New Applicant
Name: David
Gender/Sex/Affiliation: Male
Age: 41
Location: Virginia, USA
INQUISITIONS:
What attracted you to this community?
The possibility of open-minded discussion, the optimism of the "About" section of the community User Information page; I'm a fan of one of the Moderators (I don't know the other), and my brain is spontaneously spitting-out responses to the application questions.
What is the highest level of school completed?
If you mean formalized Western education, then I've completed graduate school.
What are some of your major interests/hobbies?
Reading, writing, running, lifting; general horticulture, and specifically succulents expressing the cresting and monstrosus genetic deformities; apples, insects, collecting the art of unknown and "unfound" artists, black & white photography (not as the photographer) making traditional yeast breads, cosmologies, studying human beings.
What about the human psyche most appeals to you, and why?
If the theory that the building blocks of the universe are found in human perception and interpretation is true, then the most appealing aspect of the psyche is it's ability to create the universe.
Type of music most enjoyed:
Generally, I enjoy most genres of music. However, I don't really grasp rap, nor classic
jazz--unless it is smokey jazz. I enjoy more contemporary jazz (for example, Patricia Barber). I respect Opera, but am usually uninterested in it. I actively dislike solid romantic period European-based music--for example, Chopin makes me seasick. Otherwise, everything else is fodder for the ears depending on mood. Mostly, though, I enjoy silence.
Books/authors:
Als, Hilton, et al. Lynching Photography in America.
Berger, Peter, Thomas Luckman The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge.
Brady, Erica, ed. Healing Logics: Culture and Medicine in Modern Health Belief Systems.
Coyne, Richard. Designing Information Technology in the Postmodern Age: From Method to Metaphor.
Coyne, Richard. Technoromanticism: Digital Narrative, Holism, and the Romance of the Real.
Jackall, Robert. Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers.
Lakoff, George, Mark Johnson. Metaphors we Live By.
Lioni, Leo. Fish is Fish.
Schwartzberg, Natalie, Kathy Berliner, DeMarris Jacob. Single in a Married World: A Life Cycle Framework for Working With the Unmarried Adult.
Seigel, Bernie. Love, Medicine, and Miracles: Lessons Learned about Self-Healing from a
Surgeon's Experience with Exceptional Patients.
Solomon, Andrew. The Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression.
Toelken, Barre. The Dynamics of Folklore 2d. ed.
Woods, Tim. Beginning Postmodernism.
Something special or beautiful about your brain:
It seems to have some primordial physiologies, and while this is a problem in contemporary contexts, it also shows how elastic and adaptable homo sapiens can collectively be.
Are you an artist or writer? If yes, please post some of your work.
Part 1 of 2.
Part 2 of 2.
What color was George Washington's white horse?
A light bluish-grey. Named "Blue Skin."
OPINIONS:
Organized religion:
Our entire history decomposes to a single sentence: Our history is the story of one group attempting to dominate, enslave, or destroy another. Western-styled, organized religion (the only version of "organized" I understand well enough to speak about, though I hear some Eastern religions have some nasty histories as well), seems to be yet another venue for re-enacting our redundant history.
That said, organized religion seems to provide comfort for some, and it is another venue in which we assemble and maintain communities. This depends on congregations conflating spiritual and community needs.
Generally, I suspect organized religion gets in the way of helping people learn about a given religion's spiritual core. The application of spiritual material seems to me to be a personal matter that may require the attention of an experienced, indoctrinated individual. There aren't enough priests and ministers and rabbis and so on for one-on-one tutoring. Since a one-size-fits-all model doesn't work, priests and ministers and rabbis and the like present easily graspable information to large clots of people, and that information may bear little resemblance to core material. On the other hand, organized religion makes a great business.
Society:
We seem inherently self-destructive. Lately, at the individual level I've been wondering if this is an artifact of the neo-cortex (free-will) interacting with the old-mammalian brain and the brain stem's directives. Then associate individuals based on some common factor(s), throw in the neo-cortex's ability to discern, differentiate and discriminate, and then center our primary communicability in the neo-cortex while maintaining the powerful influence of the old-mammalian brain and the brain stem--two less discriminating centers--and you have a recipe for self destruction as simple acts of communicability are interpreted as primordial threats, down to notions of Limited Good.
The occult/paranormal:
"The truth is what happens to [me]." It's only "occult" because Science says it is, and arguments from science do not necessarily impress because 1) by using politics, Francis Bacon forced the acceptance of the Scientific Method as the definitive Way of Knowing. I would prefer he mounted scientific-styled evidence that the Scientific Method was the most effective Way of Knowing and allowed for less personal bias.
"Paranormal", like "supernatural" seems oxymoronic.
The environment:
I suspect the notion of the environment as The Other, emphasizing a mutual separateness, is no longer a useful construction.
The Arts:
Despite the 3000 year debate, I tentatively define "art" in terms of related words: "artificial", and "artifactual"; that is, anything created by human beings including our individual thoughts (possibly only if those thoughts are expressed (and then possibly only if those expressions are perceived by another person)), or rather anything we say, do, or make. The Arts have the sanction of long-term social convention and so we emphasize and institutionalize them, create genres for them, label them the source of our discerning refinement, and then neglect and under-fund them.
While the notion of The Arts as a source of discerning refinement serves as a suitable snob training-ground, that notion does not seem to be interesting in the long term. The Arts themselves interest me, as well as everything else we say do or make.
On the other hand, the genres we create and formalize--select for institutionalization and emphasis--reveal the nature of Western worldview. That seems like a more interesting frame. The Artist seems more interesting as a seer and a shaman and culture-bearer than a creator of refined products--in my opinion, anyway.
If by "The Arts" you mean "not The Sciences", the above still applies.
The Sciences:
If the definition of "The Sciences" excludes "The Arts" and the fields of study that lacked the political power to gather the label "A Science" (which is where all the money is because the public has conflated science and truth and so now thinks that science itself equals truth, rather than a way of finding (a) truth, and which we now refer to politely as "disciplines") then we are talking only about fields of study that annexed the Holy Scientific Method as The Way of Knowing. While the results of those who work in The Sciences are fascinating, I submit that that their results ultimately must be limited in the same way we are limited when we hold a patch over one eye.
Drugs:
"If the definition of 'enabling' is trying to control another's addiction, what's the War on Drugs?" Imprisoning a cocaine addict is about as useful as imprisoning a diabetic, or a manic-depressive, or a promiscuous woman.
Pornography:
My opinion here is not particularly developed. I like it sometimes. Sometimes I'm uninterested in pornography. I'm a voyeur. Everything we say, do and make is a kind of pornography, perhaps.
[French pornographie, from pornographe, pornographer, from Late Greek pornographos, writing about prostitutes : pornē, prostitute graphein, to write; see --graphy.]
WORD ASSOCIATIONS:
List the first word that comes to your mind after the following-
Am I taking a Rorschach inkblot test?
Nun: Sister (Batrille)
Blood: flow
Cerebral: parasite
Library: none (here)
Words: Spells
Butter: Buns
Mirror: Redrum
Lord: British
Semen: Quickening
Heart: Rate
Manic: state
Revolver: promiscuous
Cut: (&) paste
IMAGES:
Post 3 or more random images that express who you are (None of yourself!!):
Counter Questions:
1. How do you define "beauty" and how does that apply to the notion of a "beautiful brain"?
2. If most say Yes to an applicant, doesn't that tend to generate tension between the accepted applicant and the No-voters once the applicant participates?
3. Community rules specify no self-pics because despite our best intentions we are influenced by appearances. However, doesn't some information requested of applicants--sex/gender/affiliation, age, and even location--influence us in the same way gratuitous way as appearance?
4. Months ago I stumbled upon a Rating Community called "beautiful people" or something like that. The idea was that only the most physically appealing and attractive people were permitted membership (of course, there were no posted measures of beauty. There were no discussions of cultural or popular notions of beauty, or even a discussion abut the significance of symmetry to perceptions of beauty. Selections were based on posted pics and in-the-moment opinions of members and psychological masturbation. Is abeautifulbrain a tongue-in-cheek response to these kinds of LJ communities? A serious "counter" to these communities, a little of both, or is it completely independent?
5. Why is abeautifulbrain a Rating Community?