January 02, 2004

• That second link was very tasty! Jacques Lacan trading cards...the online version.
• There's a long way to go before the theories of the first link can be testing with real artificial life. Better to leave it to fiction for a while. And, ha! That second link completely misses the point about sex and love. It was like reading some sort of communist manifesto. It basically tells the truth but painting it in a extremely dark way and offering in exchange and ideal yet futile solution. Still, it was a quite interesting read.
• So what is this solution?
• This solution; it vibrates? (sorry, I couldn't help myself)
• Heh, sorry! I wanted to comment but also to sleep so I wrote that without asserting my comments. It's a very long read and actually it doesn't gives a solution to an specific problem per se. It implies one at the end. That we should strive to give unconditional true love to be happy and maybe in the process become more and more refraining of sex, like if it were some kind of disease or corruptive force. Actually most of the text feels like it was written with a finger-pointing attitude. That's why I was comparing it to a manifesto. Well, it could be that I misunderstood everything I read.
• Buddhists believe that all life is sorrowful, yet somehow still manage to have a great time and vibrant culture. There are always caveats that one must acknowledge in these theories. I don't think anyone expects you to be like Francis of Assisi. Lacan most definitely was not, he had a wife! Instead, it is an acknowledgement of the forces in play.
• Jacques Lacan trading cards... So where's the objet petit a?
• Well. not all buddhist cults are similar. Just a few believe in the sorrowfulness of life, and just a few believe in actual reincarnation and such. But on the point, I was not criticizing Lacan, but the way it's ideas were being handled in the link. I have actually been thinking a lot about it and as I first said, it all ringed true to me. But in the end it's human nature, something which is for the most part hardwired from the start. Not the "perversions", but the way we gain them. And not all of them are as wrong as they put them. By the way, buddhism it's just a way to attain happiness. I don't want to sound rude but I believe a great part of it is self-deceiving. Just like falling in love, one creates an image of reality that purports satisfaction, but in a way that it's actually beneficial. My way to undestand things is more akin to philosophical taoism, in which I'm allowed to suffer as much as I enjoy things, but all without regrets and always striving to attain wisdom from them. Not that I can do it all the time. I love to bitch about everything.
• But this, but that, but, but, but... Too many "but"s for one day.
• Nice contrast between the two links. It would be interesting to see some kind of examination of non-romantic love. Love's oh-so-slippery definition certainly makes it difficult for machines to exhibit it. The psychology article ended with what I thought was an interesting contrast to this earlier MeFi post. Do we need other people? Is it "ok" to need other people? Maybe we'll just all end up getting everything figured out through online psychology articles or other artificial means.
• How alife will love
• Ahh, Diesel Sweeties! How long it has been...
• Do we need other people? Yes. Do we need Diesel Sweeties. No, at least, not most of them.