Summarian Logistics

October 7, 2010

Do not ask me to explain the title, it just feels right.

So first of all, I have not, for one week, forgotten about this blog. I know my startling amount of updates would say otherwise, but all the little tidbits of ideas I did come across were never enough to warrant a full post. Today I was finally blessed with a realistic amount of inspiration, which follow later.

Here’s just some random thoughts that have been conglomerating in my mind:

Fap fiction: A story without any sort of deep narration written only to please the author and/or the fans in some simplistic fashion (see: Twilight). A Google search comes up with nothing on this term, so I guess I own it. Woo.

I have a jacket with upside pockets near the shoulders that have no apparent purpose and it is very disconcerting.

Granite is a plutonic igneous rock that can be found in abundance nearly anywhere in Nevada. There is no excuse for needing to drive an hour to the top of a mountain near a lake just too look at intruded granite. Especially when the weather can’t decide between a thunderstorm or a hailstorm and goes about debating this by doing both simultaneously.

Anywho, after months of deprivation I was sitting in my Core Humanities discussion this morning and someone attempted to seem smart and said something regarding “the nature of man” and I, being a cynic with a superiority complex, decided that was a stupid thing to say. It’s just one of those phrases someone says and everyone just sort of nods understandingly and with a look of deep consideration scratches their chin. What does it even mean?

To explore this obviously drawn out and useless examination of this non-issue, I’ll begin by looking back towards the MythBusters I was watching the night prior. In this episode, they were testing suggested methods of beating crime dogs (ie sniffer dogs and blood hounds). After the dogs completed the task it was assigned to (finding some hidden contraband, locating a runaway convict), they were given a treat and/or a toy. Aside from the Pavlovian conditioning, I had come to the conclusion that these dogs were basically being rewards for being dogs.

Now, I understand that this is not unlike how the world normally works with people, but there is a difference. People who have some specialization are rewarded with a fair paying job or some sort of medal (depending on the specifics of their talent), but this is only because they have a superior or at least slightly above average ability in said skill. These dogs, on the other hand, are receiving benefits for having the functional version of their sense. It’s not even something they have to learn. It would be like giving a man a cake for being able to identify two different colors. Human eyes are normally quite capable of such so he is being rewarded simply for not having a physical impairment.

This lead to my being curious as to whether there was such a job for humanity. If there was a job (ie some form of reward, pay, or compensation) for simply living as a human. I figured this would simply entail requiring food, water and shelter and being a social creature. Perhaps there would be a bonus for doing human things like identifying patterns or using tools or having the ability to perceive the world around you using your senses, but I digress. Obviously no such job exists (excluding experiments, but those are usually not built on a wage) as the vast majority of the planet would qualify for it. So why are dogs so damn special?

The answer to that is simple (humans using them as tools/assistants so they need to be well cared for), but irrelevant to this┬ádiscussion. The problem, then, is when someone uses the whole “nature of man” to describe any sort of philosophical condition (yes I recognize the irony). Looking at this, the “nature of man” is nothing beyond just a series of physical habits and necessities, so describing a literary piece as such (in this case, a poem) is basically saying that the writing highlights man’s need to do something as banal as use the bathroom. What the phrase should be is the “philosophical nature of man” or the “nature of man in regards to his philosophies.”

Yes this entire rant was in regards to semantics, I just like writing arguments~