite regress.”
“I can see that, but it must be because consciousness itself is an infinite regress. I think that explains coincidences.”
“Are you quite sure you know what you are saying?”
“Yes. A coincidence is an isomorphism between the contents of my conceptual head, outside the universe, and my experienced head, inside the universe.”
“And why would there be such an isomorphism?”
“Because, damn it, my two heads are really only one head. I’ve just separated them for logical analysis.”
“But how can your conceptual head, outside the universe, be your experienced head, inside the universe?”
“Because, because . . .”
“Yes?”
“Because concepts are experiences, too. My conceptual head is experienced, and becomes my experienced head, whenever I think about mathematics or pure logic. Yes, by God. When I see a spotted dog, that is inside my experienced head, as Hume demonstrated. But when I think about the actual dog that creates the image in my experienced head, I must be expanding my conceptual head to include the actual dog, not the image of the dog. So the dog, and the rest of the universe, are actually in my conceptual head, not in my experienced head, which only has their images.”
“But then my experienced head is both inside and outside my conceptual head – which means it is both inside and outside my universe.”
“You’re still in the infinite regress.”
“I can appreciate that. By the way, am I talking to you or talking to myself?”
“Is there a difference?”
But then he was the man in the moon. Earth was a distant light in the sky far, far away. Various famous Lunatics were gathered around explaining moon-logic to him. “You never get ‘outside’. What you call ‘outside’ is another part of ‘inside’. See?”
“Yes,” he said. “I have never experienced another human being. I have experienced my impressions of them. Even in sexual intercourse I did not, strictly speaking, experience the other: I experienced my experience of her.”
“Then the whole universe is inside my head?”
“But your head is inside the universe. How do you explain that?”
“Well, then, I must have two heads, so to speak. The universe is inside my actually experienced head, but that head and the universe itself must both be inside my head logically necessary conceptual head. Is that it?”
“Yes. My conceptual head contains the universe, or a model of the universe to be strictly precise, and inside the that model is the model of my conceptual head, which is of course also my experienced head.”
“Careful now. You’re building up to an infinite regress.”
“I can see that, but it must be because consciousness itself is an infinite regress. I think that explains coincidences.”
“Are you quite sure you know what you are saying?”
“Yes. A coincidence is an isomorphism between the contents of my conceptual head, outside the universe, and my experienced head, inside the universe.”
“And why would there be such an isomorphism?”
“Because, damn it, my two heads are really only one head. I’ve just separated them for logical analysis.”
“But how can your conceptual head, outside the universe, be your experienced head, inside the universe?”
“Because, because . . .”
“Yes?”
“Because concepts are experiences, too. My conceptual head is experienced, and becomes my experienced head, whenever I think about mathematics or pure logic. Yes, by God. When I see a spotted dog, that is inside my experienced head, as Hume demonstrated. But when I think about the actual dog that creates the image in my experienced head, I must be expanding my conceptual head to include the actual dog, not the image of the dog. So the dog, and the rest of the universe, are actually in my conceptual head, not in my experienced head, which only has their images.”
“But then my experienced head is both inside and outside my conceptual head – which means it is both inside and outside my universe.”
“You’re still in the infinite regress.”
“I can appreciate that. By the way, am I talking to you or talking to myself?”
“Is there a difference?”
LEFT SIDE/RIGHT SIDE
common grey matter has two components:
PENTAL: The Pental is very observant, very quick, and likes to compartmentalize everything it witnesses; the Pental is also extremely arrogant. The Pental isn’t usually aware of the Pomal, and when it is aware of its existence is very jealous and manipulative. The Pental believes itself to be the entire universe, and in a sense it is correct. The Pental IS the entire universe, at least for each of us. Everything I see is part of the Pental, everything I think about is part of the Pental, and my Pental tells me how to see and think about things. When I look at a “tree” I only “know” it is a “tree” because my Pental tells me. The Pental would have you believe that it is the only thing which exists.POMAL: On the other hand, the Pomal has none of those qualities, in fact, to even attempt to describe the Pomal is doing it a grave disservice . . . any description or definition I gave would only be my Pental’s idea of the Pomal anyway, and would therefor be useless. The closest I will come to pinning anything on the Pomal would be to compare it with the “Tao” . . . but even that is off. The Pomal is the Pomal, and thats really all there is to say about it. Don’t let the lack of a definition trick you
into believing the Pomal is lesser than the Pental however, that’s just your Pental whispering to you. The Pomal rules dreams, intuition, synchronicity, tarot, the I-Ching, and magick – perhaps even quantum physics. Anytime the Pomal pops itself into your “normal world” the Pental will immediately pounce on it, and dominate it, to show you that it is boss, in this way the Pental shows that its power is over everything, and at the same time saves itself from destruction (despite what it believes, the Pental is very fragile, and can be disrupted easily by extreme emotional jolts, heavy drugs, meditation and yoga). The Pomal’s influence on the world of the Pental is subtle, but profound.
The Funeral of Oxo Marx
Oxo Marx's funeral was a small, sad affair, attended only by his mother, who was blind, deaf, dumb and not very good at crossword puzzles; his sister Oxa, who was on an oxygen mask, not because she needed it, but because she thought it was hip; his almost girlfriend Priscilla, who was now considering returning to the circus; his landlord, Willy Man, who had found the self-beheaded Oxo and considered him a pretty good tenant; and a mysterious woman in black, whose face was obscured by a thick veil.
The funeral was lead by the Good Reverend Ricardo, who Oxo's mother trusted with her life, and most of her savings. His speech was short, and to the point. "Let's be honest, people. Oxo wasn't an overly popular man. And, for good reasons. His breath was rank, his teeth had a fuzzy film, he made objectional comments on a routine basis, and besides all that he never liked reality tv. There were many things wrong with Oxo, and the world is probably better off without him. He beheaded himself, which to my knowledge has never been done before, this is itself an accomplishment, and probably his only one, so let us savour it. Uh . . . yeah, that's about it I suppose. Does anyone want to say a few words?"
Oxo's sister Oxa raised her hand wearily. The Good Reverend Ricardo stood aside as she staggered to the podium, and took three minutes to arrange her oxygen mask perfectly. Then, she cleared her throat, leaned down to the microphone and said: "Phlegm. Formica. Saliva. Bochi. Wang Doodle. Syphon. Thank you. These are. Just some words. I like to say. Thank you."
Oxa shuffled back to her seat and noisily rearranged her oxygen mask. There was some awkward silence before the Good Reverend Ricardo made his way back to the podium. Just before he spoke for the final time he turned away and took a nip from his flask. "Well," he said, shrugging his shoulders. "I guess that's it. It actually took longer than I expected. Who wants to get drunk?"
The mourners wandered away from the grave, except for the mysterious woman in black, who lingered by the grave stone until the cemetery was empty, then she leaned down and whispered to the stone: "I just like to go to funerals."
Then she walked away, went home, and ate some white toast.The Problem of the Pimple
Oxo Marx awoke on a Monday morning with a large blemish on his left cheek. He felt it the moment his eyes opened; the muscles moving to let light into his brain sent a sharp, fierce pain throughout his face, and he let out a small sound: -Gahaaa.
Sitting up, within his sheets, he sought it out with his fingertips, delicately feeling out the soft flesh below his eye like a blindman might. When he touched the pimple another shockwave of pain fluttered through his face, causing his eyes to blink a few times without his permission. A tear rose to attention in his left eye, but didn't have the heart to jump.
-Goddammit, Oxo hissed through clenched teeth. -A pimple. A fucking pimple.
He was angry not only because it was Monday, a day he routinely loathed, but also because he was meant to have his first date with Priscilla later than evening. He had bought tickets for the circus. He didn't know if Priscilla liked the circus anymore, but she had been an elephant rider for years, and then quit one summer day to become a dental hygienist. Just like that. He hoped she still liked the circus. He hoped she wouldn't notice his pimple.
The pimple, not his pimple. He wasn't going to think of it as his, he had nothing to do with it, apart from the fact that it had decided to nest on his face.
-Goddammit, he hissed again, and got out of bed.
As he walked to the bathroom to survey the damage, he let out a fantastically long and loud fart. Feeling slightly better, he faced his reflection in the mirror. It was worse than he thought. The pimple was about the size of a quarter, red, pulsating, a drop of pus just starting to ooze from the head. 'A decidedly ugly pimple', he thought to himself. He laughed then. -As if there's an attractive pimple. he said to himself.
It was then that the pimple spoke.
YOU'RE NOT SO HOT YERSELF, YA KNOW. it said. He believed he even saw the pore open and close slightly as it spoke. The movement was painful, and uninvited. It was, to be quite frank, insulting. He was not used to being addressed by blemishes, and chose to ignore the remark.
Oxo turned on the water in the shower, and when it had reached the desired temperature, he stepped inside. The water smacked the pimple immediately, jolting him again, and Oxo turned his back to the hot stream. He cursed slightly under his breath, and the pimple throbbed. He felt it was gearing up to speak again, or had he imagined that? No blemish had ever spoken to him before, and he had never heard of a blemish speaking to anyone else. He had just gotten out of bed, after all, perhaps its the was the remains of a dream. A hypnogogic hallucination . . . or hypnopompic maybe, he could never remember which was which.
As he stood in the shower, feebly washing his chest with a sudsy rag, he went over what he had heard the pimple say. "You're not so hot yourself, you know." it had said. He washed the back of his neck. He knew he wasn't the best looking guy in the world, that's precisely why getting the pimple in the first place had angered him so much. He really didn't need the pimple to point it out to him. He washed his left arm. Oxo had never been particularly attractive, in fact he still harboured the memory of a girl on the bus telling him point blank "You're ugly" when he was fifteen. He hated that memory. He hated the memory, and hated that he remembered it so vividly, when he had forgotten so many other memories. He wasn't certain if the memories he had forgotten were good ones or bad ones, since he had forgotten them, but he secretly always assumed they were good ones. It would be just like him to only remember bad memories. He washed his genitals. The thing about that memory that bothered him most was what he had ended up responded at the time. He didn't like to think about it. Oxo washed the crack of his ass. Witty comebacks had never been his strong suit, nor had quick thinking on his feet. When she had told him he was ugly he hadn't known what to say, he was so blown away by the sheer naked honesty of the comment. He responded, quietly, "I know." and quickly taken a seat, his ears and neck turning red, and burning hot. Oxo washed the back of his neck again.
He thought of the memory again, saw the girl's face, her casual indifference, and started to become angry again, after fifteen years. He would love to meet the girl again. He would love to see her on the street, or on the bus, and have something to say back to her. Oxo was mindlessly running the rag back and forth across his chest now. He imagined bumping into her on the street and saying "Oh I remember you, you're the girl who said I was ugly. Well, did I mention that you have bad breath?" No no no.
He slapped the sudsy rag down to the bathtub. What a terrible retort. Even after fifteen years he couldn't think of anything good to say back to her. Say something hurtful, something that would make her think about the comment later, much later. Maybe for the rest of her life. Tell her that she has fat thighs or that she has . . . he paused, remembering. It occurred to Oxo that he couldn't actually remember the girl's face anymore, he could only remember his memory of it. She had blonde hair and blue eyeshadow, that much he knew, but would he be able to recognize her on the street if he saw her now? He didn't think so.
Oxo turned the water off, and stood dripping. He was going to be damned if he would spend another fifteen years wondering if he could have responded more appropriately to his pimple. Without drying, he stepped out of the bathtub and faced the mirror. He wiped away the fog that steam had left on the surface and looked at the pimple. It still throbbed.
-Say something, smartass. he said to it. It throbbed on, but made no reply. He looked down at it, another single drop of pus starting to ooze out of the head. -C'mon smart guy. Say something smart. I dare you.
The pus dribbled out of the head, but still no reply was forthcoming.
Oxo leaned in, toward the mirror, almost pressing his face against the reflection. -Say something you little fuck, I know you want to . . . come on!
And then the pimple spoke again. The pore opened and closed as it said YOU'RE UGLY. then began to giggle.
Oxo stared at it, dumbstruck. He had expected it to repeat its original comment. Standing there, still dripping wet and nude, Oxo began to shake with rage. Again! Again with that comment, and now from a pimple. A fucking pimple. That was the last straw.
He was getting rid of the pimple. The pimple was going to be gone, that's all there was to it. One way or another.
Oxo stalked off into his apartment, slammed open a closet, and began to rummage through a box in the bottom. He thought he could hear the pimple ask what he was doing, but kept lifting objects up, feeling beneath them and then dropping them back down and moving on. Finally, his finger tips found what he was looking for.
Oxo Marx pulled out his father's saw. -HA! he cried out in triumph. He walked into the kitchen, took out the cutting board he had never used, and placed it onto the counter. He turned his head, laid it onto the cutting board, and began to saw at his neck in long quick strokes. In three full slices his head came off from the stump and rolled into his sink.
In this way, the problem was solved.
Origins of Tarot
I have it on good authority from my contact on the 'inside' that the first recorded tarot deck was created by a Mrs. Eugenia Fish in the 800s (CE) but that she based the cards on an older Atlantean deck which was common knowledge at the time - the differences that Mrs. Fish brought to what is known now as the more or less common deck was the addition of the Fool card, which she included out of respect for her dead husband Roland Fish the Idiot of Ford, who was crushed beneath the largest crouton in history, which was being created for Emperor Charlemagne, to be added to the World's Biggest Salad, which was intended to be one of the Wonders of the World, but never really took off.
In addition to the adding of the Fool, Mrs. Fish also cut out some of the less popular Atlantean trumps, which were 8 - "The Hangnail", 12 - "Gut Rot", and the infinitely unpopular 15 - "Halitosis". I think most modern tarot scholars would admit that her changes were prudent.
Mrs. Fish didn't only invent modern tarot either, she also invented Backgammon, Monopoly, Strip poker, and Battleship. She truly was a Renaissance woman, before the Renaissance.
In addition to the adding of the Fool, Mrs. Fish also cut out some of the less popular Atlantean trumps, which were 8 - "The Hangnail", 12 - "Gut Rot", and the infinitely unpopular 15 - "Halitosis". I think most modern tarot scholars would admit that her changes were prudent.
Mrs. Fish didn't only invent modern tarot either, she also invented Backgammon, Monopoly, Strip poker, and Battleship. She truly was a Renaissance woman, before the Renaissance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)