There are blessedly few pictures of me outstanding (not withstanding any wanted posters I'm unaware of at the moment). Here's the cover pic of my (maybe) upcoming eBook, https://www.flickr.com/photos/123333225 ... 476271822/. That cataract surgery had a good ending, one where I actually go without glasses for the first time in a half-century. I still use glasses for reading or for watching movies and/or TV. But most of the time, sitting in front of my computer, I go sans glasses. I've worn little circles of glass in front of my eyes since I was five. Even now, 16 months after the fact, it's exceedingly strange NOT to have something hanging off my nose.
There are no others to crowd their way into my self-portrait. Laura passed away 28 years ago (the anniversary was three weeks ago). No kids. I live alone by choice (debate all you want whether it's mine or society's). My only constant companion is xplorer2, Pale Moon and Gmail. Judge (me) accordingly.
GM (I tried the image tag: It was not possible to determine the dimensions of the image.)
Statistics: Posted by Gary M. Mugford — 2015 Feb 08, 22:49
]]>
Did one of the Kilmatead lineage fall into the Twitter trap? 
Is it you or one of your cousins?
That's actually my old boss from 10 years ago - he runs a small horticultural nursery on the grounds of Kilmatead demesnes proper. Technically speaking, as a tenant he's not allowed to subsume the name publicly like that, but the same could be said for me as well - except I don't use it as anything other than a forum moniker - not even in an email address. Is it you or one of your cousins?
Considering that he has a wife, 3 kids and a small gaggle of grandchildren (who must be old enough by now to be plugged in), only having 2 followers isn't much to speak of!
I must remind him of that this week.Statistics: Posted by Kilmatead — 2015 Jan 04, 12:37
]]>
....what exactly is it that one can discern from a picture about, logic, reason, morals, virtues ?
Did one of the Kilmatead lineage fall into the Twitter trap?
Is it you or one of your cousins?
2 followers...
Statistics: Posted by CrossX — 2015 Jan 04, 12:08
]]>
]]>
This really seems to have taken on a life of its own after a (I thought) simple suggestion from Nikos.
There is a sense of community in knowing another person by more than just their words. Like it or not what we look like is part of who we are. And therein lies the issue. There has been an argument between reading a book (or listening to a radio play - yes, I'm old) and seeing a movie or TV version of the same. In one case we (have to) use our imagination to conjure the characters in our minds. When actors are supplied we, of course, use those images for the characters.
Part of me wants a picture of Kilmatead and others to "see" what they are like. But part of me likes the mental images I have formed and do not want to find out these "heroes" are not, in real life, as I have imagined. Seeing a person just opens a door to judgment: he is not as nice looking as I imagined, he looks older/younger/stranger than I had pictured him.
Sure, part of me wants to know what the person behind the prose looks like, but I am not sure I am willing to give up the person I have seen with my mind's eye.
BTW, I picture Kilmatead as looking similar to Brendan Behan. Though somewhat more rugged (like a combination of Brendan and a middle aged Sean Connery).
Statistics: Posted by drac — 2014 Dec 26, 22:07
]]>
]]>
what would have happened I wonder if instead of a picture I had asked you for something really complicated like your dental records or your view on the meaning of life 
Nikos chill, its xmas.I don't subscribe to the family photo thing. What if my family are ugly as fvck, or wheel chair bound, or autistic, or deformed, do you really think that I would post their pictures against their wishes in a public forum, to what end ?.
Statistics: Posted by dunno — 2014 Dec 26, 09:55
]]>
Statistics: Posted by nikos — 2014 Dec 26, 08:56
]]>
what exactly is it that one can discern from a picture about, logic, reason, morals, virtues ?
As the social "sciences" would have us believe, babies are especially attuned to (by nature) focus upon adult faces, visually extracting the mimicry necessary to fathom emotion and trust at (again, what the "sciences" tell us) is a fundamental level. This is probably more of an excuse for adults to feel better about scaring the bejezus out of the poor babies by constantly looming in their fields of vision, and cooing like the demented and selfish lot they actually are. Were the children to truly glean any nature from this, it would be one of hatred, distrust, and fear. And we wonder why we are all touched by some degree of haunting dementia when alone in life - it is that very solitude which provides the clarity from the illusion, and our true natures assert themselves - and we are always most fearful when facing our own most private motte-and-bailey keeps of faith.But that pictorial illusion runs deep in our psyche. How often (under post-pubescent sheen) did we attribute the most noble traits, the most virtuous logic, the kindest of natures to the people we were most attracted to? Do great tits really imbue a girl with nobility of reason? Of course not, but I wouldn't be the first man to admit he was swayed from the sureness of his better angels by a fine bodice!
How often have we lead ourselves unto beguilement just because that which "appears to be true" most often is not? The very language we use suggests the visual prejudice to hold the greater sway of our moral centres... for do we not look smart standing proud in our prim uniforms of obedience and tradition? I have, at times, reflected that a few thoughtful military leaders throughout history have suspected this trait, and intentionally introduced elements of the ridiculous into their dress on purpose. By the same token of counterbalance, the superficial forms of intimidation have served their purpose as well - and anyone who has ever seen the French CRS (Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité) charging down their person in full dress would be forgiven a bullish detail of brocade leather and silver distraction.
Despite the admonitions from the Buddha to the Bible to the Gods of old, our own animalistic-selves respond to visual stimuli, and most humans have just accepted it as "normal", if not so obvious as to be beneath notice itself. But are these "most humans" correct in their assumptions? Of course not - they are merely riding the crest of a wave that happens to be a quarter-of-a-millon years long. This gives them ever the excuse of impetus, the conservative momentum, the very justification of fear itself: Perceived Truth. So they take their photographs, and they film their births of record, they hire their Rembrandts, and they bequeath all this as paltry evidence of their existence. Bereft of foundation for logic, reason, morals, and virtues - they bequeath this paltriness nonetheless.
And we are. indeed, all the less for it. And it matters not to them.
(But, hey, it's still rather difficult to argue with the truth that forms a great pair of tits. What's a guy to do?
)Happy Christmas to the visually enthused, the sightless unseen, and the blind visionaries of yore. We drink to the health of ye, and lament the death of ye; rave on silent scions, all's the more, all's the more.
Statistics: Posted by Kilmatead — 2014 Dec 25, 10:46
]]>
Statistics: Posted by dunno — 2014 Dec 25, 04:15
]]>
The more "selfies" the world takes, the more "pictures" they collect and place online, the smaller the minds within that world become, as they sacrifice their own mind's perception for a technological convenience of perspective.
The selfie is part of a governmental strategy dedicated to tracking and identifying individuals, no doubt about that.Statistics: Posted by IneedHelp — 2014 Dec 24, 11:29
]]>
]]>
]]>
Since, as humans, we're really not very good at determining what "worthwhile" really means (if we live in a conservative world), and lord knows that the currently trending cultural traditions are not actually leading to any philosophical or intellectual growth any more (the Renaissance is truly dead), is it not our responsibility to look outside of our "expected" cordialities and behave as men and not echo the past behaviours of our fathers as an empty sea-shell?
Surely I can't be the only one in the world aware of the fact that when everyone else thinks something is "normal" or "expected" or "a good idea" that is the very time to scream and shout your way out of the plastic bag they've slipped over your head?
My father had a hard head, and thought he could both understand what poetry was and yet also objectively judge its place in the "wider world", thinking this self-satisfied superficial sheen could make him sophisticated. I always doubted that conceit and strove for immersion in everything, even if it proved disappointing in the end - and as strange as it sounds to the contemporary mind, personal pictorial representation as portraiture is one of those things I've always doubted as a valid form of expression. The more "selfies" the world takes, the more "pictures" they collect and place online, the smaller the minds within that world become, as they sacrifice their own mind's perception for a technological convenience of perspective.
I may have the least popular opinion on the planet in this regard, but as Bergson suspected, popularity is not necessary when cultural rebellion against the superficial is a requirement for the Élan vital to strangle the Ancien Régime. And he knew this a hundred years ago!
And if that's "anarcho-communist", then you need to read a little more of your buddy Bertrand's book, and really read it this time, and not just memorise the facts and figures!
3625 times, indeed. Make it a billion times and there will always be more things, Horatio, there will always be more.
(Hey, at least I'm living up to the spirit of the title of this thread if not to the spirit of the bland intent behind it. Rebellion always starts in your own backyard!)
Statistics: Posted by Kilmatead — 2014 Dec 20, 11:38
]]>
but when somebody has "talked" to one 3625 times and you don't know how they look like, that's weird
come on, i promise you we won't laugh too much!
Statistics: Posted by nikos — 2014 Dec 20, 06:51
]]>