The perfect gift
is one that is given with no expectation of something in return

but it doesn’t exist.

Language is very ‘loaded’.

To have the term “Chairman” is to highlight the impossibility of “Chairwoman”.  In fact, we still say “Madame Chairman”.

they made a bit of an effort to stop using MANkind and turn it in the texbook to humankind, though it’s still huMANkind.

oh hell, it is still woMAN isn’t it?

I read Snow Crash a while back and there was an intersting idea that
lead to another, but it was a while ago so i’m not sure how much of
this i came up with on my own and how much of it is Snow Crash.

Our ‘new age’ language that’s as close to becoming unprejudiced is
binary.  It’s just that dialectic between 1 and 0, being and not
being– intermingled in sequences to give meaning.  Like binary,
real life is just that– a series of yes/no left/right choices. 
Even those grey areas are just a billion little yes/nos and left/rights
in order.  At the basis of it is “isness” and “isn’tness”.

Um… yes.  I don’t really have more to say about that.  This
femminist theory class is really starting to hurt my brain though.

(Represent your valuezz! See the CONNECTION)

The more I study things like Marxism, Femminism and Gender studies, the
more I’m thinking that the people who came up with these concepts were
really smart– but ultimately, they’re all doing the same thing. 
Overcompensating.

Not that it’s their fault.  Because what they advocate are actions
that would right social disbalances, and that’s a good thing.  But
looking too closely at a particular problem teems to leave one very
narrow sighted to approach the bigger picture.

The bigger picture is that ‘we should all do our best’ to make the
world a better place as possible, and that’s devoid of personal
agendas.  Promoting sustainable social and economic values, for
example– like equal social standing of homosexuals as heterosexuals,
for instance– where we finally decide that religion, cultural
precedent and taboos have no place in the future.

The problem I see with ethics and morals and whatnot is that they deal
a bit too much with the abstract, like abolute virtues and rights–
which I don’t beleive in.  Because to beleive in absoltes is to
beleive in fate.  I beleive at best that fate is the easiest and
most likely result given our chances– like, if you never showed an
iota of interest in medicine or being a doctor, chances are you’re
fated not to be a doctor.  But it’s not cause someone said
so.  It’s because you made a series of choices that narrorwed the
possibilities.  As Nicholas Cage put it best, you keep on reducing
all the people you could be until you end up being who you are.

In that light to say that something is absolute is a fallacy– it’s not
really absolute, it’s like fate– it’s just statistically strong given
the previous choices.

I’m not getting into that though.

My thoughts are that while a marxist, a communist, a femminist, a
whatever may have a point of view, the people practicing it have to
realize that they’re guidelines that, depending on social context and
the times, may become outdated.

It’s nice to say that some old, dead guy came up with a good idea back
a hundred or thousand years ago– but the fact is they’re dead. 
They will no longer suffer the extended, compounded consequences of
their own theories in practice.  So i put it forth– maybe we need
something new, aside from these theories of social values.  I
don’t mean something for the sake of something new– I mean something
that synergizes the way we look at the world so that we will have an
idea of what we should and what we shouldn’t do.

Easier said than done.