Me: Because it's the obvious one. "Look for the short chick." People pick me out of a crowd every time.
Psych #1: You seem to focus on being small, it comes up almost randomly in conversation. Why is that?
Me: Because it's not something I ever have a chance to forget about.
Psych #1: Why? Do other people always bring it up? Because you seem to be the one always bringing it up in our conversations.
Me: No, it's because... well, being as short as I am is really tedious.
Psych #1: I don't understand. How is being short tedious?
Me: Like when I cook, if I need something in the pantry, I have to climb up a stool to grab it. God help me if I forget to grab everything I need in one trip, otherwise it's back up the stool. And standing in grocery aisles, waiting for someone, anyone to show up to grab something for me. People are always nice about it, but I'm still the one always stuck there waiting for them.
Psych #1: Huh. I never thought of it like that.
Hi. I'm Morag! There's a number of new people about (I'll get to that in a minute), and it's been awhile since I posted anything that wasn't, well, porn (there's an explanation!), so an intro/update post isn't uncalled for. I've been doing a lot of tumblr-ing too, which has added think-y things, as well as thesis-ing, so more thinking. But yeah, first thing to know about me: I'm 4'9", short enough for it to be annoying, not quite so short that people ask if it's a symptom. Also probably a good giveaway up there: the necessity of numbering my psychiatrists and psychologists.
Another thing about me: I'm allergic to lanolin (read: almost all wool, except for certain goats and as it turns out, buffalo) and the only craft-y thing I have any talent for is knitting (spacial perception and I are not friends). Ain't life a bitch? So, this is the yarn I mostly use:
Typically 100% cotton, fairly cheap, unravels at card tricks, no elasticity whatsoever, because not once in my life have I found a worsted weight yarn I could use that wasn't 100% acrylic and felt like a cat's tongue. Bulky or small enough that my size 5 needles never run out of work, those are my choices. So when I beta'd a fantastic and truly FILTHY blindfold fill, (I provided the title "Start With a Slip Knot". I am a horrible person.) that contained what looked like a fun and easy new stitch (linen stitch), I decided to give it a shot, and it's pretty cool. But the thing is: see up there where the yarn label says "24 stitches across = 10cm"?
(Ginger candy is fromjjhunter who remains awesome)
That's 36 stitches in 10 cm. Which means that, in order to make a scarf roughly the same size as the ones my pal churns out on a daily basis (18 stitches, worsted), I have to make twice as many stitches. This is just one of the ways that my life gets quickly out of hand.
How out of hand do I get? Here's my "to-finish" list at the moment, just fandom related and only stuff that isn't in complete hibernation (in order of when project started):
1. Need to write Sam/Arthur phone!sex portion of my Not Such As I Was take on "Mystery Spot"
2. Need to write promised sequel for blindfold fill (The Other Side of Mt. Hell Hound) that actually fulfills the Sam/Jo portion of the prompt.
3. Need to have Robo!Sam ravish Sherlock now that I've finally got his clothes off.
4. Oh, yeah: I started a somewhat successful multi-fandom (60+ at last count) self-cest comment meme that I wrote two fills for (Novakcest and Robo!Sam/Boy King!Sam) which sort of makes me the mod. Whoops.
What have I learned? I need to stop talking to callowyn and sistabro so much, as they are bad and highly creative influences. Also, I seem to be fandom bicycling Sam Winchester like no one's business lately. Which is probably not terribly surprising to many of you, but is still funny, because most of those projects started as attempts to get characters played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt naked. I got Helena Bonham Carter instead, which is pretty awesome, but the lack of naked JGL in my life means I spend a lot of time tumblring the JGL tag. Which is where how I found this:
NPH: Yes, but who cares about what happens in the world when you've got this cloud of doom like a disaster movie hanging over all of it. And you're not even John Cusack, you're like a CGI extra.
I beg to differ, Mr. Patrick-Harris. JGL is actually a lot like John Cusack. Compare the resumes. This theory isn't quite as well-developed as my "James Franco is Bizarro!Jensen Ackles" rant-- and this is where I should insert another professional caveat:
Psych #2: [In middle of our first visit, laughing] What is life like inside your head?
Me: Very associative. And alliterative. It makes me very suggestible. And even I don't know what's going on in here half the time.
Which is why, in my brain, the obvious transition from John Cusack goes to: there's also this other thing I keep running across on tumblr about the misogyny inherent in the concept of "friend zone". It's a good read: you should read it, but tl;dr is gordonecker's comment of "The thing I find particularly disgusting and infuriating about the whole “friend zone” is how it implicitly characterizes male-female friendships as con games in which men use friendship to exploit women for sex while women try to use the implicit promise of sex to exploit men for friendship." How does Mr. Cusack fit in? Because he played Lloyd Dobler in Say Anything and thus was typecast as the quintessential Nice Guy, a genuine Nice Guy, which all of the so-called "nice guys" have totally misinterpreted.
(If you haven't seen Say Anything, it's fucking Valentine's week: WATCH SAY ANYTHING. It's a good fucking movie and part of the collective culture. Also, it has Lloyd Dobler holding a boombox over his head while it plays Peter Gabriel.)
The thing people miss about Lloyd Dobler is that yes, all of his friends are women. At least one of them has a crush on him. But he never leads them on, and he talks to them about the woman he is actually romantically interested in (apparently to the point of excess). See: male-female non-romantic friendship wherein the guy isn't in it with an expectation of sex. THAT'S WHAT MAKES HIM A REAL NICE GUY. And that's what 500 Days of Summer points out: if a person tells you from the start that no, not really interested in romance (even if s/he is interested in sex), and you continue to presume s/he's in it for the romance, the only person you're fucking over is yourself. And you've earned it
... and how did we get here again? Possibly because I have opinions. But there's also a chance:
Me: I've been having a big problem with false awakenings lately. I've "woken up" into another dream as many as five times in a night. What the hell?
Psych #3: Have you been worrying about your plans for tomorrow a lot lately?
Me: Well, that's the going theory, but the problem is that for the last couple of mornings, I have operated on assumptions that things that happened in some of the dreams actually happened. This morning it meant the cats didn't get fed, but, well, yeah. Inability to distinguish dream from reality? I felt I should ask.
Psych #3: Good point: lemme look at your meds. [makes adjustment to timing of doses, I stop having false awakenings]
So it might be Inception. Another moral of the story: if I ever ask you "Am I crazy or...?" just remember that "crazy" is actually something I've always considered a valid option.
Now, just a little something that would be useful for my real life and to show that I'm not just a porn-obsessed internet recluse -- there's this problem I'm having with my thesis. (Masters in Middle Eastern History if you must know). Ten years of liberal arts education have taught me better than to trust a liberal arts source on maths too much (Kukkonen, the source who inspired this conclusion, has a background is philosophy/intellectual history); also, while I have taken many philosophy classes, most of the basics I had to self-teach. So, if anyone out there knows someone who REALLY understands Godel's Proof of Incompleteness Theory (and bear in mind, I have asked people with doctorates in Computer Science and Applied Mathematics and gotten nothing for my troubles) and/or anyone who reads this excerpt of thesis and can make a definitive argument for "Bullshit, you've got it wrong," could you please let me know? Thanks. And yeah: this is me and most of this is just crap I had to get out of my head so I could start actually working again. If you've gotten this far: cheers!
Begin with the proposition that arithmetic is the least problematic test case for a logical proof, as the natural numbers and their interactions (2+2=4) are apodeictic; i.e., true in and of themselves. The givens in a mathematic proof therefore have a predetermined positive truth value, to which the methods of formal logic and axioms of mathematics are then applied. If finite sets of logical mathematical axioms can both express true propositions which cannot be proven true using that set of axioms, and also the axioms cannot prove themselves, when dealing exclusively with givens that are by their own nature true, then application of a finite set of logical axioms dealing with givens that are assertoric or problematic will encounter even more difficulty in proving all true propositions within that system, i.e. if we can’t have a unified logical theory of math, then we can’t have a unified logical theory of everything.
Averroes ascribes to a neoplatonist belief that an explanation for the existence of the universe can be adduced from the application of the formal rules of logic and mathematical proofs (arithmetic being by its nature apodeictic and unchanging - the underlying arithmetical givens within a proof are simple and true in and of themselves, 2+2=4). While new sets of mathematical axioms have developed since the time of Averroes (calculus, etc.) the underlying form and process of the formal mathematical proof have not changed since their invention by Pythagoras. However, if we maintain that Averroes’ philosophy must have perfect internal logical consistency (which is implicit in the belief that total knowledge is possible), total knowledge - the underlying mathematical-philosophical-logical equation for all existence, must not only explain existence, but in and of itself, explain its own form and existence.
If we extend Averroes’ philosophy to the present and current understandings of mathematics with modern methods that are logically derived from the pre-existing arithmetic (as Einstein attempted to do), then the premise of a complete logical theory of existence is shown to be an impossibility by Godel’s proof of the theorem of incompleteness, which shows that a finite set of formal logical axioms in mathematics will allow for the expression of propositions and problems which cannot be solved using that set of axioms, further, the set of axioms will not, in and of themselves, be able to prove/explain their own necessity.
This entry was originally posted at http://moragmacpherson.dreamwidth.org/86