#appetition

Raekwon & # 39; The Appetition & # 39; EP Stream, arte de portada y lista de canciones

[ad_1]

suscribir

Suscríbase al boletín de DX

Obtén las historias más importantes de Hip Hop directamente a tu bandeja de entrada

¡Gracias! ¡Gracias! ¡Gracias! Eres muy amable

Para completar el proceso de suscripción, por favor haga clic en el enlace en el correo electrónico que le acabamos de enviar.

Únete al boletín

[ad_2]

Day Eighty-two: On appetition.

Observations: Switching to standard lined paper, rather than the kindergarten-style guided paper, feels good.  There is definitely some sloppiness from not having a top or center line; however, the letters feel less alien to form when it is left to my brain to decide what proportions I desire.   My left hand may still be unfamiliar with the process of mark making, but years of writing on lined paper have definitely trained my brain to understand whatever mental calculations are needed to tell my hand how to make it look correct. 

Unfortunately, the lovely blue pens that I like to use have always bled into the paper to a significant degree.  Now that I have to write at a smaller scale, I've switched to a thin micron that was hiding in my Pens The Are Useless For What I Like Doing drawer. 

Yes.  I really do have this drawer.  It's divided between drawing and writing pens.  I get snippy when it's jostled and the two sides mix.

Crap.  Now I need to make a divider.

Explanation: I came across this word back when I was using the Wikipedia entries on volition and motivation.  It was saved with the intention of continuing the trend, but I was starting to burn out and switched back to short clips.

This is the whole of appetition's entry, and the word itself is one of those that has gone so far out of use that standard spell-check software gets all angry and squiggly at the sight of it.  This alone makes me want to hug the word and play scrabble, if only for the chance to use it. 

Looking back at the volition entry, I can see why it's been swept under the rug.  The need to specify--to divide motivation from volition, for example--already suffers a great deal of overlap, and thus creates confusion.  This confusion was my exact reason for being fascinated by the entries in the first place: the need to break down and define despite the gut understanding of a thing is an interesting dichotomy.  It seems to me that wisdom must stem from an ability to trust ones gut in all matters, but still be able to break that feeling down and analyze it at whatever point analysis become safe and/or necessary. 

I'm also fascinated by this quote regarding Aristotle's division of desires.  I would have expected a greater degree of scorn for the irrational and an elevation of the rational.  This, however, suggests the idea that anything rational is, by nature, so very artificial in construction that such desires can only arise from what one has been taught by an outside source.  By elimination, that says that everything we come to desire though our own through process must be irrational.  Given the rational-good/irrational-bad bias that I've already stated, this reads to me like and exultation of authority and derision regarding the personal viewpoint. Only, this feels counteracted by the language used to describe the rational, which I read as rather negative in nature.

However, trying to look beyond this bias and simply defining "rational" as a process of reason--aka thinking through things-- it takes on a different flavor.  Our bodies know themselves, even when we do not.  We don't have to break anything down in order to understand drives such as hunger, fear, or arousal.  We do not generally have to think to know what we want; though often we do to know why we want it. 

But we don't often know other people, and when we do, it's after a good deal of effort.  So cohesive rationale such as systems of law and religion, or common languages, act as webs that help us tie ourselves to other people with less effort.  We learn to think in similar ways, partially, by inducing similar desires in a set of people.  In doing so, we simulate the innate (irrational or thought-independent) understanding of our own drives by creating a method of making generally accurate assumptions (rational or reasoned-through) about other people.

And this whole breakdown either falls apart, or is strengthened by the concept of automatic empathic accuracy: a case of knowing, without analysis, exactly what another is feeling.  Though, off the top of my head, I can't think of many moments in which I've had such a case occur with a stranger, unless that stranger had remarkable similarities to previous close acquaintances.  Though, such cases, across the friendship board, have become far more common as I've gotten older and gained greater experience with a wider variety of people.  So, perhaps, the earlier breakdown has more to do with building a foundation for understanding.