are you naked underneath this skin?

i can achieve such an air of neurosis as to cause others around me to second guess themselves.

ive been dealing with the infinite (or not really dealing with it, but seeking a way of dealing with it) while working with factoring numbers. i was at first looking for a way to describe how the average number of factors increases over time as the number increases. which somehow implies that there are f-curve type distributions for the set of all numbers with some factor equal to whatever number n. i didnt know, and still dont know, how to deal with that.

the riemann sphere i mentioned before, that was an excellent idea as to how to deal with this sort of problem.

"In English criminal law, intention is one of the types of mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") that, when accompanied by an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") constitutes a crime."

the possibilities are frighteningly numerous... at first i feel overwhelming terror, and i cannot imagine how we might go about solving this problem of how the very small scale works. then i remember that it is not that frightening, and that it is not that complex, and that we solve problems with many hours and many small increments.

consensual crime

as ive begun to learn some of the mathematical formalism to quantum physics, i have been repeatedly tempted to try explaining it in terms of physical analogies. but i am so aware of the historical difficulty of that, the notorious difficulty even, that i feel somewhat... self deceiving... with what sometimes feels to be progress in a physical description.

its like a bad dream where you cant get to where youre going.

i almost forgot, i went and saw doug stanhope last night, with matt, in worcester. i told him he is my last living hero. i want to try to get him to keene at some point. in some ways, i feel like he is my best hope for a revolution, whether personal or societal. its like he has a clear view through a lot of the nonsensical bullshit that seems to be mucking up the world. oddly enough, the only two other people i would have considered to be in that category are bill hicks and bertrand russell, which is an odd grouping.
also, at the show, a naked guy had a hilarious line of logic. he showed that not rape is murder, and even further, that if ladies are to avoid being murders, they should rape a burn victim today. wait, lemme look up his name... ah ha, andy o'fish. awesome. yeah, he would make an excellent logician. only not really, but itd be funny.

Bertrand Russell said: the whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.

but what if the 'wiser' people only appear wiser because they hesitate to risk being wrong? and what if the 'fools' only appear to be fools because they are willing to be wrong? am i wise for considering this? or foolish for saying it? i am of course, just having fun.

the word that best describes me? salacious.

sincerely cynical