"In einer Welt voller Rationalität ist kein Platz für Emotionen, also entscheide dich : Herz oder Kopf?"

Doch was ist ein Mensch ohne Verstand? Wozu führt das?
Und was ist ein Mensch ohne Herz?

Der Einklang von Rationalität und Liebe ist wie Öl und Wasser. Du kannst es mischen so lange du möchtest, es wird sich niemals vereinen, doch trennen lässt es sich auch nicht.

Do The First Five Minutes Right Away

Something I’ve noticed recently is that:

1) I get extremely ugh around tasks where I’m not sure what the actual first step is, and this is in fact most of my aversion to starting on things.  Finding the strategy to execute.

If I need to do research my aversion is to working out what sources to start with, not to doing the actual reading.

If I need to program something my aversion is not to doing the grunt work, not even to working out the overall architecture/plan, but to working out where to start on the overall architecture/plan.

If it is to writing it is to working out how much to write and where to start.

2) As soon as I’ve broken ground on it, done the first five minutes, the aversion is much diminished. The task is much more approachable and easier to make happen sooner.

As a result of this I’m wondering if an effective getting-things-done technique for me might be:

Whenever there’s a thing I intend to research later, or task I’m about to note down to do later, do the first five minutes of research or work immediately, unless I absolutely cannot for some reason (e.g. I’m laying in bed, or I need to go to work in less than five minutes, or it is impossible to stop five minutes in without damaging/breaking something). Find the strategy to execute to make it happen right away, and only defer the rest of the actual execution to later, to prevent it developing an ugh field in the first place.

I’ll give trying to hold this as a principle a try for a while, and see how it goes.

If anyone else notices similar symptoms they might find this at least an interesting idea.

rationals' dilemma
  • what she says: i'm fine
  • what she really means: i, a rational, have issues expressing emotion, although i do truly feel deeply inside. it is a common misconception amongst many that i know that i don't have feelings. it's only that i don't as freely express my emotions as others do. this does not mean that i do not have feelings. THIS DOES NOT MEAN I DO NOT HAVE FEELINGS.
Kill them with kindness
  • INTJ: how do you manage to always be nice to everyone? don't you ever just wanna punch everyone in the face?
  • INTP: oh, yes, constantly. but then i remember that appearing as someone who's cute, adorable and always kind to everyone arouses protective instincts in your acquaintances, and hence those who behave rudely towards you and hurt your feelings are perceived by everyone else as utter jerks, and get disliked by most. also, the more you are nice to people, the more they will feel bad for mistreating you. y'know, it's a win-win situation. you get to have your revenge on those who hurt you without having to do anything morally wrong.
  • INFP: oh my god, INTP, is that really how you see being nice to others?
  • INTP: INFP, whether you're aware of it or not, this is a fact that can not be ignored. besides, i'm not saying that i am only nice to others for this reason, i do like the idea of brightening other people's days with my kind behavior, but i can't deny that the idea of getting revenge like this kind of delights me.
  • INTJ: can you believe i'd never thought of that? damnit, INTP, i can't believe that i'm saying this, but you actually are pretty smart.
  • INTP: thanks bud, i know i am
  • INFP: i can't believe you two

“A Leap to the Subconsciousness” (SOLD)| 

“Learning from within” hold all your experiences connected to make your intuitive mind more powerful. It’s a sudden rise of the soul that is not understandable for a rational mind and not connected to the heart…


Edward Nygma + ‘The Point’     |      (2x07 / 3x14)

There is a small, obscure island in the Arabian Sea that is home to two notable endemic species: the aži, or Persian dragon, and the rabbit-like mi'raj, a somewhat primitive cousin to unicorns. Mainland Persian dragons and another larger, lighter colored subspecies were once found across South Asia, and for a time were thought to be extinct west of Vietnam until a population was rediscovered on Jazirat-al-Tinnen, literally the “dragon’s island”. Unique among eastern dragons for its relatively small, round tail and its eagerness to climb trees, it is still a fairly accomplished swimmer and is known to ambush prey from the water.
According to legend, Alexander the Great visited this island to slay a local dragon that was terrorizing the natives, who accomplished this by poisoning the beast. One of the gifts he received for slaying the dragon was a captured mi'raj, which may arguably have been a more fearsome creature than the dragon, for it is extremely aggressive when it has young to protect and will drive off creatures many times its size with its single, very sharp horn.
It is believed that dragons swam to the island from India no more than a few thousand years ago, for they still bear striking resemblance to their extinct mainland cousins. Animals of the same genus as the mi'raj (cornuceleres), however, have not been seen on earth since the late Miocene.

How to Break up Like a Philosopher

Teleologist: We aren’t meant for each other.
Deontologist: We aren’t right for each other.
Solipsist: It’s not you, it’s me.
Empiricist: I think we should see other people.
Rationalist: I’ve been doing some thinking…
Continentalist: You’ve lost that love and feeling.
Egalitarian: This is the best thing for both of us.
Functionalist: I don’t care about accommodating your feelings.
Quinean: I’m sorry, but you don’t mean anything to me anymore.
Foundationalist: We have nothing left to build upon.
Relativist: It’s no one’s fault.
Atheist: These things just happen.
Kantian: You lied to me!
Consequentialist: You should have lied to my mother about her pot roast!
Anti-Fictionalist: I’m sick of faking it.
Cartesian: I don’t clearly and distinctly perceive a future together.
Hegelian: Do we have to go through this again?
Lockean: Our primary qualities simply aren’t compatible.
Behaviorist: I just can’t keep going through the motions anymore.
Presentist: There just isn’t any future for us.
Eternalist: At least we’ll always have that weekend in Paris.

At this point it’s been pretty conclusively established that the ocean is weird, but one of weirder marine phenomena I’ve encountered is the sea monk or sea bishop, an animal that was sighted of the coast of Poland in 1531, washed up on Danish shores in the late 1540s and went the 16th century equivalent of viral.*

*This of course had nothing whatsoever to do with the Protestant Reformation or Henry the Eighth declaring himself head of the Church of England.  Scientific interest only.

Pretty much every major work on fish in the next 100 years included one:

Guillaume Rondelet (1554) [“human features, but with a coarse and rude outline […] the head was shaved and smooth; the shoulders were covered by a cape.”]

Pierre Belon (1551)

Conrad Gesner (1558)

Richard Breton (1562) [Breton was a Protestant, which may explain the increased levels of eldritch]

Caspar Schott (1662)

Johann Zahn (1696)

And a late entry: this abomination from Robert Chamber’s The Book of Days (1869)

Explanations for these include most of the usual contenders: monk seals, grey seals, hooded seals, walruses, angel sharks, deliberate fraud of the Jenny Haniver variety,  Steenstrup’s ever popular ‘squid doing victory arms’.