HM (& I think I'll skip the D for now)
Oct. 14th, 2003 08:46 amBecause it amuses me to mess with the implications of defining my bf as my memetic child. On that note, while I'm generally in the habit of writing a little introductory piece on the subject of why a new LJ person is cool, it's not considered good form to keep on about how cool one's boyfriend is. But anyway, here he is at last! And those of my friends who haven't yet met him should all be introduced. Thanks to everybody who helped persuade him that LJ is a good thing.
Now I'm getting very close to the stage where I can give up socializing altogether and just hang out here. Still need to entice J, EM and maybe a couple of others. *cackles*
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-14 10:54 am (UTC)Are you planning to write up our nice shiny Succot service and general weekend? It was absolutely lovely seeing you, hope you got home ok.
I find your referring to M as your child *deeply* disturbing, miss, and I've not even been reading any Freudian critics lately. (Though I did get through Portnoy's Complaint, and hated it.) And you told me off for getting broody in shul on Saturday!
EM
Re: HM (& I think I'll skip the D for now)
Date: 2003-10-14 11:25 am (UTC)?
If I'm anyone's memetic child as an LJer, I'm
rysmiel's and yours. This is even more worrying. But if anyone's anyone's memetic child in general, I think you're as much mine as I am yours. Can we stop this metaphor before it goes any further?
(no subject)
You're already at the stage where the only difference between succumbing and resisting is your own convenience, you know. But resist if it pleases you.
the alarming idea of your giving up having a real social life
Real social life... final year of PhD, hmm, could be a bad combination.
I like seeing you in person
I like seeing you in person too, dear. I will endeavour to find myself in Edinburgh at least not too rarely.
Are you planning to write up our nice shiny Succot service and general weekend?
Planning to, yes, along with about two dozen other topics, including finishing the NY series, and a heap of book reviews, and Yom Kippur, and some of the more interesting memes currently doing the rounds, and and and. One thing I didn't expect when I started this journal was that people would be impatient to see my posts about activities they were involved in. (Another reason you should get your own journal, then you could write it up yourself, you know.)
(no subject)
More or less so than my regarding
And you told me off for getting broody in shul on Saturday!
I hardly think I told you off. I just found your behaviour around babies amusing.
I did get through Portnoy's Complaint, and hated it
I hated it quite a lot too. That's one of the things on my list to do a post about when I have spare time (as opposed to in snatches between timepoints...)
Re: HM (& I think I'll skip the D for now)
Date: 2003-10-14 12:36 pm (UTC)If I'm anyone's memetic child as an LJer, I'm
Yes, true. I was hoping this prospect would occur to you. Can I point you in the direction of Blogtree and ask you to claim me as a parent, please? My ID there is 11994.
Can we stop this metaphor before it goes any further?
But it's far too amusing making everybody squirm! I think we could really run with it, actually...
Re: HM (& I think I'll skip the D for now)
Date: 2003-10-14 03:38 pm (UTC)And now my team are looking at me and wondering what on earth could have prompted such a diabolical cackle.
Welcome, welcome, thrice welcome.
Re: HM (& I think I'll skip the D for now)
Date: 2003-10-14 03:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-14 03:46 pm (UTC)I can't actually think of who would be my memetic parent, in that case. It would be some complex multi-person thing.
it's not considered good form to keep on about how cool one's boyfriend is.
But for someone as self-evidently cool as
Now I'm getting very close to the stage where I can give up socializing altogether and just hang out here.
Yay ! [ Umm, was that overly selfish ? ]
Re: HM (& I think I'll skip the D for now)
Date: 2003-10-14 03:59 pm (UTC)But I really don't see how we (or maybe just
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-14 04:53 pm (UTC)EM
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-14 04:59 pm (UTC)I did my best but really, some parts of the Orthodox liturgy are just irredeemable.
LJ-style incest, on the other hand, is wholly a good thing!
Re: HM (& I think I'll skip the D for now)
Date: 2003-10-14 06:02 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-14 10:56 pm (UTC)I'm a bit late on this as I've not been on LJ much recently, but welcome to
nephilim
Date: 2003-10-15 02:45 pm (UTC)It's not an impossible reading, to identify the nephilim with the offspring of the 'sons of god'1 and the 'daughters of man' discussed in Genesis, I just hadn't thought of it before. Given how little sense the whole section makes anyway (and Snunit's habit of arbitrary punctuation really doesn't help). After all, there's a fairly prevalent theory that the whole section is actually about lesbians(!)
Open season: does anyone reading this want to have a go at trying for a sensible reading of the first few verses of Genesis 6?!
there are some stunningly awful New Age writings about them
You mean, more stunningly awful than all the stuff on other kinds of angels and supernatural beings? Why particularly them?
pseudoarchaeology
I shudder to think!
1] Deliberately lower-case; I'm not sure which interpretation is less unpalatable!
Re: nephilim
Date: 2003-10-15 03:42 pm (UTC)You mean, more stunningly awful than all the stuff on other kinds of angels and supernatural beings? Why particularly them?
Goodness knows. I'm thinking particularly of Storm Constantine's Grigori trilogy.
pseudoarchaeology
I shudder to think!
Andrew Collins is the name to look for; or not, depending on how masochistic you're feeling at the time.
Re: nephilim
Date: 2003-10-15 03:45 pm (UTC)It's much more coherently supported by a chunk near the start of 1 Enoch, if I'm recalling which Enoch is which correctly off the top of my head.
Re: nephilim
Date: 2003-10-16 01:54 pm (UTC)Woah, but Enoch is weird! I have to admit that the Apocrypha come fairly low on my list of other people's scriptures that I ought to read. But you've made me sufficiently curious to at least skim over the relevant section of Enoch. And it is very, very odd. Oh well, I've certainly learnt something.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-16 01:56 pm (UTC)I like the idea of a complex multi-person parent. (And I thought I was being subversive by listing four blogmothers!) Memetic genealogy is so much fun.
(no subject)
I think
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-16 02:03 pm (UTC)Yay ! [ Umm, was that overly selfish ? ]
Goodness, I'm starting to feel like you and EM are practically fighting over me! While this is somewhat flattering, I think you're both missing the point: the majority of the time I spent not seeing my in-person friends is not time spent interacting with my online friends, and vice versa. It's just that most of the time I'm working, or running community and interfaith stuff. Hence more efficiency is required for the little socializing time I do have, and collecting everybody together on LJ would be one obvious way to achieve this!
Re: nephilim
Date: 2003-10-17 02:24 pm (UTC)I hope there are people out there who will want to read hard science fiction in which the science is fringe theology.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-17 02:29 pm (UTC)Oh, far be it from me to be competitive in any way.
the majority of the time I spent not seeing my in-person friends is not time spent interacting with my online friends, and vice versa. It's just that most of the time I'm working, or running community and interfaith stuff.
Fair enough; my in-person friends are sufficiently geographically scattered that almost all of them I see in brief intense doses, and my online interaction is something I multitask with work in order to keep me balanced.
Re: nephilim
Date: 2003-10-26 06:49 pm (UTC)This sounds like it might be quite a reasonable description of Foucault's Pendulum which I'm currently in the middle of. Anyway, to me it sounds an enticing tagline.
I'm someone who read
This sounds like it might be quite a reasonable description of <a href="http://allconsuming.net/item.cgi?id=0345368754">Foucault's Pendulum</a> which I'm currently in the middle of. Anyway, to me it sounds an enticing tagline.
I'm someone who read <a "http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=revelation&version=KJV">Revelation</a> in order to make better sense of <a href="http://allconsuming.net/item.cgi?isbn=0552137030">Good Omens</a>, though. I suspect this is not an entirely typical sort of behaviour in a reader.