Defining moements

Silence your groaning, imagine how it was to actually type that odious title! Worry not, it is apt to reflect the quality of the equally odious post here under. In it I will be the worst kind of curmudgeon, the one who imagines to have a point.

The question “Where is moe?” is queer. If asked “Where is love?” or “Where is anger?”, I’d be consternated and profoundly confused what was being sought for, given lack of context. (Given right context, any arbitrary set of words could make sense.) Failing to establish one, shooting in the dark would be necessary. “In the courtyard” doesn’t seem admissible. “In the meetings between people” might work, but is false. “In the world” is perfectly true though uninformative. Whatever the answer, it’d be all metaphor and poetry, which of course is very much fine. Understanding does grow through it, if one seeks not to put too much stock in it. And it would naturally be wrong to interpret it literally, per definition.



GARhetoric: [aː] and [r]

As I chatted with ghostlightning, this post was born. It is at least 13% his fault, and 87% my love for phonetics.

Bear witness to something which may be more GAR-exuding than the relative inactivity lets on:

you know the drill.


Aesthetics II: The Revenge of Aesthetics (this time, it’s personal)

I feel sure  learned aesthetics is rubbish, and that it ought to be a matter of literature and taste rather than science.

-Bertrand Russell, some of the very few lines he ever wrote on aesthetics

Heinrich Runge approves of... Something.

Heinrich Runge approves of... Something.

In the past, I would have wholly agreed with the above Russell quote. I was more or less an avid subjectivist: what you liked was good. The more you liked it, the better. I have, more or less, abandoned this position in favour of another – quite like Russell did on almost all opinions he ever held, too. So, in light of Pontifus’ current excavations on what art is [->], I figured that it was a good time to write this post, which has flown around inside my skull like a crazed bat on speed for quite some time, but not had the confidence to write.

This will be a perhaps tad too personal post; I don’t like it more than you do, but such is the narrowness of my mind as to preclude any other way this post could have looked like. I’d suggest not reading it at all. And yes I namedropped Russell solely because comparing myself with him implicitly compares me with sheer genius.


A Comment That Grew Too Much; After an Absence That Grew Too Much

So, after blazin’ through a fair share over <memetic number> words on Kannagi, plot, art and discourse – I condemn timezones and odd sleeping habits for not allowing me to participate – I thought a proper response is due. I’m aware I’ve been absent for quite some while, and while my excuses are legion (depression, writer’s block, nonstimulating schoolwork soaking up time like a sponge and constant travelling) they matter little. What matter is gettin’ it on, and now.

I’ll respond on three seperate points I thought I had something at least semi-worthwhile to utter comments about. Being steeped deep in analytical philosophy is interesting in an environment veering more towards continental theory. It is quite giving, since it’s long been a desire of mine to join the two once again, finding the divide unnecessary, harmful even. This’ll also mean that my viewpoints will be at times quite… incongruous to the discourse the others are in (as opposed to disagreeing), but nothing is more beautiful than the harmony of dissonance. Oh and at times (read: most of the time) I won’t respond at all, but only go on about my view on things without really addressing theirs.


Go-jasu, Derishasu, De-Hallo!

Hello everyone! I am Kaiserpingvin, new blood here at the Super Fanicom. Pleased to make your acquaintance, and I hope to bring about many a useful contributions to the discourse of this strata of the bloggosphere. And a big thanks to Pontifus, for giving me this opportunity! If perchance you find me fascinating, I will direct you to the About page to dispel such temporary (yet comprehendable) delusions.

I should really just have trailed off into something fun and entertaining now. It’s my first post after all, and first appearances count. Yet I’ll have to disappoint you – hereafter follows no such thing, but a theoretical foundation for my writings – when my writings follow my theoretical foundations, that is, which is seldomly the case (I prefer writing something entertaining – brainservicewise – than actually writing something I think might be true, as that’s often more boring). Stay till the end for bewbs.