why it bugs me that your boyfriend is a sociopath

So I have this house.

It falls to me to keep this house in order, which I do on a simple principle, to wit: that this house should be the best house for me to live in that it could possibly be.

So when I see a spider, I kill it. I don't think about it. I don't wonder if maybe it's a good spider. I don't check to see if it is a talking spider who can grant me three wishes. I don't attempt to tame it and feed it small things until it becomes a friendly spider and kills insects I dislike. I just kill it. Because my goal is not to ensure universal love and happiness for all things. This is not an attainable goal for me! My goal is to make my house the best house for me to live in that it could possibly be.

Anything I do that isn't killing the spider has a pretty good chance of me getting bitten by the spider. And a house where I get bitten by spiders is not the best house for me to live in that it could possibly be.

You might disagree! Maybe you're a Jainist, for example. You can have your own house. In your house, you can keep lots of spiders, and feed them, and look for wishing spiders, and do whatever you want. I don't care! It's not my house. You have the right to keep your house on whatever principles you deem most important.

But if we're friends, then I probably won't want to come over to your house, because it's full of spiders. And if you come over to MY house, and you ask if you can bring your spider friends, I'm going to say no, because I don't want spiders in my house. And if you get bitten by spiders, I will hold your hand and call Poison Control, but I'm still going to be slightly annoyed, because deep down inside, I'm pretty sure that you made a decision somewhere along the line that led to you getting bitten by spiders.

And if you come over to my house and start complaining about how you get bitten by spiders all the time, and saying, "Man, I wish that the spiders would quit biting me," then I'm going to say, "Look. You have two choices. One of them involves killing all the spiders. The other one involves a whole lot of getting bitten by spiders. I'm not going to tell you which choice to make! I have an opinion, but it doesn't govern your decision-making process, and I won't attempt to impose it on you. But don't try to invent a third choice, in which the spiders magically stop biting you for no reason. If you want to tame the spiders and be friends with them and possibly get spider wishes, you have to accept that you're going to get bitten by spiders all the time, over and over, until that day comes where your spider-taming program finally succeeds. Frankly, I'm not convinced it ever will, but I have faith in your capacity to accomplish the things you want to accomplish -- but at the same time, you need to accept the consequences of your actions, or choose different actions. You can choose not to get bitten if you don't want to get bitten."

And this will just irritate both of us.

(no subject)

we will recontextualize them. the revolution will merely be a shift in understanding.

we will recontextualize their statements. we will recontextualize their texts. we will recontextualize their attitudes, their actions, their declarations of belief. we will recontextualize their buildings, their positions of power, their laws and regulations. we will recontextualize their books, their television shows, their movies, and their homes. and if they're not careful, we'll recontextualize their fucking faces.

because that's one of the multiple contradictory premises that postmodernism is all about.

the distinction between ineffability and numinousness

Numinousness is the quality possessed by objects which are obviously God.

God is defined as a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. The existence of a numinous object implies such a being; the existence of such a being implies a constant successful effort on His part towards ensuring the best possible outcome for the largest number of creatures, regardless of the knowledge and power necessarily to devise and execute a strategy resulting in this outcome.

Thus, the existence of a numinous object implies that this is the best of all possible worlds.

Ineffability is the quality possessed by objects which are too wonderful to be described. (cf. chthonic)

Description is the act of communication regarding the qualities of the thing described. Communication is the basic act of sentience; sentience is necessary for understanding. It follows that an object that cannot be described cannot be understood. An object is wonderful if it inspires wonder; wonder is a reaction of joy brought on by an encounter with beauty.

Thus, the existence of an ineffable object implies that the world is more beautiful than we can understand.

Ineffability is better.