I was asked to write an article for a friend whos doing a fanzine for the London fanzine convention. The idea was to write a letter to a hero. here's mine, enjoy:
Dear Mr Descartes,
Or Rene, if I may address you as such, and I'll assume I may considering we
can both, most probably, agree you are certainly dead.
Your death, Old Chum, is of course nothing to be ashamed of being born in
what is generally considered the 17th century. Although this period could
also be known as 'Kevin' if enough people were inclined towards the
revision. Science is, after all, a democracy of ideas. The ring of '15th
Century, 16th Century, Kevin' is rather nice, but I digress.
I write to you Rene, Sweetie Pie, because your philosophy more then anyone's
seems to have shaped my outlook. To clarify this, I mean my philosophical
outlook and not my email account. This as yet has not been shaped by a Kevin
Century philosopher.
Doubting our senses you used logic to devise proof for your own existence
which culminated in the famous line 'I think, therefore I am' which I agree
looks sexier in its Latin form: 'cogito ergo sum'.
I'm sorry that despite "I think, therefore I am' being general knowledge we
generally misinterpret it.
We may gallantly remember your quote, like extracts of Hawkins, hoping that
one day it'll fall out our mouths at the appropriate moment, but shoehorning the
details of Kevin Century Philosophy into typical conversation is difficult.
Passerby: "Nice shoes."
Me: "Well, you know.. I think, there for I am."
Passerby: "I'm sorry I don't see the relevance of your statement."
Me: "sorry, I'll keep trying. Have you read Hawkins?"
Now Rene, Luscious Boots, I get to the reason of my writing. Although first
I must address that, even ignoring your deceased status, your grip on modern
or post Kevin Century English may be limited. If you have any problems
reading this please call me. I'd love a positive affirmation of the
afterlife, even if it involves a long phone conversation about grammar.
Anyway, my reason for writing is I believe the concept "I think therefore I
am" can be expanded or reapplied. Which is most exciting in our modern world
where the re-appropriation of other peoples ideas is more valid then
thinking up new ones. Know much about the cutting edge components of the
Hadron collier? No? But I bet you've heard of a Spork. I rest my case.
Reapplying ideas rather then 'making new ones' is the foundation of modern
technology. Hence we can now forget to talk to our mothers with a plethora
of mediums.
You see Rene, Sexy Bloomers, the modern misconception of 'I think,
therefore I am' is we see it as a affirmative statement like something Arnie
would bark before head butting a nuclear warhead. However you, I understand,
meant it quite differently. Meaning it more as a affirmation of uncertainty
then a declaration of fact i.e. "I may be thinking, and if I am thinking
then I must exist as something. As If I'm not thinking then I dont exist to worry about it
anyway. So if I believe this thought exists then I must exist."
I grant you yours was more catchy. Abba could probably spruce yours up into
a pop whirlwind whilst mines more of a prog-rock epic.
Assuming I'm not totally wrong with my assessment of "I think there for I
am" I see room to expand the premise, or reapply the idea. Ca-ching! My
reapplication is that we can use the same logic to prove the existence of
the external world. Yes that's right Descartes I'm going to prove the
universe exists. Send me your daddy pants as there mine now.
My proof that the universe exists goes like this:
If we imagine the entire universe as a beach ball. Denying the Beach ball
exists and removing it still leaves a place where the beach ball was and
could be. The emptiness now exists instead of the beach ball. Both are
states of existence. The question is not 'do we exist?' but 'in what form do
we exist?'
So Rene, my latex kitten, I wanted to thank you for making me comfortable
with uncertainty. As Woody Allen may have once said "If you want to make God
laugh, tell him about your plans".
PS Do you have Sartre's keish recipe?
Dear Mr Descartes,
Or Rene, if I may address you as such, and I'll assume I may considering we
can both, most probably, agree you are certainly dead.
Your death, Old Chum, is of course nothing to be ashamed of being born in
what is generally considered the 17th century. Although this period could
also be known as 'Kevin' if enough people were inclined towards the
revision. Science is, after all, a democracy of ideas. The ring of '15th
Century, 16th Century, Kevin' is rather nice, but I digress.
I write to you Rene, Sweetie Pie, because your philosophy more then anyone's
seems to have shaped my outlook. To clarify this, I mean my philosophical
outlook and not my email account. This as yet has not been shaped by a Kevin
Century philosopher.
Doubting our senses you used logic to devise proof for your own existence
which culminated in the famous line 'I think, therefore I am' which I agree
looks sexier in its Latin form: 'cogito ergo sum'.
I'm sorry that despite "I think, therefore I am' being general knowledge we
generally misinterpret it.
We may gallantly remember your quote, like extracts of Hawkins, hoping that
one day it'll fall out our mouths at the appropriate moment, but shoehorning the
details of Kevin Century Philosophy into typical conversation is difficult.
Passerby: "Nice shoes."
Me: "Well, you know.. I think, there for I am."
Passerby: "I'm sorry I don't see the relevance of your statement."
Me: "sorry, I'll keep trying. Have you read Hawkins?"
Now Rene, Luscious Boots, I get to the reason of my writing. Although first
I must address that, even ignoring your deceased status, your grip on modern
or post Kevin Century English may be limited. If you have any problems
reading this please call me. I'd love a positive affirmation of the
afterlife, even if it involves a long phone conversation about grammar.
Anyway, my reason for writing is I believe the concept "I think therefore I
am" can be expanded or reapplied. Which is most exciting in our modern world
where the re-appropriation of other peoples ideas is more valid then
thinking up new ones. Know much about the cutting edge components of the
Hadron collier? No? But I bet you've heard of a Spork. I rest my case.
Reapplying ideas rather then 'making new ones' is the foundation of modern
technology. Hence we can now forget to talk to our mothers with a plethora
of mediums.
You see Rene, Sexy Bloomers, the modern misconception of 'I think,
therefore I am' is we see it as a affirmative statement like something Arnie
would bark before head butting a nuclear warhead. However you, I understand,
meant it quite differently. Meaning it more as a affirmation of uncertainty
then a declaration of fact i.e. "I may be thinking, and if I am thinking
then I must exist as something. As If I'm not thinking then I dont exist to worry about it
anyway. So if I believe this thought exists then I must exist."
I grant you yours was more catchy. Abba could probably spruce yours up into
a pop whirlwind whilst mines more of a prog-rock epic.
Assuming I'm not totally wrong with my assessment of "I think there for I
am" I see room to expand the premise, or reapply the idea. Ca-ching! My
reapplication is that we can use the same logic to prove the existence of
the external world. Yes that's right Descartes I'm going to prove the
universe exists. Send me your daddy pants as there mine now.
My proof that the universe exists goes like this:
If we imagine the entire universe as a beach ball. Denying the Beach ball
exists and removing it still leaves a place where the beach ball was and
could be. The emptiness now exists instead of the beach ball. Both are
states of existence. The question is not 'do we exist?' but 'in what form do
we exist?'
So Rene, my latex kitten, I wanted to thank you for making me comfortable
with uncertainty. As Woody Allen may have once said "If you want to make God
laugh, tell him about your plans".
PS Do you have Sartre's keish recipe?
VIEW 6 of 6 COMMENTS
but in a good way