astarvingstudent

(Source: storywanderer)

It’s beautiful.

(Source: llapasllaly)

houseofalexzander:

Lustrous.

A man in the grocery store line today approached me and said, “Sir, when I first saw you I was extremely attracted to you, but then I noticed that you are a boy. How… I mean, why do you dress so provocatively?”

I responded, “Well, in today’s world the majority of the straight male race view women as objects, or something that belongs to them. I dress provocatively because it attracts the attention of men in a sexual and OBJECTIVE way. However, when realized that I am actually male, they often become confused, disgusted, upset or all of the above. By inflicting this minor emotional damaged upon the ego of a man raised by twisted societal gender norms, maybe, just maybe the individual will think twice before viewing another woman with an objective attitude and sense of belonging. No woman, belongs to ANYONE. Male or female, the equality of human beings needs to be a priority. It is something worth dressing up for.”

I AM NOT KIDDING. The woman behind me, the female cashier, the old lady bagging groceries and the woman in front of me who was talking on the phone STOPPED, …. and proceeded to gasp and clap. The man shook my hand, told me to have a blessed day and then said, “excuse me ladies, I need to visit my daughter.”

…. I was shaking by the time I walked out of the store.

- Elliott Alexzander

This is great. Although, I suppose I have such little faith in our culture, I actually read the last paragraph as:

'The man shook [his head], told me to have a blessed day and then said, “excuse me ladies, I need to visit my daughter.”'

I almost flipped out until I did a double-take.

(via crookedhill)

jaimelerocketlesabricots:

Quand ça y est!!! Je peux retirer mon attelle!!!!
When I can remove my splint!!!!!

I always wondered why the other patrons didn’t do the same thing to their rooms that this gloriously crazy bastard did to his. I mean, if it’s a choice between being a creepy snail farmer vs. cannibal, I’d go with the wet room party with snails any day.

jaimelerocketlesabricots:

Quand ça y est!!! Je peux retirer mon attelle!!!!

When I can remove my splint!!!!!

I always wondered why the other patrons didn’t do the same thing to their rooms that this gloriously crazy bastard did to his. I mean, if it’s a choice between being a creepy snail farmer vs. cannibal, I’d go with the wet room party with snails any day.

your-death-in-my-hands:

Fake Smile on We Heart Ithttp://weheartit.com/entry/9893572/via/twodoublelife

magictransistor:

Nikolai Lutohin

lepasau-dela:

Stan Brakhage, Reflections on Black (1955)

lepasau-dela:

Stan Brakhage, Reflections on Black (1955)

(via ymutate)

retazosdered:

Mattotti

retazosdered:

Mattotti


thesummerofmark:

this is my favorite of all the symbolic representations of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem I’ve seen so far

this is how it appears in the first chapter of Boolos’s book The Logic of Provability, and the logic being used here is called “GL”, or just “provability logic”

here we see the “¬” symbol playing its usual role as logical negation (“not”)

the falsum, “⊥”, is also a standard logical symbol, and stands for falsity (the proposition which is never true; a contradiction)

the arrow “→” of course represents entailment (that which is to the left of “→” entails that which is to the right of it)

less familiar is the (modal) provability operator “□”, which declares that its argument (the thing to its right) is provable (in the logic under consideration)

so the stuff to the left of the entailment (“¬□⊥”) says that the false proposition is not provable - this is a statement of the consistency of the logic under consideration; it means that we cannot use the rules of our logic to prove a false statement

the stuff to the right of the entailment (“¬□¬□⊥”) is just the stuff to the left, with “¬□” (“the following is not provable”) stuck in front of it; thus it states that “¬□⊥” (the consistency of our logic) is not provable (within our logic itself); it means that our logic cannot prove its own consistency

and the entire entailment statement thus expresses that any consistent logic founded on GL will be unable to prove its own consistency

we can also rewrite this without negation by defining “¬p” as “p→⊥” (“p is false” is being defined as “p entails a contradiction”), leaving us with

((□⊥)→⊥) → ((□((□⊥)→⊥))→⊥)

"if proving a contradiction entails a contradiction, then proving that proving a contradiction entails a contradiction itself entails a contradiction"

karamazove:

'Nausea' by Jean-Paul Sartre, illustrated by R. Crumb

Graphic Novel

!!

thetinhouse:

One of Tin House author Matt Kish’s favorite books for 2013 was Isabel Greenberg’s Encyclopedia of Early Earth: ”Framed by an achingly sweet and improbably love story, this collection of myths and stories from a fantastical prehistory that may or may not be ours is deceptively simple and visually stunning.”
Check out other author picks here

thetinhouse:

One of Tin House author Matt Kish’s favorite books for 2013 was Isabel Greenberg’s Encyclopedia of Early Earth: ”Framed by an achingly sweet and improbably love story, this collection of myths and stories from a fantastical prehistory that may or may not be ours is deceptively simple and visually stunning.”

Check out other author picks here

magictransistor:

Harry Clarke. Illustrations for Edgar Allan Poe’s Tales of Mystery and Imagination. 1919.

!

carrionlust:

more Alfred Kubin

(Source: staticforces, via silenttaiga)