Posts Tagged ‘linguistics’
“How do you feel?”
Posted by: adonis49 on: January 31, 2010
“How do you feel?” (Jan. 30, 2010)
A friend asked me one of his frequently mindless questions: “How do you feel?” I said “I am feeling my shit sexy.” Usually, I say what I mean. After my glamorous bowel movement, I had lunch and then had a long walk, and then I read and wrote and I still felt the effects of my bowel movement. Three hours later, I am feeling this lovely pain in my guts; a sensation that I had emptied a huge load with the accompanying pressures on my mind. I had siesta and felt this sexy pain. Satisfying bowel movement is the greatest achievement among my daily tasks.
My friend was appalled by my incomprehensible reply and said: “I was under the impression that you are totally broke to indulge in luxury.” I like to invent new expressions and terminologies in English: I was not born and raised in an authentic English speaking country. I was saved from memorizing and regurgitating boring idioms; I am not up-to-date on the latest slangs. I have got to do with the classics; more so that I was never in linguistics, anthropology, or ethnology fields of study.
It was during one of these sensational feelings that Barak Obama was elected President. You might heave a sigh of dejection but it is not just a coincidence. I don’t like certified crazy Bush Junior, that President who never set foot on “foreign soils” before he was elected also “President”, though he enjoyed the same moments of sensation. If you do the probability math you might realize that the odds are actually pretty high for coincidence of shitting sensations and catastrophic events. I can confirm that the odds were a certainty that Martin Luther King and Malcom X would be assassinated.
What is this? When I am ecstatic I cannot think; when I am morose I cannot think. I have to induce that I think when I am in a lukewarm temperament. Thus, “Not Thinking” and extreme mood zones are highly correlated; thinking and tasteless moods are thus pretty much independent: it is a firm deductive result; you might think, you might not think (same different), what you are thinking do not make sense, or your thinking can be revolutionary verging to lunacy.
Just to tell you that physical exigency is a fundamental factor to your mental output. I sometimes wonder at critics psychoanalyzing authors by their books. If critics are honest then they should comprehend a book was mostly “excreted” during lukewarm mood periods; thus, psychoanalysis is not valid in these cases: the author should be observed in “a not thinking” instances. Critics believe that authors basically lie down on comfortable coach, talk to themselves and record their babbling; critics get in the skin of relaxed a author who is figuring out that audiences have sworn the oath of confidentiality as his mental shrink. I don’t usually go off on tangents but it feels good.