Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Labels: Not Just for Blogs Anymore.

In an effort to expedite the "getting-to-know-you" portion of making new friends, I like to make bullet points. Lazy? Yes. Effective? Totally. That is, until someone starts talking about how we should be above "-isms" and stop being such "-ists" all the time. Those words only divide us, or prevent us from expanding our minds...

That's foolish.

Those words exist because the human mind has an innate need to classify things; so we can gauge their relationships to one another. These words give guidelines and generalizations about us. They provide us with a way to say a lot in a very few words. I'd rather label myself now than have others label me later.

Problems with this system arise when labels aren't properly understood. Individual interpretations abound as people try to say that every term means one specific thing, instead of a group of guidelines. If used in conjunction, labels can form a sort of Venn diagram, placing something squarely in the overlap. That system works far better than repurposing and retooling every single "-ism" to mean exactly the perfect combination of things you think it should at any given moment.

Thus, what follows are a few of the labels I give myself. It is my hope to define these in future entries, as well as adding to the list as applicable. Below the list you'll find a link to an article on the subject of labels in modern society that I found extremely informative, and helped to shape this post.


  • Christian
  • Masculist
  • Traditionalist
  • Right's Advocate
  • Responsibility Advocate
  • Anachronist
  • Voluntaryist Panarchist
  • Linguistic Preservationist
  • Steampunk-Inspired Innovator
  • Gentleman Inventor
  • Autodidactic Polymath
  • Total Badass
  • Geek Supreme


=Further Reading=

Monday, September 28, 2009

Beginnings.

Aristotle lies.

That's not entirely accurate, and yet it is. Please understand that I am not out to deny the philological aesthetics of Aristotelian logic. It's quite a marvelous system, really. It's simply that I believe he made an erroneous statement.

“One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.”

I simply find this hard to believe. If I were to accept this Law of Non-Contradiction, I would cease to be. I am a man of conflicting beliefs that perfectly co-exist. I am a contradiction.

It is the goal of this weblog to prove, through my continued existence, that this is not an immutable law. Rather, it is a guideline to commonality, and I am simply one of the many exceptions.