31-08-2009, 06:12 AM
Interesting topic. I just terminated a Face Book account because it seemed fairly obvious -- having read what I've read -- that I didn't need a public profile there (or at Twitter either). And the whole online social thing at FaceBook seems mildly creepy, and shallow; I've never had any substantive interaction at FB, and I've never tweeted.
Both -- and similar things -- can be useful in some ways but I have reservations, limited time, presumably some focus, etc. (That's not a comment on those who choose to play there... ) But I personally would rather tend toward deeper engagement, greater personal investment in the relationship; soon I hope to do a piece on anomie, ma-ai, and disconnection. And then there is the quote from Thoreau about the year that they built a telegraph between Texas and Maine; this, he said, presumes Texas has something to say to Maine.
I just read a column by K. C. Cole in her book "Mind Over Matter: Conversations with the Cosmos" that asks the question "Are you a boson or a fermion?".
"Bosons don't know the meaning of enough"; they can clump together without limit. squeezing into the smallest space. There is always more room for bosons."
"Notoriously standoffish. fermions are loners; only one can occupy the same space at a time."
She in some sense equates bosons with love; the title of the piece is "Love and Bosons". I disagree with that equation; Thoreau and others who were loners had a love affair with nature and the world; there is more than one reference to the eros of wilderness. I suspect many of us can relate to that as a motivation for our interest in deep politics. But the last of her column says:
"The more we get to know particles and people, the more we learn about intricate past histories. hidden entanglements, unexpected complications. What seems understood and simple in one moment can change in an instant into something strange and complex. Love is like that. So are bosons."
We watch the security apparatchniks who watch us.
![[Image: huge.15.75246.JPG]](http://s3.images.com/huge.15.75246.JPG)
Both -- and similar things -- can be useful in some ways but I have reservations, limited time, presumably some focus, etc. (That's not a comment on those who choose to play there... ) But I personally would rather tend toward deeper engagement, greater personal investment in the relationship; soon I hope to do a piece on anomie, ma-ai, and disconnection. And then there is the quote from Thoreau about the year that they built a telegraph between Texas and Maine; this, he said, presumes Texas has something to say to Maine.
I just read a column by K. C. Cole in her book "Mind Over Matter: Conversations with the Cosmos" that asks the question "Are you a boson or a fermion?".
"Bosons don't know the meaning of enough"; they can clump together without limit. squeezing into the smallest space. There is always more room for bosons."
"Notoriously standoffish. fermions are loners; only one can occupy the same space at a time."
She in some sense equates bosons with love; the title of the piece is "Love and Bosons". I disagree with that equation; Thoreau and others who were loners had a love affair with nature and the world; there is more than one reference to the eros of wilderness. I suspect many of us can relate to that as a motivation for our interest in deep politics. But the last of her column says:
"The more we get to know particles and people, the more we learn about intricate past histories. hidden entanglements, unexpected complications. What seems understood and simple in one moment can change in an instant into something strange and complex. Love is like that. So are bosons."
We watch the security apparatchniks who watch us.
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"