Who won

The question is who won and why. The winner of a post-modern game would be the one who truely understands the post-modernism and all its intricacies and ambiguous hilarity. Toast wins of course. Tales wins, for their name was pomo with the wordplay. They never quite had a correct answer, but by their use of dizzying logic and ambiguous concepts to prove their points they forced the judge's hand into giving them their prize. What is a prize? Yet as things grew over-ruled, tales saw fit to grow into the most pomo position, becoming the uberman of Niestche. Using a double take-single return type of theft, making rules that imposed on the abilities of the other team. What is a winner? The tales team even gave their own value to the monetary sums, causing the money to mean different things in their own community. There are no winners. The truest winner in a game that is designed to show an abstract concept while building rules around which the players improvise is the one who is not bound by the rules, who creates their own, who defies the trees. In the end... The winner is... The last man standing is...

There is only I and who I choose.

Ros and Guil are XoX

The ambiguity is the key. The only thing solid is that which makes it mysterious and unknowable. A coin flip could be the ending of a time, a change in scene, a turn from fate to luck, or a gay joke. Nothing is everything and at that same time everything is always nothing. We are actors playing our roles, we are roles in our plots, and we are actors without scripts; our roles decide. Perhaps though, it is us, we are in control and take every facet into the light and make decisions. On a fifth hand, our instincts could be the role itself taking over for a wee bit of time...

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern I

They exist after they are summoned, remember nothing else. They are actors and characters, they see proofs that they are in a story, a coin that never flips something else. Curious though, I expected it to be more of a meta story about Hamlet.

Evangeblogization of Oedipus

The first fact that stands out to me as I read Oedipus is the fact that there is a punishment for sin. Oedipus sins in his anger, in his tragic flaw he kills his father. In his anger he hastily damns the unknown murderer. Through his anger he is eventually run out by his own hands, caused to gouge out his own eyes. His sin of murder, and the acompanying sin of marrying his own mother, while it seems he gets away with it, are in the end dealt with. Man understands the idea that sin cannot go unpunished because it is engrained into our souls by God Himself.
The other more suddle idea is the idea of fate. While wrong in calling it fate the greeks know instinctively that there is something other than them in control of the reality that they live in. The idea of God is replaced with the idea of a force that controls the entire area of every facet of our life. As a Christian we can see that the world is controlled by God and that the idea of fate is directly influenced by the idea of a ominpotent God.
With these two ideas we can see from the Greek perspective;
Fate leads to the fulfilling of a prophecy of destruction
and from the Christian perspective;
God sees to the Destruction of those who go against that that He has set down as law

Discussing Dostoyevsky

Extostentialism was a large part of what the guest was talking about. I forget what his name was so I shall refer to him as George from now on. George was well knowledged and I spent most of my time just trying to absorb all the details he was giving to us. He seemed very interested in what we wanted to know, but I felt as though I was unprepared to actually ask him any questions. He seemed to know just about every part of Dostoyevsky's life. I would really like him to be able to come back since we didn't finish our discussion, it would be very interesting to hear more of what he knows.

Does Rasky Repent?

While feeling deep moral depredation throughout the novel, seen in his many near confessions, and eventual real confession to Ilya, Raskolnikov does not truely believe that what he did was a sin and wrong. While in prison he never says that what he did was a sin, he merely attempts to figure out what he did wrong, to find what led him to get caught.

Mere Christianity

What we call 'being in love' is a glorious state, and, in several ways, good for us. It helps to make us generous and courageous, it opens our eyes not only to the beauty of the beloved but to all beauty, and it subordinates (especially at first) our merely animal sexuality; in that sense, love is the great conqueror of lust. No one in his senses would deny that being in love is far better than either common sensuality or cold self-centredness. But, as I said before, 'the most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of our own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs'. Being in love is a good thing, but it is not the best thing. There are many things below it, but there are also things above it. You cannot make it the basis of a whole life. It is a noble feeling, but it is still a feeling. Now no feeling can be relied on to last in its full intensity, or even to last at all. Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last; but feelings come and go. And in fact, whatever people say, the state called 'being in love' usually does not last. If the old fairy-tale ending 'They lived happily ever after' is taken to mean 'They felt for the next fifty years exactly as they felt the day before they were married,' then it says what probably never was nor ever would be true, and would be highly undesirable if it were. Who could bear to live in that excitement for even five years? What would become of your work, your appetite, your sleep, your friendships? But, of course, ceasing to be 'in love' need not mean ceasing to love. Love in this second sense-love as distinct from 'being in love'-is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriages) the grace which both partners ask, and receive, from God. They can have this love for each other even at those moments when they do not like each other; as you love yourself even when you do not like yourself. They can retain this love even when each would easily, if they allowed themselves, be 'in love' with someone else. 'Being in love' first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise. It is on this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it.