realizations:

there are no boring people, only bored people. talk with someone about something they're passionate about, and you will discover that everyone is fascinating.

as limitless as the suffering in the world may be, so is the love. i, for one, would like to be a proponent of the movement for infinite love.

no matter how terrible/horrifying life can sometimes be, it's also hilarious.

the most interesting people are the ones who want to know everything. the eternal student is a truly wise soul, for he is always bettering himself.

there may be nothing more fulfilling to me than a meaningful, thought-provoking conversation.

a person's recurring dreams say a lot about them.

maybe sometimes the only reason horrid things happen is for the sake of having a funny story.

perspective is the key to most everything.

all this joking may have made me an actual supporter of male chauvinism. there seems to be no line between reality and play anymore.

i am surrounded by incredibly inspiring and inspired people. i have a lot to live up to, and i'm thrilled about it.

nothing will ever replace music. your treat today: swim until you can't see land by frightened rabbit. what the amazing, frightened rabbit.

with great power: my ode to the school of myers-briggs

okay, first, listen to this: The Night You Left New York by Slow Six. not necessarily first. you can listen while you read. all right, it's very long. almost ten minutes. but i promise you it will be worth it. when have i ever steered you wrong (as far as music is concerned)? also, if you're smart, all the songs i post on my blog are obtainable. ask me if you're confused. but keep it hush-hush.

now to our featured writing: this is an old poem. and not as applicable or strongly felt as it was then. but why not say it? why not say anything?

these nuclear ABCs
thrust into our hands
regurgitated alphabet soup
[that leaks into our pores
and infects our veins]
TOO.MUCH.POWER
like cars or the internet or love
we become
ambassadors of understanding and
weapons of judgment
glowing radiation from our pedestal
bestowing
{four letter names}
like godly gifts:
“You're Welcome”
and argument is futile
because we are
the educated ones
and moreover
the intuitives
wizards, elves
while the hobbits and men look on
with unfocused eyes
from below
[S stands for Stupid]
But this disease has an
antidote
and its name is equality.

the erin crabtree model of indicated apathy

i could care less about this. i could care so much less.
by which i mean, of course, that i care quite a bit.

you see, i love math. i don't think you understand. i LOVE math. i also LOVE grammar. the fusion of these two passions, and my desire to defend their honour, has forged a marriage of sorts. a beautiful marriage which you are about to see.

people like to blaspheme in the face of the english language. as many of you are well aware, i could rant about this for . . . a very large amount of time. but for today, i am going to address only one of the symptoms that plagues our sickly generation. one i think most of us are aware of at this point, but which still rages feverishly on in the vocabulary of americans.

i think you know what i am talking about:

"i could care less."

but fear not, fellow americans. i have created the ultimate weapon to combat the misuse of english: mathematical representations of english.

so, without further ado (which, by the way, i always want to spell as adieu), i present to you
the erin crabtree model of indicated apathy:
(x being the amount one cares)
I could care less: 0 < x ≤ ∞
(all we can reasonably surmise from this statement is that x, or the amount one cares, is greater than the minimum (zero). one does indeed care to some degree, a degree which could in fact be infinite.)

I couldn't care less: x = 0
(this statement is much clearer in that it effectively equates the amount of caring to the minimum, or zero.)
another way to say this: I do not care: x = 0

My apathy is infinite: ~x = ∞
(this shall be read as "not x equals infinity." this carries nearly the same meaning as the two previous claims, but with perhaps more gusto. it was included because i desperately wanted to put negative infinity in here somewhere, but it didn't apply, as one can't logically care a negative amount. to care a negative amount would be caring, simply in the reverse direction. this does raise questions about if it is possible for the lack of something to be infinite. can apathy be infinite? for the purposes of this model, i hold that it can.)

I could care more: 0 ≤ x < ∞
(all right, so no one but me really says this, but i like it. it's not much clearer than the original offender, but it does allow for the possibility of x being zero and specifies that one does not care the maximum possible amount. not perfect, but a bit closer to the intended meaning, i daresay.)

and while we're on that topic: many, when confronted with the error of their ways, claim they meant what they said. "yeah, i could care less. i do care some, just not very much."

well, don't worry. i've come up with a foolproof way that you can say what you mean:

I could care less, but only marginally. I could care exponentially more: 0 < x « ∞

as you can see, my friends, there is a multitude of options. when in doubt, please consider what you are trying to say, scan the list, and choose wisely. (and be sure to double-check your work!)

photo credits to stevie shale: my first rudimentary explanation of this theory

Ferocious Oaks + everything

i couldn't find an entirely satisfactory video, but...i love this band. i can't believe i didn't discover them when i was in utah. if you watch nothing else, please watch from 2:20 to the end. the drums, mostly. but also the tambourines and the soulful moaning and the....ahhh.

this also makes me miss velour. something about their lighting brings everything a little bit closer to its true magical potential.



as for life, there are plenty of good things going on, and suffice it to say i am happy. and more than that, i am peaceful. i have SUCH joy and hope for the present and the future and all of us (us being the "now us" but also including all those who will eventually come into our lives and change them and be changed by them).

i have this little theory sometimes that when Heavenly Father is feeling particularly desirous to express his love for me (and you and all of you), he choreographs a ballet just for me (and you and all of you). like...a breathtaking thunderstorm over a blazing sunset. or a moth landing on my hand. or a meaningful glance shared by strangers. little miracles. gifts.

and more and more, these miracles manifest themselves. i hope in some way i can help make the world more miraculous for other people....that i can play some part in this ballet.

everything is so perfectly flawed. there is just the right amount of dissonance to make this the most groundbreaking and heavenly symphony to ever exist. and here it is, and here we are, a part of it. surrounded by it, swimming in the music, dancing among the constellations, veritably flying.

i am i am i am i am
we are we are we are we are
this is this is this is this is
life

and my gratitude is endless.

Words, words, words! (and a puzzle)

I have some thoughts.

One of these thoughts is about plurals.

The plural of nemesis is nemeses (nem-iss-seas). Which follows standard rules of English grammar.

But THEN, the plural of premise is premises (prem-iss-is OR prem-iss-seas), sometimes pronounced with the long E sound as well. why is this? why? is this incorrect? or just an anomaly?

Following this train of thought, what about promise? why is the plural, promises, never pronounced prom-iss-seas? Why the inconsistency? not that i mind, but....but why?

these are the things i took notes on today in linguistics, rather than taking notes on what was actually happening during the lecture.

in said class, we talk a lot about the origins of language (this IS going somewhere, i promise). The funny thing is that none of the theories we discuss even acknowledge the possibility of creationism. it's always: "when did we split from the primates and start speaking intelligibly?" "how did the hominid's brain grow enough to be able to comprehend and create language?" Dear everyone, you do know that evolution is a Theory, yes?

there are two camps on this issue: one is that (A) language is innate; we are born with the ability to use and understand language. the other is that (B) language, like any other skill (piano, tying shoes, writing), is entirely learned. Children learn to speak purely through imitation.

There's far more evidence to support claim A. Children are clearly born knowing certain things about language that they are never taught. For instance, how do we all know to say "big red balloon" rather than "red big balloon?" no one taught us this. in fact, studies have proven that "motherese" ("look, say 'doggy!'" "BALL, timmy, that's a BALL.") is completely useless. we do not need parents or anyone else to label things for us to figure out what they are. How do we know that something "out" of the box can be "near" it, but something "in" it can't? Who teaches us these things? No one. Our brains are clearly hardwired with these concepts. Read about pidgins and creoles, if you wish to know more--it's fascinating!

The POINT is, language is clearly inherent. "BUT," the psycholinguists cry, "how did it begin? when did we evolve to develop this magnificent skill?" And that is when i laugh. Because if anyone were to look at the possibility that we didn't evolve, but perhaps knew these things from the beginning, there would be no confusion. Were they to accept that maybe we came from a Father who always spoke to us, and we to him, there wouldn't be any question at all. OF COURSE it's innate. And what's more, it's eternal. No one else in class brings up these points, though. And i wonder if there are a large number of us, silently laughing at all the head-scratching scientists.

And people think religion doesn't make sense.

In other news, can you decode these pictures? this was our in-class assignment today. we were given sentences and told to try and draw pictures of them. then we showed our pictures to other classmates and tried to figure out what they meant. very few of us succeeded. and yes, my artistic renderings may be terrible, but it's an intriguing point.

If you give up, the sentences are in the comments!