in Anglo American Relations, Cade Fon Apollyon a.k.a. Apollo Chicken, Day Off Shambles, History, Marshall McLuhan, media studies, Politics, synchronicity, Uncategorized, Who Knows What, Yellow smoking universe (reproduction) 24 Words

CLICK5: Statues of Limitations

16 thoughts on “CLICK5: Statues of Limitations”

    1. It’s probably earlier than that, Elena. When our species moved from hunter-gathering to agriculture and ‘domesticating’ animals to do the hard work…

      As for human slavery, the earliest known texts relating to it come from…

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity

      Could’ve been ingrained (pun intended) in our species’ development for circa 11 thousand years. Stopping or changing that direction reminds me of a supertanker…

      Like

      Reply


  3. The above is the letter “Y”.

    Why?

    Because I said so.

    ^Symbology^


    You can take any shape, and with the proper application of strength, make it mean just about anything.

    You can prolly even get people all hung up on continuing to assign meaning to a something long after any such meaning likely should have vanished. Get them completely riled, out of sorts and ready for war at the mere sight of the damn thing or anything even close to resembling it.

    ^German amusement park acts after uproar over ‘swastika carousel’^

    Good way to gain intellectual control over geometric shapes tho. Maybe even gain control over geometry itself. Before long, you could start defining what is and is not perfect and apply these standards to just about anything you so desire.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Pattern recognition… The makers of the amusement ride, didn’t see swastika shape in their design, but presumably a member of the public did, voiced it aloud and then others piped in saying, ‘I see that’ or ‘I thought that, too’. Rapidly shared on social media, picked up by mainstream media and voila…

      https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/

      https://quoteinvestigator.com/2020/04/11/casualty/

      *Share-lock’, Clicky?*

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply


      1. Whether the designers/engineers saw “the swastika” before manufacture and installation? No idea. I do know that the amusement ride industry is quite exclusive and difficult to break into. Loads of patents, lots of intellectual properties, and creating unique designs is likely quite a difficult proposition. Doesn’t do you much good to create a ride that is gonna get you sued into oblivion by other manufacturers and/or other parks, nor does it do you any good to come up with a unique design that is impractical, cost inefficient, unmarketable, or God forbid…dangerous.

        So with this meshing of geometry, physics, engineering and marketing, how does one come up with a thrill ride which meets customer and consumer demand(s), but is also structurally sound, practical and viable without violating fucktons of other patents? I dunno except maybe go back to the well because the downstream waters have already been diverted to other farms. Gotta be careful tho because those base shapes have a lot of prejudices associated with them. Buncha squares who can’t get oval themselves, stuck in their wrecked tangles, riding the wrongbus and running around in circles, triangling to be stars, all when they octagon away a long time ago ;-P


        Sometimes, you just don’t see things until you see them.


        Sometimes, yeah maybe you DID see something. But by the time the “are you seeing what I’m seeing?” cat was out of the bag (pun intended), you were already too deep in the process to go back. You just gotta roll with it a pray no one else notices.

        https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/a5cb92518bbef4c944ef3a0771c28ca7
        You can always spin the goof. Create some buzz. Create some hype. Any subliminal angles are somewhat quashed, and you can play the “we meant to do that” card. Still gotta be careful with that one tho. Not everyone has a sense of humor about such things. Sometimes may be better to stick with the “we did not see that/it was purely an accident” thing.


        Ignorance? Maybe. We all had a point where we knew nothing, and none of us know everything. I do know that embarrassment can lead to shame and humiliation, and shame and humiliation can lead to some damn dark places.


        We many of us are prolly more likely to associate with failure than success. Irrespective of one’s own personal feelings regarding the “Jackass” television series and subsequent movies, it’s likely that these ventures were so successful specifically because people relate to the failures contained therein. Seeing someone try something, seeing that someone fail in that something, seeing them get up, dust themselves off, then have another go? Many can identify with that. Success via failure(s). The underdog(s).

        Other than that, I gots no answers. /shrug

        ^Shape of things to come – Audioslave with Lyrics^

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply


              1. Do you have any thoughts on what allows us to purge such images or disassociate such connections? The “that which has been seen, cannot be unseen” meme is funny, and it contains truth, but we can and do forget things, and we sometimes may flat not see what others are seeing. (but we still have a memory that others saw something, and we also have a memory that 1) we did not see it, 2) we wonder why we did not see it, and 3) we wonder how and why (and prolly if) others were seeing what they were seeing)

                Maybe lack of repetitive exposure over time prevents “burn in”? Or maybe active processes/more active processes encroaching upon and utilizing disused real-estate in the memory banks? Maybe lack of secondary input to better reference a certain connection? Perhaps even migration/relocation of stored data/information creates changes in recall times which somewhat negates usability and perhaps even causes us to question the viability and/or validity of certain memories? (just thinking here about how secondaries can reinforce and validate instantia, and also thinking about how recall times and variances in them can potentially degrade data and/or modify the perception(s) of data

                EX:
                MEMORY 1: You see storm clouds approaching,
                MEMORY 2: You see storm clouds approaching, you smell rain.

                One memory may be more readily recalled due to the existence of supporting data, but both examples can reveal bias and maybe even prejudices Like, do you care that there are clouds in sky? Or do you only care if it rained or not. Just thinking here that many times we only concern ourselves with whether its raining or not. Once we can establish whether it is or is not raining, or maybe even whether or not it is or is not likely to rain, we reorganize the importance of the chronology and perhaps even dissociate logical sequencing due to a certain finality. It either rained, or it didn’t. Nevermind the clouds, what type they were, what they looked like, from what direction they came, at what speed(s), at what heights. Nevermind how the air felt, what it smelled like, what the visibility was, Nevermind what time it was, nor where the sun was, nor was the moon up and if so in what phase it was, nor that you were holding a beer, nor what the trees were doing, nor that you noticed many neighbors also outside watching the skies, nor that you suddenly became aware of your attire after noticing all the people out, nor that at the first flash of lightning many neighbors retreated inside their homes. Nevermind anything any everything, except…did it, or did it not…rain.

                Sorry for going off on a tangent after asking you a question, but I got to thinking about secondaries and whether or not they can establish validity, and also got to thinking about access times/recall ability being affectant upon perceptions of validity.

                ^Gladys Knight – memories 1979^

                Liked by 1 person

                Reply

    1. And Alan Turing wore ‘nein’ on the back of his football shirt? ;P

      As for Sub Doms…

      ‘The Domain Name System (DNS) has a tree structure or hierarchy, with each non-RR (resource record) node on the tree being a domain name. A subdomain is a domain that is part of a larger domain; the only domain that is not also a subdomain is the root domain.’

      https://roobeedoo2.com/2020/07/04/welcome-to-the-schop-zone-mind-the-gap/

      And the enigma of Brexit…

      Like

      Reply

  5. The sub domain has played around my mind since I started the new Merovee.

    The URL is a sub domain.

    And this quote :

    “Everything that appears in the physical realm is always connected with energy flow at the invisible level.”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a reply to Frank Cancel reply