The hallway I’m firing down is very nearly 50 feet long and stiflingly close. I’m surrounded by an oppressive captivity urging my retreat backward into the unknown or a desperate charge into the arms of waiting foes and sinister plans; I can only hope that no enemies chose to occupy the room I’m running backwards into or this defensive strategy I’ve employed will be subject to an abrupt end.

My enemies are everywhere and constantly assaulting me with new and terrifying skill while executing malevolent strategies with a kind of global eagerness to annihilate and destroy. It’s a panicking reality that assaults my every sense and seizes every thought: it consumes me. The certainty that each passing moment will inevitably require more and more of me is almost enough to succumb to despair, reject all hope and plunge into reckless abandon. With madness so near and so constant it serves as a companion in many ways which, given a little trust, can be advantageous in considering countless choices. My sanity and I seem to be of two minds: he seems to think that he and I are able to manage just fine between us, whereas I am often compelled to embrace the friendship of our faithful companion and confront our oppressors with a constant, precise and maniacal purpose. This inner monologue is a pretty solid evidence of the questionable stability such considerations produce. I can feel their hate swimming around me, visceral and filthy. How can one hope to succeed with the stink of malevolence attacking me constantly, filling my lungs with each labored breath?

Noise in the room behind me: doom awaits. Two more jumps, two more shots fired down hall and savage instinct takes control; my mind is failing but death still isn’t an option. Must fight back. Moving backwards through the arterial opening into another blood filled chamber warns of danger with a sort of static dependability. Preternatural response compels a swift dodge along the angled wall right into the chamber and an about face as quickly as I am mechanically able. Safety and fortune follow once again like some divine guardian as spent ammunition echoes off the floor and earth rockets out of the new craters left where my legs were moments before. Moments: just what I needed.

Squeezing a trigger is an ever-magical moment: such power and judgment in such a simple gesture. I will a twitch reaction from a single finger and a sentence is issued from the mouth of the mighty lawgiver. “To be or not to be” is whispered in the silence of the wake left behind the rending scream of the bullet passing into my assailant. No words for the fallen, no time to spare. His death is a temporary triumph in the face of this stark reality: his end signals the birth of a new obstacle, a further challenge and another chance for my constant companions and I to live or die, one more time.

“Indeed all these are such that, the more carefully I focus my attention on them, the less possible it seems they could have arisen from myself alone. Thus, from what has been said, I must conclude that God necessarily exists” (Descartes 30)

To say that Nietzsche and Descartes are very different sorts of thinkers would be an understatement. The way Descartes writes, his mathematics and his overall aims are each important parts of what he contributes to academia and critical thought. Despite his contributions there is a great deal of value in questioning his work and seeing if it stands up to scrutiny. “Philosophy with a Hammer” as Nietzsche calls it, can teach us by using our questioning as a way to clear the air of doubt as to the strength of the argument we attack or, as the hammer will, destroy that which is criticized because it was too weak to withstand “the siege”. By explaining the general outlook of both Descartes and Nietzsche regarding some of their ontological and metaphysical views, I will be able to point out some of the similarities between the two and use that common ground to demonstrate how Nietzsche would be able to seriously upset the stability of Descartes arguments and provide valuable questions as to how the Cartesian Meditations on First Philosophy move from questioning all, to knowing of God’s existence as well as of his goodness. Descartes and Nietzsche would have disagreed on the necessary existence of the soul as well as of any god: using my Nietzschean hammer I will show how quickly the Cartesian idol is destroyed.

Rene Descartes beings his meditation in private comfort, in his night gown in front of a fire, solitarily questioning the very foundations of all his knowledge and belief. “At last I will apply myself earnestly and unreservedly to this general demolition of my opinions.” (Descartes 13) That we know to doubt all things as a result of the possibility of deception, our dreams and misjudgments, enables us at least to know that we think, thus that thought indicates our being. In so doing, one is able to note that the mind can be distinguished from material reality by virtue of the fact that one can only prove one’s thought but not one’s body exists. He uses this observation to provide a concept of the soul being “the mind” and separate from the body due to the uncertainty of material existence. Descartes details three axioms to guide the process of discovery: Something cannot come from nothing, nothing more perfect cannot come from something less perfect and the cause must share equal reality with the effect; accepting these truths enables further investigation as to the source of our thoughts. (Descartes 27)

Insofar as we conceive of perfection and infinity, one must also therefore have a source from which one derive these ideas. Since the finitude and imperfections of a consciousness that learns, and can recall a beginning as well as anticipate an end to its thinking, is apparent, one must necessarily eliminate self as the source of boundlessness or true wholeness. Elimination of the self requires that perfection and infinitude come from an external source and so indicates a being of infinite and perfect qualities. Perfect and infinite are shared qualities in that they represent one another, so it follows that the source of one must be the source of the other, additionally nothing unthinking could be perfect, so we may then conclude that our source is a thinking being. God, the thinking being and source of perfection and knowledge becomes clear to us and since nothing that is perfect could be evil, due to evil being inherently deceptive and harmful, God must also be good. (Descartes 35)

Descartes’ God, being the source of goodness, perfection, infinity and thought is therefore placed before the existence of one’s mind in the order of things and is responsible for all. It is this knowledge that enables one to form belief of material reality and more than perceived extensible substance. The existence of God enables us to establish foundations of truthful observation that we can move beyond reasonable doubt, assuming we are free from dreams and we overcome self deception with his help. This line of thought is a greatly simplified review of Descartes’ argument regarding existence and divinity, that both exist. These latter developments of the concepts surrounding God and material reality may be found in the 5th and 6th meditations. (Descartes 42)

“Out of life’s school of war: What does not destroy me makes me stronger.” (Nietzsche 467)

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote a good deal of highly provocative thought in a fairly short number of years. During his active years, he suffered daily discomfort and had many other personal obstacles to overcome which all contributed in the forming of his philosophy. His study of the classics and his experiences in philosophical thought lead him to question many conventionally held truths and deliberately disrupt the comforts of any who cleaved to conceptions that deserve to be tested for unsuitable foundations to support meaningful thought. Twilight of the Idols was a publication that began just after The Antichrist was completed late in his active life. The work summarizes some of his key themes throughout his life and exemplifies some of his more provocative thoughts.

“What? Is man merely a mistake of God’s? Or god merely a mistake of man’s?” (Nietzsche 467)
Nietzsche, through aphorism and prose, shares insight into his doubts, frustrations and curiosities. As with Descartes, Nietzsche employs his ability to question to enable him to throw the clarity of concepts we commonly hold to be true, out of focus. From the very beginning it can be seen that his process empowers doubt beyond that which Descartes was generally interested in. In the section titled “’Reason’ in Philosophy” at part two (Nietzsche 480) Heraclitus is mentioned as a way of alluding to his philosophical prominence in Nietzschean thought. A major way this philosopher affects major changes in mindset is the belief in nothing being static. “Being” indicates an ideal state of existence which is unchanging, whereas “becoming” is a way of viewing existence as a constantly changing and ceaselessly moving existence. This matter is important to the thoughts in Twilight of the Idols and other works by the way it emphasizes the flux and uncertainty of existence in general. Nietzsche is careful to point out his concern for humanity not to stagnate or accept subjective truths before understanding their probable relativity. That we exist at all seems simple enough to Nietzsche, but the purpose of existing and any certainty beyond that is in need of greater substance. The great beauty of living is of superior importance is a clear focus throughout his work and he shares it in Twilight in a few ways including his criticisms of the Greeks beginning with section 2 “The Problem of Socrates”(Nietzsche 473).  The human tendency to err doesn’t help anyone find truth, clearly and “The Four Great Errors” is a great example of how seriously Nietzsche takes our fallibility.
In all, existence as “becoming” and ever changing means that we should be similar and constantly critical of our comforts and thoughts. Furthermore, that we challenge that which we know to be true is important to our understanding and appreciation of the valuable things in life, thus “Philosophy with a hammer” is used to either destroy our false beliefs or sound off that which we question and find out how truly solid a thing was from the beginning. (Nietzsche 466) Herein we also see that the greater belief have a greater need for attack, so it follows: that which we depend on most is the least likely to stand unscathed with Nietzsche.

At the beginning with both philosophers in question here, it’s much easier to see where they are similar in their interest and approach. Both Nietzsche and Descartes wish to begin from some dependable fundamental theme or idea. Both embrace the idea that “mind” (for Descartes) and “the will” (for Nietzsche) are first truths and can be built upon. They each agree that to raze belief is needful for understanding anything beyond thought.  Together they approach their interests with study and carefully examine many perspectives, although using different methods, so as to best understand and communicate their insight.

The trouble also begins between them early on however. Three major points that Descartes relies on as strengths in his argument are that the mind and body are certainly separate, that we can ascertain truth and meaning, and thirdly that God exists and is a necessary part of existing. In order to progress through these points, Descartes relies heavily on language that communicates ideals such as “perfection” and “infinity” as well as requiring that we exist along with these ideals as beings representing and participating in a reality formed by these “forms”. Descartes needs us to “be” and for that to happen, the ideal that allows us to exist must also exist, namely God. Nietzsche begins believing that we, as humans, are exactly that source, that humanity in general is an ever changing thing and that the truth of any concept is questionable at best, so relying on language indicating certainty is unreliable.

When considering the Meditations on First Philosophy, one may begin by questioning the necessity of “being” rather than “becoming” as state in which we exist. The dynamic nature of becoming changes many things in the Cartesian argument. For instance: even disregarding the static unchangeable nature of “perfection” in the meditations, everything is part of a process which does not need permanence and therefore doesn’t need any god or even the continuance of humanity, so depending on either existing indefinitely is foolish. Why couldn’t God be “dead” at this point or at any point then?  Further, why couldn’t one simply change the definition of perfection to a dynamic concept more like “eternal progression”? If perfection is a process, there’s no reason we couldn’t be the authors of such an idea, nor do we need to be apart from it at all. In that way, we may indeed be the source of our perceived existence since we’re the originators and physical reality may simply be a symptom of eternal change. The language or concepts of existing are accompanied by Descartes’ assumption that the mind must be separate from the body because one can prove thought.  Why is the separation necessary? If one can assume them separate, couldn’t one assume them as one? Descartes actually fails to argue a great deal in the Meditations regarding the necessary separation but Nietzsche is a great critic of the soul. In one and section 3 of Twilight, one can find reasons for life and the will to be a sufficient source of “spirituality”.  If this life were to be the only one we live and the rest of the beliefs we have of what happens before or after were untrue, could this life be a wonderfully spiritual experience just in living it? Nietzsche thinks so and uses that reasoning to question the need for a separate soul.
So God, the soul and truth may indeed exist as Descartes would want us to believe and it may be that the nature of existence is a question of “being”… but it doesn’t seem that it needs to be. More than that, it is clear that by questioning the nature of existence as a static concept, by criticizing the reliability of language based on assumed truths and by carefully examining the necessity of life outside of the one being lived, the stability and certainty of God the soul and overall purpose are evident. Better to live in the present and appreciate life as though each day lived is one in the legacy of your living and those experiences may be all you ever have as well as all you leave behind. Appreciating the beauty of existence itself, after all, must also be praiseworthy by the supreme God anyways, right?

Bibliography

Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. Third. Indianapolis :
Hackett Publishing Company, 1993. Print.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Portable Nietszche. 1st. New York:
Penguin Books, 1976. Print.

I’ve recently discovered, through the use of my very own faculties, that I’m rather scatterbrained. Shocking, I know…

At any given time, I have intentions and/or ideas numbering in the dozens, each of which has a real potential and exciting future in my mind… and no where else evidently. I lack the power to consistently focus on any one facet of my thought, never mind trying to communicate it clearly in one place for more than a single sitting. This post is to get a couple of my more recent ideas written out a little before I trail off into… hey look at that shiny thing over there!

1.    Why does it seem like George Carlin had a lot to say on matters that suspiciously echo similar themes belonging to Friedrich Nietzsche?  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not presuming to know anything special or provocative, but honestly…  Carlin criticized religion, politics, language, right and wrong / good and evil, truth and lies, humanity and himself… all of which can be cited and if I ever get around to writing on it, I’ll do so thoroughly.  Nietzsche in his works “The Gay Science” and “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” alone covered each of the above topics listed. It’s merely an interest of my to explore the similarities and differences between the two and see if any key criticisms emerge from either regarding topics they share interests in.

2.    Why does J.K. Rowling get praised so liberally? I generally have a hard time accepting the notoriety she’s gained simply due to it having been given for secondary or tertiary matters of import. First of all, I’d wager it would be no difficult task to devalue the worth of the 2 dimensional and acutely targeted themes that are the most prominent in her work, It seems like it would be pretty easy to clearly demonstrate the lack of complexity in her writing overall from book 1 to book 7 and also a matter worthy of considering is her character archetypes. Let’s face it, they’ve all been generally portrayed elsewhere for many years in many other works at least as far as character traits and moral dilemmas are concerned. But I see other things that are worthy of praise that, at least to me, are deserving of observation but rarely get heard. To counterbalance the 3 negatives I gave, I’ll give 3 positives: The plot, although following the tried and true “Hero’s Story” to some degree, is very well done. It bares similarity to several other story arcs to be sure, but it is indeed rich and has powerful details the way she’s written it. Her aim (if indeed it was sincerely an aim she aspired to achieve) of targeting a younger simpler reading group with the first book and taking them on a journey that would grow in complexity until its zenith peaking their reading at a much higher level, is admirable and effective. Lastly and most meaningful to me is her use of philosophical themes. With any investigation and thoughtful reflection one can see the clear indications of influential philosophical thought. She presents questions of truth, Evil, Humanity, Beauty, Friendship, and others; simple sometimes complex others but nevertheless impressive and tenable to any reader attempting any real comprehension of the books at all. So, Mrs. Rowling deserves consideration certainly but I wonder if the credit paid isn’t ill given in the face of what may be more appropriate and helpful.

If nothing else, I’ll post more blurbs later… in the mean time, I’ll try not to be too distracted.

I’ve spent some time recently looking back on the path of experience I’ve left behind me. The life I’ve lived enables me to have the life I’m living, but a few facets of the past provide me with obstacles that I’m as yet unable to fully appreciate. The chief among these hang-ups is the profound distaste for my thought previous to any meaningful milestone in my intellectual pursuits. I understand that progress necessarily alters the things one perceives and generally broadens one’s perspective or sharpens it depending on what one does with the learning.

I’m certain that I should at least appreciate the person I was relative to the person I am, but I feel let down when looking back on the things I once “knew”, the “inspiration” that seems so vague and half-formed when revisited… even just the manner in which I expressed my ideas whenever I felt the urge to do so… as I will doubtless feel about this entry.  There just has to be more to get out of one’s past besides realizing what one’s learned was barely equal to a grain of sand plucked from amid the vast stretching shores blanketing this blue planet. It seems so plain that this view is one of many that nevertheless accurately represent the endless, measureless nature of thought relative to we thinkers with so little time to learn the truths of many ages in 40 years of real useful activity, and that if we’re lucky.

My only goal in expressing this now is to give myself an opportunity to explain that regardless of how justified I ever feel at any time when advocating any position… I will almost certainly grow to learn that what I once was so sure of, like a foundation of sand thought to be stone, will shift and change in ways that will often necessarily destroy what once was so, as to replace the former with a greater structure of knowledge with which to again attempt another quest to reach the limits of my understand so that I may push beyond it a little father, once more.

In a way I’m excusing my past thought but I’m assuredly not apologizing. I feel no regrets despite my descent; rather I merely wish to cultivate as much knowledge from those thoughts as can be, while summarily abandoning those former relics of “truth” as monuments of where I do not wish to return. So, if any of my “insights” cross the path of any who, for one reason or another, feel the need to look back into the things that formerly comprised my mind in words: remember that grain of sand has found a few more grains of company along the way which adds up more than one might think over time… it tends to change the bigger picture as one starts to realize just how many grains there may indeed be, yet unseen.

In life we have many opportunities to live and love, to create truly great relationships, to experience the most fulfilling and meaningful events of our lives through the moments enjoyed with those people we call friends.

I mean something very special when I speak of friends here. I don’t just mean that guy or girl you’re familiar and friendly with, who you might “know” from school or work.

I mean real friends: Individuals on whom you may depend and are dependable to; whom you may serve and be served by joyfully; whom you may share trust and confidence with; and certainly those special people whom you may do nothing or everything with any time any where and regardless of what follows will fill a place in your life that can never be the place of another.
Every day that I live, every passage I study, every joy that I treasure, every sorrow I endure… all of this teaches me what it means to simply have these relationships in my life and just how little I pay them the respect and appreciation they’re due, let alone acknowledge that I come closer to being the best man I can be due to the love and support of every person whom I feel this way about.
This has been said because of two things: 1. Recent events in my life leave me emotionally charges with feelings I can’t really quantify or control regarding the unquestioned faith and dedication of my true friends. 2. I never for a second forget what each of these people mean to me but I rarely venture to express my gratitude in any sizable way. I love these people with a love that I continue to grow and develop as I am taught by these great ones even more everlasting and awesome ways to shine beyond the borders of mere humanity and be real heroes, even if only to me.

For the purpose of not being a soppy idiot, I would just like to conclude by saying I love you all and in particular: you who are my brothers and sisters, you who my blood and heart belong to and who are my examples , you who know who you are and who I need not mention by name for you all to know the full meaning of this affection is yours especially. Lastly, to my most special friend: I hope you know that among the best people I know, there is an ever present vision of your smile woven throughout my sentiments and affections. I can speak on behalf of all whom I love as true friends with a surety in saying: your presence is one long awaited and desired and a place has already been set for you whenever we’re fortunate enough to receive you, mouse.

Good night all

I have every intention of publishing the material I prepared for both; classes and personal research throughout the year. I have failed to deliver the aforementioned material for excellent reasons I assure you, although I have more than a few reasons to assume that no one reads my blog un-coaxed at any rate. The foremost reason for my keystroke impairment has been primarily because of a visit from my dearest 4 year old friend. Such a thing demands and deserves every moment of my time and attention. The updates with certainly soon be coming, so if anyone out there feels like experiencing the pedantic adventures of Academic Man… hang tight.

In a response to a Muslim woman’s cry as she waits, poised for a fate that will likely end with her death in less than a month. http://bit.ly/2T2Hav

First of all, I begin with the a great respect for human life. Furthermore, I don’t believe that any previously established conventional law overrules a persons ultimate safety from death if they are innocent of the punishment. lastly, it is very rare that we can reasonably justify enforcing even the supposedly earned punishment of death for any given individual and I am unaware of any such judgment being fair or rational so that she should be counting down the days until she faces a serious threat to her continued living.

Either the circumstances are grossly unclear or this is a legitimate moral outrage and should at the very least be kept undecided until a logical claim to subject her to such a fate can be clearly established.

I read this article this morning: [LINK] I find such things meaningful because ultimately, I really appreciate the intention and course of action such messages urge it’s readers to attend to.

I fond myself at odds with these words until I questioned my reasons. It seems to me that the finer points of this article are, after all, secondary and not largely important if the overall message is to appreciate and share one’s most positive outward expression of good will. in the end, I DO appreciate the many definitions of love and personally subscribe to it being wonderful.

If anyone reading this finds conflict between the words and/or any other details regarding the article… just keep in mind; taken as a means to suit the end of having a world filled with that positive meaningful outward expression of affection and joy so often and simply called “love” …it’s a good place to begin if one wishes to add their voice.

Maybe it makes a difference…

I love you.

In order to present my thoughts in a cohesive fashion, I’ll begin by summarizing some of the key themes in Doris’ Lack of Character. He addresses a few major questions in each of the 8 chapters. Each section clearly addresses his argument at its parts and provides support or additional thoughts regarding Doris’ position. He uses psychological research relevant to his purpose and includes much of the more useful data as citations to offer his readers a great deal of clarity. This project and its claims were easily identifiable and rigorously attended to and I’ve appreciated the insight.

Beginning with a critique of modern ethical practices in both the philosophical and psychological fields, Doris promotes the importance of both fields working together to achieve a greater degree of clarity regarding the moral life. Using both disciplines, the project will evaluate a major divide in ethical thinking between “Character” and “Situational” theories.

claims and maintains that character is largely overblown and frankly inapplicable to moral decisions. Further, Doris sets out to show that despite human beings having possible ties to tendencies in moral behavior; ultimately we all make our decisions based on circumstances relative to each situation. To do this, Doris explores many well documented experiments in psychology, citing them to provide accessible examples supporting his claims and discussing several ethical theories centering around a more deterministic or naturally responsive theme.

Due to limited space, I’ll sum up some of the more key points that I identified with in his work. Doris paid close attention to the definitions and concepts surrounding situationism and what he refers to as “globalism” which implies character attribution. His explanation of character seems to portray the concept pretty well in terms of it being, more or less, Aristotelian at its beginnings and evolved some to incorporate generally consistent personality traits. Situationists tend to define a situation basically as one would commonly. By defining the arguments, he provided a really good foundation for using the examples he provided throughout his work in support of his claims.

Doris was also masterful at providing experiments that illustrated situational behavior. Early in chapter 3, Doris cites a study done using a dime. The design was to have subjects encounter the money just prior to experiencing a subtle moral dilemma and observe the results of the subjects’ reaction. As it turns out, the individuals who found the dime were more likely to be helpful. Using examples if this nature and others even more widely studied such as the Milgram experiments, Doris laid a fantastic foundation for situational moral decisions.

The majority of the book is guided to dismantle the exceptions inherent in such a strong situational claim. Later in the book however, beginning in chapter 6, Doris returns to more of a philosophical discussion involving the kinds of advantages we may gain in accepting the evidence supporting situationism as well as discussing the possible concerns regarding such an aggressive attack on character traits. He concedes, at least, that character is not necessarily absent; rather that it simply plays a much smaller role in our moral lives. He also concludes in support of some admirable traits and states that many “character” qualities are meaningful and of great value and should be thought of in that light.

My questions begin with the not fully understanding how Doris wants the experiments to be read. After reading a few critiques critiques of the book and discussing them, I’ve come to the conclusion that my ultimate concern and base for all of my smaller questions has to do with the weight given to the experiments cited and having their merit accepted as a requisite for proceeding to many of his conclusions.  I find myself questioning their validity in light of the fact that, although meaningful as empirical psychological data, doesn’t necessarily represent the breadth of moral implications asserted by Doris.

If psychology is indeed a science (and I do accept that) and these claims are in fact as definitive as they appear to be: At what point do we begin to assume that they’re based on a sure knowledge of the level of detail required to assert a solid moral indicative? It seems to me that psychology could be feasibly acknowledged as a young science and in so doing, questions the source of knowledge that these situations derive their design and basis. I mean to say, if we use a behavioral study based on findings of another behavioral study, based on two others and so forth… at what point do we question any one of those points not covering every angle of possible error that could have excluded something critical to the outcome of the experiment? Furthermore, how can we assume to have constructed an experiment ever, that could appropriate account for the kinds of people that would opt out of such an experiment, or the situations of each individuals lives that and sway trends so easily based on sheer chance?

Lastly, Doris cites Aristotle a number of times and occasionally other philosophers as well. His citations seem to portray examples of thought that I haven’t understood from my experiences from Aristotle and others. Specifically the observations made regarding the  work in “Nicomachean Ethics” seem to narrow Aristotle’s thoughts unfairly and thereby renders them inaccurate to a degree. I’m interested to discover to what degree Doris misrepresents the philosophers he cites and in what ways they may be inconsistent to the cited author’s original thoughts.

My doubts only hold water insofar as they pose valid questions as to the proposal of such claims that would aim to upset a notion as formally acknowledged as character. I do however believe that despite not buying the stability that Doris seems to think his work provides, I do find it very meaningful in providing avenues for further questioning along with some compelling evidences that may lead to great thoughts in the studies of moral philosophy and psychology.

Here’s some non-academic data for a change:

I spend all of my time invested in one fixation or another… I’m not sure, but I feel like talking (or typing if you prefer) about them a little.

First of all, I love the woman in my life more and more all the time. It’s fantastic to be able to share things with her still and be able to get so much support from her. It’s a delight to spend mornings and evenings in her company and I’m proud of what she’s achieved; I only hope to be able to provide her support as she progresses.

Second on my list: Every Saturday I still have the very great pleasure of spending time with my close mates and playing a bit of RPG. It’s so fun to just be a nerd and love it. We’ve been doing it for a while now and I know we all hope to continue on for as long as we can. Presently the DnD game is being run by someone other than myself (which is so nice) and the game is going really well. I really enjoy playing my paladin as well as contending with the DM over hair splitting rule functions and whatnot.

Third thing on my mind these days is Penny Arcade Expo! I know it’s not going to happen until early September… BUT I’M SO PUMPED! Got my event tickets, plane tickets, hotel reservations and have been working on a number of my friends to get on the bandwagon and attend too! Been involving myself on the Penny Arcade site as well as Twitter/Facebook and IRC. SO MUCH FUN!

Forth… you knew it was coming if you know me at all: GAMING!  I’ve been playing a ton of Team Fortress 2 and it’s more fun than ever. The new unlocks are super fun and my gaming mates have been joining me a great deal of the time which only compounds the good times naturally. Little bits of Call of Duty 4 and Guild Wars have been played as well as a few sessions of Left 4 Dead and Counter Strike: Source.

Lots of reading:  Read a few books by David Eddings, reread Rothfuss and presently revisiting Tolkien. I plan on reading 1942 soon and will be reading through some McCaffrey as well as Jaques insodoing furthering my intended perpetual growth in the reading of fictional literature. I’m intensely interested in reading Erikson as he has been repeatedly recommended by various fellow fantasy enthusiasts.

Film has had a bit of my time for its own, but not much. I’ve been so intent on my other pursuits that my film viewing has been minimized. Went to see Watchmen which was a blast and I’ve acquired quite a number of new DVDs over the last few months. Rounded out my Miyazaki collection and have obtained most of Kevin Smith’s films. Outside of all this however, there’s been almost no watching.

The remainder of my time has been spent involved in school and trying to secure meaningful employment. I’ve got plenty of University work and being unemployed means that my job search is somewhat urgent. It’s not as bad as it sounds, but It’s all be a bit hard, so I’ve been taking the time on the weekends that I’ve set aside to help maintain a bit of sanity.

I’m only mentioning all of this because I realized that I don’t really say many personal things all that often and it might be somewhat less than satisfactory and I don’t want that to be sure.  I’m only interested in sharing some of myself so that any who was curious, there it is. I hope everyone is doing well and I’ll come check back in again soon.