#bc conditional verbs or whatever | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bombardthehq · 3 years

Text

Convention and Meaning: Derrida and Austin Jonathan Culler, 2008 / read July 20

for Saussure things got their meaning by differnetation, contrasts

but this cant give a complete account: if you say 'Could you lift that box?' it might be a request, an abstract question of capability, or a rhetorical question about how hopelessly heavy it is

so where does it get the meaning?

we risk going back to saying that the meaning resides in the consciousness of the speaker

but a structuralist would ask: what makes it possible for them to mean these several things at once?

so we account for the meaning of 'utterances', different from sentences, by analyzing a different system: that of Speech Acts

so Austin is thus repeating Saussure's move: describing the system that makes 'signifying events' (parole) possible

Austin wont let us locate meaning in the speaker's mind - there isnt an 'inner act of meaning' which goes on when you mean something

it gets its meaning through certain conventions -- if I say 'I promise to return this to you', indicating an item I will borrow, you understand that I am making a promise, but when I just wrote it you understood that this is not a promise bc it lacks the context

so Austin offers a structural explanation of meaning which avoids 'logocentric premesis' -- but in his discussion of it he reintroduces the problems he just overcomes. This is what Derrida tries to deal with in Signature, Event, Context

in How To Do Things With Words, Austun wants to get over some narrow views of language his milieu had; to have a theory adequate to statements which had been discarded as meaningless or 'psuedo-statements' for not fitting their critera [which were: either a description, or a statement of fact - and could be either true or false]

he distinguishes two types: constitutive statments (descriptions of statements of fact), and performative statements (which enact what they say)

there is a surprising conclusion here: if I say, 'I affirm that the cat is on the matt', I'm performing my affirmation. But a crucial aspect of performatives is that they can have the explicitly performative part removed: 'I will pay you tomorrow' is still a promise. But removing the 'I affirm...' gives us, 'the cat is on the mat' - I still affirm it, performatively - but the statement I make is also an emblematic constitutive statement

Culler notes that Austin's argument here is a 'splendid' instance of the deconstructionist 'supplementarism' here, in its inversion of the old formula: what had been seen as merely secondary or inessential becomes the most primary -- rather than performatives being secondary to constitutives, the constitutives are a special case of the performative

"The conclusion that a constative is a performative from which one of various performative verbs has been deleted has since been adopted by numerous linguists." [how used is this in linguistics?]

this allows us to solve the problem of a single statement having multiple meanings: its actually a performative statment from which the performative has been deleted. 'I ask you to lift the box', 'I inquire if you could lift the box', 'I despair at the box's weight'

Austin doesnt argue this and would be skeptical of it; he argues that illocuctionary force (meaning) does not necessarily derive from grammatical structure

he instead proposes a distinction between locutionary and illocuntionary acts

so when I say 'the chair is broken' I perform the 'locutionary' act of making an utterance, and the 'illocutionary' act of 'stating, warning, complaining...', whatever performance

linguistics accounts for the meaning of the locutionary act; speech act theory accunts for the meaning (or 'illocutionary force') of an utterance

explaining illocutionary force means explaining the conventions that make it possible

we might find out what these conventions are by looking at how these performatives can go wrong, might not actually enact the promised performance [I think eg. a bigamous marriage would prevent the 'I pronounce you man and wife' from really marrying the couple]

so Austin doesnt treat failure as something alterior to performatives, accidental, not part of how they really work, but an integral part of them - performances can go wrong -- something cannot BE a performative unless it CAN go wrong [continental philosophers like him for this reason: he really grasps the 'negative' (Culler puts it in these terms later)]

this accords with semiotics: a statement couldn't signify if it couldnt be said falsely

Austin argues that performing acts - like marrying or betting - must be described as something like 'saying certain words' rather than performing some inward action which the words reflect

...enter Derrida

Derrida argues that despite saying this, Austin reintroduces this inward action as the force of the performance

Austin, worrying about jokes etc., perhaps because it would involve a description of an inward act of meaning, says that only 'serious' speech acts can be analyzed, but doesnt argue for it. He actually puts 'serious' in scare quotes, as if the argument itself was a joke [Deconstructionists love that stuff...]

so after remarking that philosophers wrongly excluded utterances which werent true or false, he excludes utterances which aren't serious. Instead of arguing for it as a 'rigorous move within philosophy', its a customary exclusion 'on which philosophy relies'

later on he describes these 'unserious' uses as 'parasitic on' the normal use; so Austin introduces a new constitutive & supplementary distinction, after getting away from one

Searle defended this to Derrida saying that we ought not *start* our investigation by considering these parasitic discourses [we feel, and have perhaps been primed to feel by Culler, that this misses the point that Austin makes his intervention by uncovering the way these 'supplementary' excess cases are core to the working logic of speech acts, and this might be another such case - although we might not feel it to be necessarily the case that *all* supplementary things are likewise constitutive, although perhaps Derrida 1. argues that *this* supplement is constituive, but also 2. that all supplements are constitutve of what they are supplemental to, as a matter of a thing being a thing, elsewhere]

actually Derrida's case is moreso that setting aside these uses as secondary from the beginning is begging the question; the theory has to be able to account for them -- Austin deals with an 'ideal language' here, not the one really used (which includes uses by actors on a stage, in jokes... Derrida here appears as an ordinary language philosopher!)

So Searle argues that its parasitic because its not possible for an actor to make a promise in a play if we didnt make promises in real life; but Culler says, why see it this way around? Perhaps it is only possible to make a promise in real life if it could be made in a play. For Austin, an utterance is only possible because there are formuals and procedures that we can follow to do so - so for me to do it irl, there have to be iterable procedures that could be acted out...

so Derrida asks: could my performance succeed if it didn't conform to an iterable model? -- for it to succeed there needs to be a model, a representation, and the actors representation of it is just such a thing

~footnote: some commentary on Searle's disagreement... he brings up a use/mention distinction - performatives use utterances, while actors just mention them. Derrida argues that this distinction requires us to go back to making use of intentionality & the inner act that meaning depends on, what we were trying to get away from: if I mention something instead of use it, it can only be because I intend to mention it...

Culler gives an example that is very ambiguous w/r/t use/mention - "His colleagues have said his work was 'boring' and 'pointless' " -- have I merely mentioned the words boring and pointless (since I'm just quoting others who have said it) or have I used them (since I do imply that his work is really boring and pointless)? To tell you would have to decide which one I intended to express.~

so, to repeat Austin's move on the core/marginal distinction that Austin reintroduces: the so-called serious performance is actually a special case of the parasitic - its an instance or reenactment of this iterable representation

so imitation is a condition of possibility of signification

eg., for there to be a recognizable original 'Hemmingway style', there must be some style which can be imitated, repeated, etc. [This seems very convincing to me]

so, the performative is from the outset structured by this possibility for iterability, citation, performance-of...

the reason that Austin reintroduces this flawed core/supplementary model is to solve a problem for speech act theory:

if you explicate all the conditions that make a particular performative possible (which is the goal of speech act theory), say-- 'I pronounce you married' is perforative only if there is a marriage license, a licensed officiary, etc. - one can *always* imagine a further scenario that would cause the performative to fail (say, they're all actors in a play...)

Austin tries to resolve this by ruling out instances where the speaker is 'not serious' - but this requires us to appeal to the intentions, etc...

so to make performatives and 'performance' coextensive is to maintain a version of the theory that can really discard intention etc., but at the cost of being unable to explicate the conditions of possibility of a given performative - because it gets its meaning only via context, and the number of contexts is infinite

... [skipping a nice section that we dont really need to note]

for Austin, a signature is the equivalent in writing of a performative utterance, 'I hereby...'

on this idea, Derrida ends Signature, Event, Context, by writing his name twice, and indicating one is a counterfeit of the other. The joke being: is this counterfit, citational second signature not a signature, because he wasnt being serious? or does it function as a signature, because a signature is signing your name?

the other implication: which of the two signatures is the 'real' one? you cant tell in writing -- 'the effects of the signature depend on iterability'

so contrary to Austin, who holds that the signature is an indication of some inner intention (assent to an agreement, etc), the signature can only funtion if it is repeatable, iterable... "The condition of possibility of [its] effects is simaultaneously ... its condition of impossibility, or the impossibility of their rigorous function." [ie. to be possible, it must also be imitable, repeatable... theres a bit of what 'difference & repetition' is engaging w/ here --

interesting to comapre w/ Deleuze here - for Derrida, something has to be repeatable in order to be at all because its just a repeatable expression of conditions of possibility. This means its negative is prefactored into its conditions of possibility -- the price of having a signature is that the signature can be counterfeited.

Deleuze is somewhat allergic to 'conditions of possibility', and also wants to find a system where the negative doesn't exist. I'm not sure how he might argue w/ Derrida here. Perhaps he would feel that it is the difference between each signature which makes it repeatable... but that doesnt really make sense to me & is probably an overly literal reading. It's possible the two only disagree in terminology here - what Derrida would call the negative is just another form of difference for Deleuze. I'm not sure.]

Culler talks about how signatures can be made without the signatory's presence, in the case of machines signing checks automatically, so that wages are paid without being physically cashed in

he identifies 'logocentrism' as seeing these sorts of things as secondary to or parasitic on direct speech where the speaker's intentions are carried out

really, such cases could not occur if they didnt belong to the structure of the signing (etc.) already

so Derrida says that intention will not disappear from a good analysis, but it will no longer govern the entire 'system of utterance'... so while I intend to mean something and thats why I speak, the act of speaking itself introduces a gap between my intention and my words. My attention is the reason I structure things the way I do, why I make use of certain conventions, etc., but my intention is not accessible in the words I use (just as we might say, if I make a necklace, my intention for the necklace to be a gift for my niece is not a property of the necklace itself; the meaning/illocutionary force of a speech act is the necklace here - a speech act is given its meaning by the conventions it uses to generate a meaning, and I employ those conventions to try and say what I intend to say)

Culler introduces the unconscious here - often we say things and do things for reasons we are unconcious of, so intention is even a little more deflated. My reasons for saying something are not entirely conscious intentions which are transparent and accessible to reflection, but a 'structuring intentionality' that includes implications that never "entered my mind"

"Intentions are not a delimited content but open sets of discursive possibilities-what one will say in response to questions about an act." [nice idea]

"The example of the signature thus presents us with the same structure we encountered in the case of other speech acts: (1) the dependence of meaning on conventional and contextual factors, but (2) the impossibility of exhausting contextual possibilities so as to specify the limits of illocutionary force, and thus (3) the impossibility of controlling effects of signification or the force of discourse by a theory, whether it appeal to intentions of subjects or to codes and contexts." [a summary of the whole argument]

what this means is that meaning can never be *exhaustively* determined, but we are still left with tools to examine speech acts and how they work, etc.

Culler gives a nice defense that meaning being indeterminable (or not precisely, finally, exhaustively determinable) does not mean that no analysis can or should be done by comparing it with Godel's incompleteness theorem in mathematics: "the impossibility of constructing a theoretical system within which all true statements of number theory are theorems does not lead mathematicians to abandon their work"

3 notes · View notes

flowersforthemachines · 5 years

Text

Sekiro Case Study: Kanji Part 3 - Status abnormalities

Now this, ladies and gentlemen, is a kanji study. I could find very little general trivia on the subject, but it is what it is.

As always, if you find any mistakes in the post, point them out in the replies or DM me.

I'm having my last exam tomorrow, and after that I'm fully free to commit myself to this kanji study. For the next post, I'll try to take a look at the sugars from senpou temple and their spiritfall counterparts.

No pictures this time, cos it all got a little messy.

0.0 General Kanji

There is one kanji that always appears whenever a player uses a healing item for status abnormalities. It’s 耐 which means “to endure”.癒 appears when using items specifically curing status abnormalities (e.g. Antidote Powder), and as I mentioned in the previous post, it means healing wounds causes by the forces of nature.

1. 炎上　Fire (enshou)

Fire-wise, 炎上 means “bursting in flames”, especially in relation to fires in big buildings. This meaning has mostly become obsolete nowadays. While the word used to be pronounced えんしょう (enshou), the word in its current meaning (”attracting a lot of criticism on the internet”) now sounds like えんじょう (enjou). 1.1 Dousing Powder\Shogunate Dousing Power 火消し粉\ 赤備えの火消し粉　(hikeshiko\akazonae no hikeshiko) 火 means “fire”, 消し comes from the verb 消す “to extinguish”, “to put out”, and 粉　is “powder” or “dust”. While the English name of the upgraded item reads “Ministry dowsing powder”, Japanese 「赤備え」 translates to “red troops”. 1.2 Withered Red Gourd 赤枯れの曲がり瓢箪 (akagare no magarihyoutan) 赤 is “red”, while 枯れる　means “to dry” or “to whither”. It’s a little bit tougher with 曲がり　here, but I think it’s just a form of the verb 曲がる meaning “to bend”, “to curve” etc. So the elemental gourds are all curved, which is referenced in their description. I understand why they left it out, though, the name would probably look overloaded otherwise. Now, about the item description… There’s a sentence in the original that didn’t make it to the final game at all, 「この瓢箪は、焦土より芽を出し、曲がり育つ」which means something like, ”This gourd’s curved form has come to be through sprouts that rose from scorched earth.” This item is sold by Pot Noble Harunaga who’s hanging out next to an estate on fire, which explains a lot. (nitpicking incoming) Another point is a little bit weird on its own. All the gourds share the following phrases in the description,「薬水の入った、△ 瓢箪。休息することで、瓢箪の薬水は再び満たされる。「 ※ 」の蓄積を減らし、その耐性を高めるまた、 ※ によるダメージを軽減するただし、 ※ 状態の治癒はできない」Now, in the rest of the Gourds it’s “ A curved, X gourd filled with medicinal water. Refills upon rest. While it does not heal “Y” status it reduces Y buildup, and increases Y resistance.” Red Gourd’s description, while still translated correctly, is different, and it’s rather odd. The description reads, “A curved, withered red gourd filled with medicinal water. The gourd’s medicine refills upon rest. Reduces Burn buildup, and slightly increases Burn resistance. It cannot heal the Burn status abnormality, however.” It’s nothing much, but I couldn’t help mentioning it. 2. 中毒　Poison (chuudoku) 中毒　means poisoning. The poison, ahem, component is represented by 毒. Now, although 中 generally means “inside”, in this particular word it takes the meaning similar to the verb 当たる (あたる）-　”to be hit”, "to strike" so technically this word means “be stricken by posion”. 2.1 Antidote Powder 毒消し粉 (dokukeshiko)A little nitpick is that where the original mentions Posion Pools next to the Sunken Valley region, the translation just calls the place “dangerously toxic”. Probably lack of context on translator’s part. I sometimes think about conditions in which most game translators have to work and get sad. 2.2 Contact Medicine　中り薬　(atarigusuri) The verb 当たる　I mentioned above can also be written as 中る, like in this item’s name. 当たる　is the more neutral verb -　it can also be used in expressions such 日の当たる部屋 (sunlit room) in addition to its original meaning, while 中る　always implies receiving some kind of damage. Last point notwithstanding, I think it just takes the 中　from 中毒, bc ya kno, this thing is poisonous. 2.3 Green Mossy Gourd 緑苔の曲がり瓢箪 (ryokutai no magarihyoutan) 緑 is “green”, and if you guess what 苔 is, you get a candy. (it means “moss”)

3. 打雷　Shock (darai)

Each time I have to look for definitions of words that aren’t even present in Japanese vocabularies, my heart skips a beat. Thank you, Dark Souls Sekiro. In Chinese, this word means “to thunder”. The word consists of 打 meaning “strike” and 雷, meaning “lightning”. 3.1 Eel liver うな胆 (unakimo)While its English description reads, “ A miraculous drug capable of banishing lightning, offered at the Ashina Clan altar.” the 「葦名衆が神棚に供える」in the original text makes me prone to think that it’s not “offered at the Ashina Clan altar”, but simply an offering people of Ashina make, not at any specific altar. Now, the rest of the description. Bear with me, we’re in for a little pun! 「雷とは、源の神鳴りだ」 looks like a (more or less) ordinary sentence, but actually… 雷　(かみなり, kaminari, lightning\thunder) originates from the word 神鳴り! (which also reads kaminari) 神　is “god”, and the general meaning of 鳴る can be summed up as “to make a noise”. So, Japanese people of old thought that thunderstorms and lightning were screams\roars\whatever you like to call it\ of the gods. As for the meaning of the sentence, 源　is "fountainhead", same as in “Fountainhead Palace”, so I can suppose that rough translation of the sentence is, “Lightning is the roar of the god(s) of the Fountainhead Palace.” unsolicited etymology trivia: かみなり came into use at some point in Middle Ages, and before that, lightning was generally written as なるかみ　(鳴神, literally "screaming\roaring gods"）or いかずち (雷).

4.怖気　 Terror (ojike\ozoke)

The first kanji is “dreaful”, the second one is a little bit more ambiguous - it has a variety of meanings, and it’s tough to determine which one exactly is used here, but it’s most likely “feeling”, “mood” and other stuff like that. (for fellow kanji-lowers) Check it out, a word that uses け on-yomi for 気! Isn’t it beautiful? 4.1 Pacifying Agent 怖気消し (ojikekeshi\ozokekeshi)Nothing on this one. 4.2 Mottled Purple Gourd まだら紫の曲がり瓢箪 (madaramurasaki no magarihyoutan) まだら　here means “speckles” or “mottles”, 紫　is “purple”.

5. 禁薬　Owl’s bomb (kin’yaku)

Don’t you love how straightforward these kanji are? Well, I do. 禁　is “forbid” from words like 禁煙　or 禁止, and 薬　means medicine. Since Owl’s bomb literally prevents players from healing, it’s all understandable.

6. 年寄　Enfeeblement (toshiyori)

The verb 年寄る (としよる, toshiyoru) means “to grow old”. I couldn’t find any references on the difference between 年寄る and other verbs with similar meanings (老いる、年取る　etc.) - this and some other points make me think that the word isn’t widely used in modern Japanese, if at all. A thing to note is that 年寄り as a noun means “an elderly person”, but it’s more likely that the in-game word is just a form of the verb 年寄る。

7.若返　Enfeeblement relieved (wakagaeri)

若返り　means “restoration of youth” or “rejuvenation”, where 若　is “youth” and 返る　is “to return”. That's about it.

Thank you to whoever has managed to read this post through to the end. Hope you liked it!

#sekiro #sekiro shadows die twice #sekiro case study #i cant believe im halfway through with these posts #what will i do after i am done #what kind of person do i become...#also that last exam #totally bogus #wish me luck

10 notes · View notes

aletheiawriting · 6 years

Note

When am I supposed to use the subjunctive in Spanish???? - A struggle

I meant that like specifically with writing btw - many have tried to explain it to me and I don’t even bother when speaking anymore tbh but I hate writing bc then i know there’s somewhere in there deserves subjunctive

—

Hey!!

Basically I feel like the indicative is used mostly for, like, objective facts, and the subjunctive is mostly used for things like hypothetical scenarios, doubt, hopes and wishes, some conditional sentences…

That’s not really enough of an explanation, of course. There are SO many situations it could be used for; some of them are under the read more.

Expressing doubt, for example:

No creo que a ella le gusten esas cosas = I don’t think she likes that stuff.

Dudo que hayan hablado de eso = I doubt they have talked about that.

Quizá/tal vez él sepa la respuesta = Maybe he knows the answer. But don’t worry about sentences with “maybe”, because you don’t have to use the subjunctive here. You can say the same thing just fine using the indicative, like: Quizá/tal vez él sabe la respuesta.

Wishes/hopes/expectations, whatever:

I hope it rains tomorrow = Espero que llueva mañana.

I hope she arrives in time = Espero que (ella) llegue a tiempo.

I hope she arrived in time = Espero que (ella) llegara/llegase a tiempo.

You can also express wishes this way: Que te vaya bien en el examen = May you do well on your exam. Except the English translation sounds like, super formal to me. The original sentence is not really formal, just… weird to translate? This particular construction is usually only paired with the present subjunctive, because it’s mostly used to express something you wish will happen in the future, and the present subjunctive is the tense you use to talk about the future when you have to use the subjunctive.

The word “ojalá”:

I hope the exam isn’t very difficult = Ojalá (que) el examen no sea muy difícil.

I hope he/she liked my gift = Ojalá (que) le gustase/gustara mi regalo.

“Ojalá”, which translates to “I wish”/“I hope”, is a good way of identifying the subjunctive! If you can use it before a verb, that verb tense belongs to the subjunctive and, yeah, if you can’t, it doesn’t.

Which means you can say “ojalá ellos vengan” I hope they come but you can’t say “ojalá ellos vienen”, even though in English you use the present tense for both cases.

I think in most sentences that go like verb + “que” + another verb, the second verb is in the subjunctive, or at least it can be.

All the previous examples are examples of this, except for the sentences with ojalá (because you don’t have to use “que” after “ojalá”) and the sentences with quizá/tal vez (because you never ever use “que” after “quizá/tal vez”). But I’ll give you more anyway:

Necesito más amigos que hablen inglés = I need more friends who speak English.

Quiero que me hagas un favor = I want you to do me a favour.

Siempre me pides que haga cosas por ti = You always ask me to do things for you.

Me alegro de que hayas terminado el libro = I’m glad you have finished the book. (In this case it’s “de que” not just “que” on its own, but the subjunctive is always used after “de que” too, or at least I’m pretty sure it is).

Te lo advierto para que tengas cuidado = I’m warning you so you take care. (Again, this is “para que” not just “que”, but the same thing applies)

No me iré hasta que me digas la verdad = I won’t leave until you tell me the truth. (This is “hasta que”, not just… You know the drill)

Compra la camisa que te guste más = Buy the shirt you like the most.

An example of an exception to this would be:

Es verdad que yo lo asesiné = It’s true that I murdered him (I’m running out of normal sentences to use as examples I’m sorry) and other sentences in which you’re talking about an objective truth. Like I mentioned at the beginning of the post, that’s more like, what the indicative is for.

Other examples that don’t include “que”:

Te llamaré cuando tenga tiempo = I’ll call you when I have time.

Te habría dicho la verdad si me hubieras/hubieses escuchado = I would have told you the truth if you had listened to me.

Not all, but many conditional sentences use the subjunctive! An example of one that doesn’t is: Te ayudaré si tú me ayudas primero = I’ll help you if you help me first.

Podemos quedar donde quieras = We can meet wherever you want.

And again, any sentence with “quizá/tal vez” (= maybe), but you can also use the indicative for those!

I definitely got too excited writing this post. Sorry. Hope it clarifies anything?

Disclaimer: I’m a native speaker, but that’s uh… pretty much the only qualifications I have! Sorry about possibly having messed up!

#Spanish #embarrassing writer speaks #español #honestly I'd love to be a teacher I think about being a teacher sometimes #but then I try to explain things and... yeah. i think I'd be an awful one #BUT I LIKE TRYING #I'd prefer teaching English than Spanish #English is so much easier #either way I find explaining shit like this fun #but it's probably just fun for me. every time I try to help my classmates w English or whatever they're just like 'wtf'#is it my fault?? I can never know #okay anyway sorry I'll shut up now

8 notes · View notes

madewithonerib · 4 years

Photo

[M8] Before the Beginning: The Aseity of God | RC Sproul

Unlike creation, GOD is self-existent, uncaused, & independent.

In this lecture, Dr. Sproul will examine the doctrine of GOD’s Aseity, & explain why it is vital to a proper understanding of who GOD is as Creator & Redeemer.

Let's pray shall we?

FATHER when we consider YOUR Aseity, YOUR eternal self-existence, we know that we enter now into that dimension of YOUR Character--that is perhaps more unfathomable to our minds than any other. If ever, we need YOUR condescension to stoop to our level & lisp for our infantile ears, it is here.

And yet FATHER, when we contemplate these things, we pray that YOU would take us way beyond an exercise in abstract philosophical speculation; & set us in that place

--where our minds are struck with the sense of awe of YOUR Being.

Help me please in this difficult task, for I ask it in JESUS Name, Amen

1.] Profound Concept of Being/Existing

Before I go to the text of SCRIPTURE, I asked that a board to be brought over because there are two things I want to write on the board.

One is a question, & the other is an indicative declarative statement.

And I've prepared you, that this may be difficult to track with me philosophically. We're getting into some heavy things here.

But let's start with these first two things that I'm going to write on the board. And stop me if I'm going too fast.

You've heard this question before, maybe you've heard it already today. How are you?

You’ve ever heard that question? Thank you very much.

Then there is the declarative statement: I AM FINE.

Alright there are a couple of key elements in these statements, that I want us to look at because we take them for granted in our normal converations.

But I want you to notice this word (are) in the question, & this word (AM) in the response.

When we ask the question: How are you? We’re asking a question relating to the state of your existence.

Or to put it another way, the state of your being.

And when we respond: I’m fine.

We’re making a statement about our condition, about the state of our existence, or the state of our being.

Because in both of these statements, we have in common is the use of the most basic verb in the English language.

That we call the verb: To be

Now I understand there are some remote languages in the world that do not have specific verbiage to refer to being, but almost all the languages with which we’re familiar, such as: the Germaic languages, the romance the Greek language & so on, have some form of the verb “to be”

It’s a word that is so common, that those of you who have snow on the roof can still remember the old television series called, “You Bet Your Life”

Groucho Marx hosts a question-&-answer game show. [October 27, 1947 - September 21, 1961]

Where Groucho, you know, would have his guests come out & have a little dialogue for a few moments, but there was a mystery word that was already discerned in advance.

And if the host mentioned the mystery word, inadvertently, the duck would fall down from the ceiling with $100 dollar bill in its mouth.

You remember it, Paul?

And Groucho would say: “Say the magic word & win $100 dollars.”

And George Fenneman would come out & pay.

It’s a household phrase, nothing is more common! Than: Are, am, were, was, will be, is, & so on.

These are all forms of the word to be.

But behind our language, which may be simple, is this profound concept of being. [5:57]

2.] Language of Being

Or in the Greek, the present participial is the word ουσία (ousia), which refers to the stuff by which things are constituted (their essence).

Of what Immanuel Kant called the ‘deeohzeicht’.

Now in our experience, we tend to use this concept of being, sort of in a graduated way.

A step ladder way, where we talk about grades/levels or ranks of being. We talk about the type of being.

That you might find in a box of rocks.

My son-in-law always (no sometimes) says to me: “Pap, you’re dumber than a box of rocks.”

That’s not a complimentary thing.

And so I say to the meathead, in any case, stifle it.

At the bottom of the rung, we’ve got a box of rocks, then we go up from the box of rocks to some plants.

Some trees, & we say that’s kind of a little higher order of being, from the rocks.

Then above the plants & the trees, we go to the animal kingdom, there we talk about the kangeroos & the emus & the ducks & little platypuses & so on.

And talk about their existence & their animal being.

Then we go up the ladder a little bit higher, & we talk about human beings [7:49]

I have a fellow who is one of our original elders in Saint Andrews, whenever we would have personnel difficulties. He’d say, “You know what we have hear?” I’d say: What’s that?

“We have a being problem.” A being problem?!

He’d say, “Yeah human beings.” He said, “they’re the ones”

And above the human beings, we talk about the Spirit Beings, Angels & so on.

Then in our vocabulary, we go to the top of the ladder: we speak then of the SUPREME BEING.

Now I’ve gone over this before, but we need to go over this again & again [8:41], until we get it right!

That this suggests there is such a thing as being.

Of which all things in reality participate in one way or another.

And that difference between GOD, & a box of rocks is just a matter of degrees. We see that the difference is found in the qualifier for being in this distinction:

SUPREME BEING (above) Human Beings

Between human beings & the SUPREME BEING (GOD).

But beloved the difference between the SUPREME BEING & the human being is not the difference in the adjectives.

It's not the difference between human-ness, & supremacy.

The difference really is in this word: BEING.

Because if ever there was a misnomer in language, it's to refer to rocks & trees & flowers & monkeys & people & angels as being.

Because in a strict sense, not one of us is a being [10:11]

3.] Pursuit of Truth

Now to follow that, I want to go back into the past.

Take a little refresher course into ancient thought, where the ancient thinkers of philosophy.

Before Socrates & Plato, & Aristotle, appeared on the scene these ancient thinkers were probing the deepest questions of the pursuit of truth that human beings could be engaged in.

They were searching for what they called the: Arche Principle or the principle of ultimate reality.

Arche is a Greek word with primary senses “beginning”, “origin” or “source of action & later “first principle” or “element”. By extension, it may mean “first place, power,” “method of government”, “empire, realm”, “authorities" (in plural: ἀρχαί), “command.”

The first principle or element corresponds to the “ultimate underlying substance” & “ultimate undemonstrable principle.”

In the philosophical language of the archaic period [8th to 6th century BC], arche [or archai] designates the source, origin or root of things that exist. In ancient Greek philosophy, Aristotle foregrounded the meaning of arche as the element or principle of a thing, which although undemonstrable & intangible in itself, provides the conditions of the possibility of that thing.

That transcendent metaphysical proof, that would explain all other truths. [11:00]

They were looking for a transcendent unity that would make sense out of all the diversity in this world.

And we remember the impass that took place between two of the 'great' philosophers, prior to Socrates: Parmenides & Heraclitus

Parmenides words do not survive in tact, only so far as there are vinyetes of his thinking that are quoted from some of his essays & from some of his poems.

And of course the most, famous philosophical insight that comes from the pen are Parmenides is the affirmation (we'll write it up here, so you won't ever forget it): What is, is.

Now he wasn't the president of Greece, but he was concerned about what the meaning of is, is.

And he said, “Whatever is, is”

I’ll never forget the time I was in a college classroom & the philosophy professor introduced us to Parmenides.

And he wrote the same line on the board.

Whatever is, is. And I chuckled out loud.

I said, “This guy’s famous?! All he ever did, as far as achieving philosophical brilliance, was he learned how to stutter: ‘Whatever is, is.’ Big deal.” [12:53]

And yet I have to say to you:

There is no philosophical concept that I’ve been exposed to, in my life, that has driven me more often & more deeply to contemplate than this affirmation from Parmenides.

Which simply means [13:27]:

For something to exist, there has to be being.

Parmenides took the view that nothing changes in reality; only our senses convey the appearance of change. Heraclitus, by contrast, thought that everything changes all the time, & that "we step & do not step into the same river," for new waters flow ever about us.

4.] Constant Change: Becoming

Now, his counterpart Heraclitus challenged this.

And said, "Nothing is."

There is no such thing as pure absolute being—because everything that we observe in the world around us.

Every dimension of our experience, every object of our knowledge is given to change. [14:05]

Heraclitus said, "Everything, that we experience, is in a state of flux."

The only thing constant is change.

And his famous metaphor was: You can't step into the same river twice.

Why not? Because if there is a river flowing through, & I step my one leg into the river, by the time I move the 2nd leg, the river has moved on.

And so the water I plunge my 2nd foot into isn't the same water that I plunged my first foot into.

Not only that but in an infinitesimal level, the bed of that river has changed if only a few unseen atoms have been rearranged.

And not only that, not only that I can't step into the same river twice, but the "I" that is stepping into the same river twice is not the same "I" that was stepping in it a moment ago. [15:15]

I am not the same, as when I stood up here a few moments ago & talked to John & Roger.

Cause if nothing else has changed since then, I'm 5-10 minutes older & grayer, & a few other things.

If anything defines human existence, or the existence of anything—creaturely—it is change. [15:53]

Impermanence, even that rock under the blowing of the wind, & the shining of the sun, & the grains of sand that blow across its surface.

Over eons of time, begins to erode & manifest change.

As it returns to the dust.

And so instead of the concept of being, what Heraclitus substituted was the concept of becoming. [16:35]

So we have to distinguish between that which is, in a permanent/eternal/non-changing/non-state-of-flux,

BEING must be distinguished from anything that manifests the characteristics/attributes of becoming.

For the ancient Greeks, though they weren't embracing the doctrine of the biblical GOD, nevertheless they got some aspects of GOD right.

They understood this:

That BEING, if it is real being must be eternal, unchanging, & must be the basis for everything else that is

Because without being somewhere, there can be no becoming. [17:32]

Let me say it again: Without being, there can’t be any becoming.

Because as Aristotle noted, & we don't worship at the shrine of Aristotle contrary to some opinion.

So what Aristotle understood, was that if something were in a pure state of becoming—if it was only becoming & nothing else, it would be pure potentiality.

Something totally becoming would be potentially anything, but actually nothing.

5.] Pure Potential = Nothing

Now what about GOD. [18:25]

When I was in the 6th grade, I played in a baseball league that went up & included 10th graders.

We had 4 teams in a town & they had general managers, as well as coaches. And they pulled off trades, from time to time.

And I was involved in a multi-player swap, where I was really excited because I was traded from my team to another team for three 10th graders [19:03]

Now these three 10th graders, among them didn't know baseball was blown-up or stuffed.

But I was impressed, here a 6th grader, getting traded for three 10th graders. And the newspaper in our local town; this was my first time in the paper, announced the trade.

And they said the Indians traded for slick-fielding short-stop Sunny Sproul, who lacks a potential bat.

How I hated that word. I would hear it from my teachers, when my sister was the smartest & 3-years ahead of me.

I'd come along behind her, & they'd say, "You're not living up to your potential."

Did you ever hear that? [20:00]

I began to hate the word: potentiality.

And if I'm pure potential, & that's all?! I'm not even worth 3-10th-graders, who can't hit a lick.

But this is our state of existence: Becoming—not being.

6.] Characteristics of Creator

This is what differentiates us from GOD.

Now let me go to my first biblical text briefly.

Where we first encounter this idea, turn to page 1:

In the beginning GOD created the heavens & the earth.

This is the most fundamental assertion of historic Christianity; & it is the single-most bombarded target by secular philosophy & by neo-paganism [21:10]

Because every pagan knows, that if you can get rid of creation—you’re rid of GOD & if you’re rid of GOD?

You can live however you want.

Personal Aside: You can’t get rid of GOD; you can only be permitted by GOD to ignore HIM, but we’re all regardless of acknowledgement bear the consequences of sin—be it discipline as GOD’s chosen people, or wrath-to-come as apostates.

So everything that divides the Christian, from the Pagan is at stake—in that opening assertion of the OT [21:32]

Now let’s think about this for a second, “In the beginning” the first thing that is being said here:

The entire universe as we know it had a beginning!

There was a time when the created universe was NOT!

I mentioned before, a few years ago, at a conference that I heard the famous astro-physicist [22:03] Jack Throw being interviewed when the Hubble Spacecraft was sent aloft.

April 24, 1990, Hubble was carried aloft from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida aboard the space shuttle Discovery, along with a five-astronaut crew.

And he was on the radio & he said: “15-17 billion years ago the universe exploded into being.”

I almost drove my car off the road when I heard that.

The universe exploded into being, what did it explode out of? None-being??

Let me also add to this, several years ago I had the opportunity to exchange correspondence with Carl Sagan.

And in our correspondance, we were talking about the Big Bang Cosmology & about how the astrophysicists of our day—have gone back in time to the last nano-seconds before this eternally organized piece of stable condensation of energy/material—before it blew up!

You see that's as far back as we can go & no further! [23:18]

And I said to Dr. Sagan: How can you call yourself a scientist & stop your inquiry into truth at the most important moment in all of history?

He said, "Well we just don't have to go there." I said: Yeah you do have to go there! [23:42]

Because you have to account for this point of singularity, that for all eternity was stable & organized, immutable, in a state of inertia, & then suddenly & inexplicably on a Tuesday afternoon at 4:00, it blows sky high.

Stop me if I'm lying, but doesn't the law of inertia say: "Anything that is at rest, remains at rest unless acted upon by an outside force."

Your theory of the origin of the cosmos screams for a self-existent eternal being [24:30]

You can't have it without it.

The minute you say there is a beginning, to the universe, you've got two options:

Either the universe came out of nothing— all by itself, or the universe was created by something that is self-existent & eternal [24:57]

Those are the only options folks.

Don’t let anybody play games with you on this.

I say it if you want to get a simple grasp of it, let me ask you this simple question: If there was ever a time 15-17 billion years ago, 20 billion years, 100B years ago

If there was ever a time when there was nothing: No BEING, no becoming, no actuality/potentiality—just non-being nothing yet—what would there be now?

What could there possibly be now? Absolutely nothing.

Out of nothing, nothing comes.

His wife, Francis Schafer during his career said: The modern naturalist has both of his feet planted firmly in thin air—because ultimately once they deny the self- existent & eternal BEING, who has aseity...

their only option is some kind of spontaneous generation, which is not science, it’s magic [26:38].

Poof the world pops into being.

I mean have you ever thought about what a tremendous explosion nothingness can cause?

Without GOD there can be no beginning [28:44] Without BEING, there can be no becoming.

And if there was a beginning, nothing screams louder than before the beginning. There was not nothing.

But there was one who has the power of BEING in HIMSELF [29:11]

Life in HIMSELF.

And that’s the difference between GOD & the creature [29:25]

GOD is pure being, there is no becoming in GOD.

GOD doesn’t have a learning curve; HE’s not learning new things every morning. HE’s not evolving into a higher form of being than HE was 6 months ago, or 6B years ago.

HE is as the medieval theologians said: “Entis perfectissimi” [for the sake of religion, they risked redundancy]

The most perfect BEING [Latin translation]

Now what’s the difference between a perfect being, a more perfect being, & the most perfect being? Nothing [30:52]

Because if something is perfect in its being, that perfection of being admits to no degrees.

The medieval theologians were doing two things:

1] Theology & 2] Doxology.

Doxology: is a short hymn of praises to GOD in various forms of Christian worship, often �� added to the end of canticles, psalms, & hymns.

They were standing back in awe at the contemplation of a being, in whom resides all excellencies at the perfect degree [31:36]

No lack, no weakness, nothing missing in that perfect being that exists in & of HIMSELF—from all eternity.

I mean if anything drives me to my knees, it’s even the momentary contemplation of ONE who is pure eternal self-existent BEING.

WHO needs nothing from my hands, nothing from my bank account to exist or to be in HIS absolute perfection at all times.

Now also in terms of this concept, the medieval theologians spoke about an ends necessary [32:39]

Thomas Aquinas talked about GOD as necessary; there are a lot of thing that I believe that TA was wrong, but this isn’t one of them.

Thomas speaks about GOD & HIS BEING as necessary BEING.

Now the way in which the theologians of that period spoke about the necessary BEING of GOD was two-fold; it had two particular reference points to it.

In the first case, what Aquinas & others meant by necessary being is this:

That GOD as eternal/perfect/self-existent BEING who needs nothing from us—for HIS continuity of HIS existence—has necessary BEING in the sense that a self-existent eternal BEING cannot possibly not be. [34:24]

Any BEING that is pure being, by necessity is eternal, has being in & of ITSELF, derives it’s BEING from nothing outside of itself, can never be confused with a creature—because the thing that defines us, as I said is becoming or as Sinclair was labouring this point about middle knowledge—I hope you really track with him on this middle knowledge point.

My wife sure did, we walked out of here for a minute & my wife was beside herself. She’s beating herself on the chest & says: Oh I can’t stand this; to think about the omniscience of GOD—who has nothing new to learn.

HE knows all the contingencies, but HE knows nothing contingently [35:29]; GOD has never said, “maybe it’s going to be this, or maybe it’s going to be that I have to wait & see how it all works out now.

HE is from everlasting to everlasting, & HIS self-existent eternal being—includes within it the perfection of HIS knowledge of HIS power, of HIS holiness, & all the rest of HIS attributes.

But me, you noticed how I’m doing in this thing: I go from here out the door without having a lady on both arms—keeping me up, so I don’t fall flat on my face.

You know why? Because I’m fragile.

Things changed at the back of my head a year ago [36:19] I might fall down at any second.

You know why? Because I’m a human becoming.

And I’m becoming older & weaker, right.

And so on.

But GOD doesn’t go through that, there aren’t any contingencies in HIS being, there’s no might have been in who HE is.

HE is from everlasting to everlasting.

Pure BEING. Perfect BEING.

And as a necessary being, HE never has to stop & tie HIS shoe. The being in GOD’s shoes are eternally tied.

1.] 1st Reference for this necessary being is this: that GOD is that GOD’s being is ontologically necessary

That is the SEEB, who is dependent on nothing for HIS BEING, derives from nothing upon HIS BEING, has no contingency in HIM.

Cannot not be!

That the very idea of being carries within it conceptually it’s necessity. Because that which is, always (what?) is Thank you.

HE is by eternal necessity.

That can never be said of any creature.

There was a time when you were not, there was a time when I was not. There was a time when the universe was not. But there never was a time when GOD was not. [38:28]

Because GOD cannot, not be.

HIS BEING is eternally necessary.

And so that’s one reference in which we speak of the BEING of GOD.

2.] 2nd Reference is this: GOD’s BEING is necessary not only in the ontological sense, but HIS being is necessary in the logical sense.

This is why I plead with my contemporaries who’ve abondoned all attempts to prove the existence of GOD by arguing from a rational basis.

Why give up? [39:07]

These unstoppable arguments, that the Church has deposited in her faith through 2K years.

That not only is GOD’s being ontologically necessary; it’s logically necessary!

Logic demands that you affirm the reality of a SEEB, as I said a moment ago, without that nothing could possibly be. People say can you prove to me the existence of GOD & I say, “Yes.”

They say: “How?” By this pen. It’s all it takes. If this pen exists, then GOD exists.

Unless this pen is GOD.

But if anything exists, something has to have the power of BEING within itself, or nothing could exist.

Is that clear? Again, if ever there was a time there was nothing, what would there be now? Nothing [40:15]

What could there be now? Nothing, thank you very much.

But if anything does exist, something exists that has the power of being within itself. If anything exists, if there’s any becoming, somewhere along the way there has to be being—because without being there can be no becoming. And that BEING which is the ground of all existence—which may have been true for Aristotle but it’s even more true for Christianity, is the Creator GOD, who’s from everlasting to everslasting.

Who has the power of life within HIMSELF, & the power of BEING within HIMSELF.

And then when Paul, speaks to the philosophers as we’ve already heard [41:04] at Morris Hill in Acts 17

Acts 17:16-19 | While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was deeply disturbed in his spirit to see that the city was full of idols.

So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews & GOD-fearing Gentiles, & in the marketplace with those he met each day.

Some Epicurean & Stoic philosophers also began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” while others said, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.”

They said this because Paul was proclaiming the good news of JESUS & the resurrection.

So they took Paul & brought him to the Areopagus, where they asked him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?

Paul walked into the intellectual center of the ancient Greek culture, & he got off the tour bus & said: “Wow, look at the Parthenon. Oh think of the insights of Socrates & Plato & Aristotle. I’m at the center of the highest level of human achievement—of speculative thought.” [41:56]

No instead his heart was filled with grief.

Because he saw the whole city given to idolatry.

You ever been to Athens? You ever gone to the Acropolis? You ever stood on the steps of the Parthenon?

And look down in this direction over here? The little bald hill with no ruins, nothing there. But it’s haunted. [42:30]

The ghost of the Apostle Paul is on that hill.

Pointing to the Parthenon; pointing to the Acropolis, speaking in the Areopagus, saying: “I see in all things you are very religious, you’ve got a temple for this, a temple for that, & a temple for this. And in case you missed Vesta or Hessia you’ve got one for her.

Then just to be on the safe side, you hedged your bets & got this one over here, the idol to the unknown GOD.

Well that which you worship in ignorance, I’m going to declare to you in power, then he goes on to give probably the most intense & unfathomable profound statement in the whole BIBLE [43:14]

That in HIM, we live & move. And have our being.

Acts 17:28 | ‘For in HIM we live & move & have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are HIS offspring.’

Real quick, last week out in LA I used an illustration like this—I’ve done it here in other context, I had this thing that doesn’t write & I’m going to make it move.

You watch me carefully, in a moment I’m going to throw it up in the air, & try to catch it. You ready?

Now you watch at no time, will my hands ever leave my wrists. 1-2-3-here-we-go, see that? It moved!

It changed it’s position; & what caused that change? You’ve been taught since you were infants what caused that change. It was the inherent power in the strength of my right-arm, coupled by the strength of gravity to bring it back down. These are natural laws that govern every- thing in the universe. [44:29]

At a secondary level, that’s true.

But Paul said, “I can’t move a finger without the power of GOD. I can’t breathe the breath of life apart from GOD”

I cannot exist apart from GOD.

Because in HIM is life, & in HIM is my life.

I’ll talk about this tomorrow.

GOD can’t die; if GOD ever stops living, what happens to your life? It’s over.

Vaporized.

If GOD’s power of motion ceases, remember the game we used to play? Called statues, we’re running around the yard & somebody yells, “Freeze!”

That’s the end of motion; that’s the end of gravity.

And if anything should happen to the BEING of GOD, human becoming becomes potentially everything & actually nothing. [45:57]

As we disappear, from the face of the earth.

I mean everything that the philosophers of antiquity sought to discern, speculatively Paul announced to them at Morris Hill:

In HIM we move, we life & have our being. And in HIM, HE lives, & moves & has HIS BEING.

We can’t move, we can’t move, we can’t be apart from HIM, but before we were: HE lived & moved & was.

Because HE has the power of being in HIMSELF.

And that is the transcendent majesty of who HE is.

You know, we idolize people in the realm of becoming, who reach a higher level of potential than others.

Competitively.

We look at Michael Jordan & say: “How can this be?”

We look at Tiger Woods & say: “How can this be?”

And we’re still at the level of becoming. We’re still at the level of creatureliness.

And we tend to think how great we are, then we turn our eyes to heaven.

And the ONE who is, from everlasting to everlasting.

We owe HIM, whatever participation in being we have & as creatures we owe the ONE who is not a creature the glory of the perfection of HIS very BEING.

Source: oldfarmhouse via thursdaysatthecafe SEEB: Self-existent eternal BEING

A Portrait of God: 2004 National Conference | RC Sproul ligonier.org/learn/conferences/orlando_2004_national_conference/aseity-of-god/

#GOD’s Aseity #uncreated ONE #GOD is self-existent #self-existent #indepedent #humans are dependent #source of all life #Heraclitus #Doxology

0 notes

chickenstuffedwithmozzarella · 6 years

Note

Hii love!! How are you?? Hope you had a great time at yesterday's dinner. Yes, i still have a month of exams. And a lot of essays and assigments that i dont want to do. But hopefully i'll be free soon. Nop. I didnt see that. Which one was it? Crying in the club? I remember seeing that song in the track list at the beginning of the tour. But i havent seen anything else. (1)

Hi, love!! Finally I get to answer you. I’ll try to make it “short”, jajja, but I talk too much, so, no promises here, jajjaja.Yeah, we had a good time. We bought some pizzas 🍕 (lol, Honey 🍯 senses when I’m writing you, and he comes to lay on my 😌). I told them if they wanted to watch Dunkirk, they told me they rather no, jajajaj. But, well 🤷🏻‍♀️, their lost. A day more, is a day less. Soon you’ll be free, and will forget about the stress.Oh, I think it’s that song, yes. I didn’t knew he was covering it on his tour. He also sang a Sting one, too. 😩😩 I didn’t know it, what a fake fan 😅.

Yes. I think i started wearing them when i was 7. I’ve been wearing glasses for more than half of my life now. They are part of me and people dont recognise me without them. Kind of sad if you ask me. But it is what it is. Is the surgery that expensive? I havent even looked that up bcs getting surgery it’s just a dream at this moment, i dont need reality to discourage me (2)

Well, if it’s of some relief, I’ve wearing them for almost three years, only, and even my family see something weird in my face when I don’t have them on, so 🤷🏻‍♀️. Well, when my mom look it up, it was around 3000€. But I think my friend told me last year that it was around 1800€, I think. So, yes, it’s very expensive, but all the people I know who have had it are very happy with it.

Yes. I know. I get that it’s easier to give them the ipad and all of that, but i dont think that’s really good for them mainly bcs they dont get the attention they need. But well, parenting is something very personal, and technology also has its perks. Maybe nowadays kids learn in a different way, but it’s still learning. I guess it’s the same as when Game Boy and so came out. That was supposed to “pervert” us all, but i think we ended up being just fine. Mostly. (3)

Oh, yeah, well used, technology is the best. But sometimes parents just give their children their phones so they don’t bother them, and that’s not good for kids. Like when they’re waiting at the doctor. I actually hear a psychologist saying that that teaches kids that to be relaxed they need a phone. And it’s a way to conditioning them. Like when a dog does something well and you give it a treat. And then the dog does that thing, so you have to give it another treat. But, yes, like you said, parenting is something very personal, and I think it parents reflects what they had/hadn’t from their parents on their kids.

Ohh! I havent thought about that. Yes yes. I hope they are not recognisable then. Do you know if there'a any project for Nialls show? Like the rainbow flag they did for Fire Away in Amsterdam (was it Amsterdam?). I havent heard about one. JAJAJAJAJA. Of course buying a bigger house is the easy option. Of course😂. I’d take a pic of the door, but then i dont know how i would send it?? An anti or a het? Please no. Never. I have eyes and i know how to use them. And so does she (4)

Oh, I haven’t looked for projects yet. I always remember to look it up when I’m driving, bc is when I’m hearing Niall’s album, lol, but then I get home or work and I forget 🙄. I’ll look it up, and let you know. I’ve thought on bringing those big balloons that have a cord at one end? (I’ll try to find a pic, so you see them) and throw them to the crowd at some point and people can play hitting them, you know (we did that at my sister wedding and we had a lot of fun, I think here it would be funnier). But I’ll see. I’m very shy, so, even if I bring them, I’ll probably keep them in my bag, lmao.I think you can submit pics on anon. Just log off, search my blog, and submit it. You have to put an email, that can be anó[email protected], jajja.

Your dad also knows their names? My parents barely know that One Direction exist. They only remember it as the opposite to good music. “This is music, not like that direction you like"😤😒 Jajajajajaja. Dont be so hard on you all. I’m sure there will be a lot of people of your age. You are not old!! (Yes, they are young babies. But mostly, they are lucky babies. Only 16 and already living their best life). (5)

Well, it would be too hard for my family to not know them, lol. All the people that has any contact with me, knows that I like them, lmao. My dad doesn’t like English music in general, so he isn’t a big fan (of me, listening their music 24/7, oops). Well, I’ll let you know after the concert, jajajajaj, of how much old people I see. The good thing is that it’s a small crowd, so less people judging 😅. And yes, they’re very lucky!! but if they can, good for them. I got to see Andy&Lucas when I was 16, 🤣🤣🤣🤣, almost the same, jajaja.

Only two weeks!! It’s around the corner!!! 😱😱😱😱😱 Yes. I should have bought a ticket for myself. But i’m not that sad. I’ll go another time. And also, the timing of the concert id disastrous because i start exams that week and going there + the show would mean 2 days less to study. And less time to study = more stress and crying. I’ve resigned myself to the idea. Next time. (6)

Yeah, I always look for the good point on everything too,jajaja. Also, that you have to see them next time they come, is the perfect excuse for them to come back again,jajajajaj. But you’re right. And it’s not just those two days you wouldn’t study. It’s the week before and after, thinking about the concert and getting distracted. Thinks come the way they do for a reason. So just think that studios are first. 🤷🏻‍♀️.

He tried to catch a duck? 😂😂😂 Nooo. Videos for cats? What are those? I know about cats’ videos (i love them. They are so cute), but not about videos for cats. What do they show? Oh, dont worry!! Notifications dont bother me. They dont make any sound. They are just there. And i only get one, no matter how many posts you reblog. (7)

Yes!! Cats are so funny. I laugh so much with them. If you search on YouTube “videos para Gatos” you’ll a lot, jajajaja. They’re just a cartoon mouse running and hiding, and cats try to catch it. Boring for humans, funny for cats.Ah, that’s good then,jajaja, because I was afraid you’d get 1837453 notfs, jajajaja.

Aaaargh. I’m trying to think something because I dont want to give you my name. It’s nothing personal. I swear. I’m just a very private person. That’s why i dont have SM and that stuff. But also, i cant think of a nickname bcs i dont have many, and i think my sister follows your blog and if she sees it there, that would be strange😂🤷. I dont knooow. I know names are not a big deal, but. I’m just shy. I’ll think about something and then i’ll tell, if you dont mind. (8)

WHAT??? Your sister follows me?? Oh my god!! This is so weird!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣I hope she isn’t reading this then, so you don’t get discovered. Now more than ever I have to try to put everything under the cut,jajajajja. Don’t worry about the name, that’s why I didn’t want to ask you. I was thinking something like flower anon (I don’t know why I call you flower i my head,jajja), or something like that. Or just smiley anon. I didn’t mean your actual name, of course. I’m very shy like that too (I know, hard to believe), and I always talk on anon to people. Don’t worry. Ah!! And don’t worry about thinking a name at all. If you’re comfortable with the notifications, keep with it. I just thought that if you were searching in my blog that tag anon, it would be easier for you to have your own tag, with your own things,jejejeje. But whatever you think is better, seriously.

8 months? So young!! She just discovered her hands?😂 Glasses are the first target, but i bet she’s going to go after your hair next. All did was laugh? I would have cried for sure. Omg you are brave! I love kids, but i wouldnt have known what to do. “Well, if you could tell me what is a girl/boy toy” 📢 📢📢📢 Say it louder Soraya!! I love saying remarks like that. Some people get so angry and i’m like ???? Chill and think about what i just said pls, it’s all true.(9)

Aaaawwwww, I was with her today too, she’s so cuteeeee. And yes, she goes for my hair too, but that’s my fault, really, because I tickle her with it, so she just plays with it. And I was with my cousin yesterday too!!! You’d have to see him. He has a “problem” in his brain, so he doesn’t develop normally. Doctors even thought he had autism (I don’t know the correct way to say it in English, bc I think they use a different verb, but you get it) for some time, because he behaved like that. Anyway, he has photographic memory, and also when he learns something, he doesn’t forget (he’s just 4). Well, yesterday, he just taught me in English the weeks days, months of the year, numbers till 20 and the weather. All of that singing it and pointing to his black board (the tv) like he was a teacher. He’s just amazing. He has learn how to read some words all on his own… and he can recognize written words since he was 2. He learn my car plaque before than me… I love him so much. ☺️. (Did I have a point with this story???? I just love to talk about him, sorry, jajaja)Hey, look, I do t usually say good things about me, but I’ll say one. I think I’m good on how I treat people at work. Like I know how to read them, and if I can joke with them or not. And I talk a lot with people, even if I don’t know them,jajaja. Well, when someone says something like that (a toy for a girl; can you make a candy cake, but it’s for a boy so nothing pink, please…) soy la persona más seca que te puedas imaginar 😒 (I don’t know how to say that in English). Like, no, lol, what will it do to him to it something pink? It’s just mean it taste like strawberry 🙄🙄🙄. I can’t I can’t.

Today i did a survey for a friend who is studying to be a teacher, and it was… wrong The aim of the survey was good, but the ways… the first question was “¿Q opinas al respecto de que existan orientaciones sexuales distintas a la heterosexual?” & also “¿como d normal t resulta q un niño juegue con muñecas?”. That’s wrongly put. Like, u are not asking what people thinks about sexuality. U are assuming that hetero is cool, and then u are asking about the nonhetero ones. And that annoyed me. 10

Yeah, that way of asking is wrong. Even more because is a written question, so you can’t catalogue the way the person asked is answering. But I sometimes ask question the wrong way so people shows they true colors, y'know? Like I ask in a way that it looks like I’m thinking the wrong way (gay things are wrong) and when they answer as if I were right… bye. But, again, that can be done in s face to face conversations. That survey was wrong yes, because they didn’t ask how you see that a boy play with a gun (which is worst that playing with a doll or a kitchenette…). But also, who wrote that survey? Your friend? Did you tell them what you thought about the way it was written? Did they listen to you??

Well, I reached the end!! Jajajja, I had to put my iPad to charge. Why do I talk so much??? We have this joke at the shop, with a woman (she’s also my sister neighbor), and she talks a lot A LOT!! So much, that my sister sometimes has to close the shop and walk with her to their flats… jajajaa. Well, I always say: ja! yo la doy conversación. Cuando se cansa de hablar, la saco otro tema!! That’s how much I talk,🤣🤣🤣🤣. I think is because I spend so much time alone at home, without opening my mouth (only to talk to my cats), that when I start talking with someone, I don’t know how to stop,jajajja. But I’ll stop… NOW! Bye!! 😚😚

#anon #argggg I always think bout something to tall you in the tags when I start writing #but when I end It's 3 hours late and I have forgotten #🙄🙄#Eit: I remembered !!#I was going to tell you that Niall had kitties yesterday #as of tonigh there's only one alive #I’ll keep you informed about the progress

0 notes