Below are the 11 most recent journal entries recorded in dionysus' LiveJournal:

Sunday, July 28th, 2002
2:53 am	The Flametrick Subs with Satan's Cheerleaders are hell boiling over. They are the best live act in the Live Music Capital of the World. I just saw another great performance! (8 Comments |Comment on this)
Saturday, July 27th, 2002
2:35 am	from the mouth of babes a great kid with a good sense of humor said this today, about Wheel of Fortune: "How long has Vanna White been doing that show? [pause for thought] I wonder how many Vanna Whites there have been." (Comment on this)
Friday, July 26th, 2002
12:33 pm	There are as many of us as could fall from the head of a pin before you could hear it drop in the forest where no one is. Current Mood: simply convoluted Current Music: The Spheres (Comment on this)
12:25 am	Luxurious pillars, sturdy and succulent, Generously indulging, Support the broad majestic temple, Adorned with sumptuous bulging. Their display commands all thought, Enslaving all desire, And so draws my adoring lips To the dewy Rose, afire. The Rose within I long to reach, Its stirring, swirling depth I probe With manic organs of my speech, Petal by petal by lobe by lobe. Plunging headlong, thoughts erased, My soul surrendered to its throes, So for a moment I might taste Sweet nectar of the inner Rose. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, July 24th, 2002
6:08 pm	I think language is liberating, not a mechanism for control. Those who wish to control seek to control language, but its malleability, its adaptability to new and ad hoc use, prevent that ultimately. It is easy, and common, to think of definitions of words as boundaries. Many people (including theorists, logicians, and "philosophers" of language) seem to think that by defining a word, one gives it precise boundaries. Some even say that you don't know what you are talking about unless you define your words to give them boundaries. On this view, dictionaries are something like a catalogue of boxes. But the would-be boundaries are composed only of words, which can bound and limit only if they themselves are bounded and limited. If you can't understand a word without a definition, you can't understand words at all. The history of language is filled with myriad twists and turns, vine-like growths, and outright reversals. Consider how the Indo-European root leuk- ("light" and "brightness") can develop into words meaning madness ("lunacy") and evil ("luciferic"). A word is more like a tool, with a shape that gives it usefulness, but which shape is created by its use. Language use is improvisation, like jazz, not rule-following, regardless of the ideas and practices of certain logicians. Each and every use of a word affects its shape and thus its usefulness for a new task. Through time and use, words can change shape dramatically. The imaginations of the users are the only limits. If the imaginations of the would-be controllers do not exceed the imaginations of those whom they seek to control, they don't have a chance to control them through language. (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Saturday, July 20th, 2002
3:04 pm	I had no idea a fig could be as sweet, and juicy. Lump in throat, I resist plunging into her. Never before now has a fig's moistness drawn the moisture out of my eyes and bathed my face. Succubus Sucrose Succulent Sucking Succumb (Comment on this)
Monday, July 15th, 2002
1:10 pm	Who am I? That is my principle question to myself, and answering it is my most important task. I am completely amazed and in awe of the fact of my existence. I'm not joking. How is it that I am, am aware, conscious of the world around me. What allows this to happen, that one thing should be aware of itself and of other things? Awareness or consciousness cannot be understood in terms of merely "objective" realities, things. It's a mystery, but one that must be explored. And thinking, which is a heightened and concentrated form of awareness, is an even greater mystery. Some modes of thinking are merely calculating and are not all that interesting or awesome. But higher and deeper thinking, just the fact of it, blows me away when I try to concentrate my mind on it. And freedom! That makes me shudder to the core when I even approach its altar in my mind. It will not let me come near, but it beckons me with relentless power. I must approach, even though it remains beyond my grasp. I can obtain at least a taste by focussing my heart on it. People who take for granted their freedom and thinking and imagination, the aspects of themselves closest to their hearts, and do not focus themselves on them, are asleep. (Comment on this)
1:06 pm	social justice and charity It's important to distinguish between issues of social justice, and issues of charity. I think both are important, very important, but they are different. One is giving people what belongs to them, what is rightfully theirs. The law is involved here. The other is giving of yourself to others because they too are children of God, because all that is yours is given to you anyway, not ultimately of your making, and your task is to use it all well where it does the most good. (Comment on this)
10:33 am	Our judgment of our past Have you noticed that many people appear to have a great respect for Native, aboriginal and other primitive cultures and peoples, but look down their noses and make fun of the Amish, Mennonites, and other people who live their lives somewhere between the primitive and the contemporary? Find yourself a preliminary answer to that, and then ask: How does this relate to retro phenomena, our various forms of admiration for and emulation of the recent past? (Comment on this)
Monday, March 25th, 2002
10:23 am	These are some reflections arising from an entry by the wondrous pserv in her journal. Due to the length here, and not wanting to clutter her journal, I have placed it in mine, which has plenty of room. Also, although it began with her topic, it took off on its own. Her entry was about hoarding and consumerism. It occurred to me that they are both problems based in materialism, but they are different "Hoarding" is an irrational extreme of saving and holding onto things, but its spirit also exists in a moderate version. Both hoarding and, even more so, its moderate cousin run counter to the "buy, buy, buy" of consumerism. Being content with old things as long as they work (even if no longer fashionable) rather than disposing of them to buy the latest model, and saving things in anticipation of future usefulness rather than throwing them out and buying another when one wants one, are conservative ways of life. The desire for the latest in everything, and the desire to pluck things off the store shelves when one wants them and thus find a kind of freedom from attachment (ownership), are liberal. I don't mean "conservative" and "liberal" in the contemporary political sense, as they are quite confused, in my opinion. I mean something deeper that intersects with politics and its contemporary lingo only here and there. The primary current (there are others) in the environmental and conservation movement is, I think, conservative. Respect for the old, and even more, the ancient, is conservative. Accepting that one is contained by one's surroundings, that one needs to respect (or even be reverent toward) one's surroundings, and fit oneself into them, and thus place limits on one’s appetites, is conservative. Feeling liberated from one's spatial and temporal settings (the environment and the past) and desiring to do whatever one pleases without restrictions, is liberal. (Comment on this)
Monday, March 18th, 2002
12:43 pm	Since this is my first entry, I will start small and work up to bigger things. Is it possible to commit to love another person for the rest of your life? I'm not talking about making a prediction about what feelings one will have in 10 years, or 20 years, or 30 years. I'm wondering if there is a level, psychological or metaphysical or other, on which one can act such that one's action carries through one's life, informing, not predicting, one's future actions and orientations and, to some extent, desires and feelings. Of course, I do not ask if any present action can determine the details of all (or even most) of one's future actions. One does not know what life will throw at us, or into what we will be thrown. I ask: Is it possible to live one's life as a whole? And, can one do so in relationship with another person (or persons)? Any thoughts, random, piecemeal or otherwise, are most welcome. Current Mood: tempting (10 Comments |Comment on this)