Books: A Literate Passion by Anais Nin and Henry Miller

I have been trying to get back into reading books for fun. Given my odd assortment of academic required reading for my on-going dissertation, I have come to a point where I must also read for something other than incumbency, imperative, requirement, etc.

As I was cleaning up my desk at home last month, I noticed A Literate Passion: Letters of Anaïs Nin and Henry Miller, 1932-1953. It had been sitting there for a good six to nine months but covered under piles of other more pressing reading, it had been relegated for 'future reading.' Well, since the future reading stacks never seem to find breathing space in my house I opted to see what was the fuss between the rather controversial and apparently sexy Nin and Miller. Or at least their respective letters to each other.

All I can say now, a month's time into my reading is "wow!" And definitely more to come.... :)

Definitions: Prurient and other scatologies

Let's get on with some dirty ones, shall we?

randy
raunchy
lewd
wanton
libidinous
concupiscent
goatish (really? haha, autocorrection says this should be 'atishoo.'  What the hell is atishoo?)
voyeuristic
carnal (in Caló that's synonymous to 'bro' as in "hey, bro!")
salacious
prurient
licentious
unchaste
ruttish
lecherous
lustful

If you run into anymore of these beauties, by all means, add them to the list!

Definitions: Valetudinarian

I laughed at this one:  VALETUDINARIAN.

Had I not see its definition but based on the root of the word and well, the ending, I would have said it meant something more akin to a valedictorian headed to veterinarian school, or a vet who graduated top in her class.

You be the judge. Enjoy!

Definitions: The Fallacy of Composition and other oddities

The Fallacy of Composition reads as follows: If a part of a whole is deemed as true, then the whole must also be true. One example states, if a part of a larger whole cannot be broken, then the larger whole cannot be broken. However, even when smaller components of the whole are indeed unbreakable, it does not make the whole immune to breaks.

Now call me crazy, but I have yet to determine if there is a difference between the Fallacy of Composition, and Association Fallacy. While Wikipedia cites the Fallacy of Composition as something often confused with the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization, there is an unspoken agreement that they are not one and the same. But do I grasp that difference? Hmmm…When examining other fallacies, if you will, I found the Fallacy of Composition to be terribly close in meaning to the Association Fallacy. But, while one is constituted, or composed, of something, the other owns certain properties that are later assigned erroneously to anything that comes close it. Does that make sense?


The Fallacy of Composition reads:
Premise:  A are made of Bs
Premise:  Bs are C
Conclusion:  Therefore, As are C


Here is the example given for the Fallacy of Composition:
1. Humans (A) are made up of human cells (B).
2. Human cells (B) are invisible to the naked eye (C).
3. Therefore, humans (A) are invisible to the naked eye (C).

The Association Fallacy reads as follows:
Premise:  A is a B
Premise: A is also a C
Conclusion:  Therefore, all Bs are Cs

And the example for Association Fallacy goes this way:
1. John has black hair.
2. John is a con artist.
3. Therefore, all people with black hair are con artists.


Of course, when thinking of Association Fallacies, I much prefer this other example from Sir Humphrey Appleby:

1. All dogs have four legs;
2. My cat has four legs.
3. Therefore, my cat is a dog.

Art: Yayoi Kusama

Simply amazing!


Installation by Yayoi Kusama. Do check this out....it blows the mind. Truly. The closest I have seen is what people do with stickers outside the Children's Museum in Dallas, Texas. The posts in the parking lot are covered in stickers as people drive off after visiting the museum.  It creates for a happy atmosphere even in the hottest of Texas suns.