I’m quite enjoying learning POPLOG. It’s very sad and it’s taking a long time. This afternoon I could carry on making progress OR I could go outside. It’s sunny, cold, and best of all, windy 🙂 (I love the wind)

I could go and see the sea again.

Or I could actually make some progress on my project.

It might sound odd, but this is one of those conflicts between the different sides of my brain/personality/something. I like the idea of sitting in my room hacking about on a computer and feeling satisfied with each new piece of understanding. But I also just feel alive out in the elements and fresh air.

I think I’ll see how the weather is after my Tai chi class at 1pm.If it’s still like this, I’m out of here. 🙂

warning: Salsa music is hazardous for your taste and ethics.

Damn that crazy salsa music which is so fun to dance and flirt to. 🙂

In bringing myself together as a person I’ve lost one of my old defense mechanisms. Fun though it is [1] to let ‘Mr.Big-Ego’ buy drinks and let him think he’s getting somewhere… I can’t pretend it’s not still ME.

Consquently I can’t help but feel a bit ashamed about MY behaviour. (as opposed to the behaviour of ‘alternate version of Cat who won’t exist tomorrow morning’ ) This is a good thing because hopefully now I won’t do it again.

I don’t know.. years of always being the one left on the edge at parties, wondering if anyone would ever bother with me. I like the attention.

But, I know the attention is probably because I look like a good target. (probably look drunk when i dance even if I’m not.. 😉 ).

It’s silly, and it’s dangerous (and he wasn’t even cute). It’s not really fair. I think I’ve finally reinforced the idea that this a life I DON’T need. I went out for a nice conversation with Bishie-Mark, and maybe dance a little, not to find some inebriated man clamped on to me like some sort of desperate limpet.bleh.

I still adore salsa music. I still love dancing. Next time I’ll just stick with my friends. If I ask them nicely they might even buy me a drink 😉

([1] Why is it fun? Because I never get people buy me drinks. Because I like winding men like him up. Because I like being female. Because I like feeling sexy. Because I’m naive and never fully believe where things lead.)


I’m just checking out google for a bit of info on depression for use in my essay and I came across:
“ is currently unavailable. Please check back soon”

just what you want to hear if you’re depressed!

Requesting help from a philosopher!

(or at least someone with a better grip on terminology than I do)


I’m trying to get a grip on what a realist theory of explanation is vs a non-realist one. This is what I have in my essay at the moment: please tell me if it’s laughably inaccurate!

“The main disagreements seem to be based round whether the philosopher is a realist or anti-realist, and if they take a naturalist or non-naturalist view. Briefly, for realists a successful explanation should correspond to some degree with a literal truth (about reality?). Non-realists accept that a succesful explanation can be a good metaphor and not strictly(literally) true. Naturalism is the idea that all phenemona can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws, while non-naturalism argues that there are aspects of reality not contained in space and time.”

epistemological issues

good news: embodied mind theory and general emergence stuff now makes sense on high intuitive level.

bad news: I have no idea how to get intuitive knowledge into structured sentences.

especially in time for an essay deadline.

9:18. Restate my assumptions.

Things are coming together, very slowly, in trying to build a model of the universe.

I think I’m going to have to leave god out of it because I have terrible problems thinking about any theological god-models without imagining an anthropomorphic deity with a beard EVEN WHEN the model in question is an eco-feminist gaia-style model. Damn these ingrained culutaral norms!

(Does anyone know a good place to start for historical references on matriachal religions? might do my essay on these)

What I am fairly sure of is the concept of ‘energy’. This is the same as Chi, which I suspect is the same as the christian concept of ‘spirit’.

Breath is important.

Cranial-sacral therapy works, or at least does -something- tangible (first hand experience)
Tai chi does move energy about, or at least creates a tangible impression of it (first hand experience)

– new book “Awaken healing energy through the tao”
I’m becoming convinced that what the cranial people are working with is the same thing developed by eastern taoists . (energy meridians, circulation of energy etc)

Tai-chi and meditation over the last few months have, between them, changed something in me. No, more like released something I’d forgotten about, a sort of emotional splinter I’d covered over in scar tissue but was still there, bothering me unnoticed.

Consquently I feel more together in myself, and more connected to other things. More aware, even if only by a bit, of my own energy and that of those I’m close with.

I can’t begin to explain how much that improves your sex life. 🙂

The use of abstracts (structural coupling. love)

The good thing about abstracts is that people need to get to the point quickly.

“A new focus in the study of cognition considers a crucial point of
commonality among naturally cognitive systems: embodiment. A body provides more
than just input from and output to the environment; a body enables the dynamics
of the environment to play a role in cognition. Indeed, rather than viewing
cognition as arising in an isolated and centralized reasoning system, the
embodied paradigm perceives the entire system, consisting of the organism plus
the environment, to be the source of intelligent behavior. Autopoeisis,
structural coupling, and interactive emergence are important new ideas from
the embodied paradigm that may serve a new generation of cognitive models.”

“Autopoeisis means that each of the components of a system are in a mutual
feedback relationship with each other. ”

“Structural coupling means that changes occur in the internal dynamics of a system triggered by events in the environment. ”

My own suggestion of ‘structural coupling’: love/relationships
(first attempt, so it’s a bit fumbly)

forenote: by ‘love’ I’m talking specifically about whatever it is you get when two people are both ‘in love’ and ‘in a relationship’

Love isn’t a ‘thing’. You tend to love someone, and hopefully they love you. When you are in a loving relationship with someone, it’s like you build on something that’s external to both of you but also contains you within it.

Love isn’t something you can ‘find’. It’s doesn’t work if it’s something you ‘expect’ or ‘deserve’. I don’t think there’s one type of love. I think there’s a different quality to the sort of love that occurs between different people. Hence there isn’t a ‘good love’ or ‘bad love’.

The love you experience is fundamentally connected to who you yourself are. (which is connected to the environment you are in, which includes the love you

I think it can work like this: the interactions of the two people produce the relationship within which those people love/live/interact.

ie love is some sort of feedback loop existing between people? Whatever it IS (love/relationship) doesn’t exist as a seperate independent entity or thing in it’s own right, but does that make it less ‘real’?

science has a problem explaining love because it’s actually impossible to get a grip on it as seperate to the people and the environment. It doesn’t seem possible to reduce love down or understand it rationally ; at least I’ve found it unhelpful to try.

ack. i give up with all this. I think I’ve still got a way to go with understanding all this stuff. plus i’m getting eye strain from reading too much stuff on the internet. ^O_o^?

Warning: Trying to understand the Universe may be Damaging to your Health


*wide eyed crazy look*

AT fields…ego boundry…hmm..oh. dear. god.


So, there I was, minding my own business, trying to construct a model of the cosmos for a Theology assignment….

“I know!” I thought glibly “Lets see if I can tie together all that weird philosophy I’ve been considering WITH the theology into one, big, complex mess!”

“Lets see what happens when I put “Structural Coupling” AND “Theology” into good ol’ Google…”

Now, ‘structural coupling’ is an idea that I really have only just -begun- to get my head around but to cut it short I think there’s something to it so I refuse to let it go till I understand it properly. (This way of thinking is probably the biggest threat to my mental health) Read “Embodied Mind” (Varela and some Buddhist bloke) a couple of times and it might help.

I was feeling lucky, and this is what I got.

Try and read it. It’s not religious. It talks about programming, and cyborgs, and intriguing virtual worlds.(OSMOSE?) It’s about reality, and self.

It’s about culture, and simulations, and interfaces, and it’s done something funny to my head.

It’s possibly the most scientifically plausible version of what buddhism is about. (nb: still trying to get my head round /buddhism/ so that may well be especially contenious)

It’s also probably more than a bit over the top to make the point, granted, but the point is still a good one.

Best of all, it’s not too hard to read 🙂