steinbeck
Re: steinbeck
I did like Steinbeck's work although frankly I got bored in The Grapes of Wrath, too American, too dust bowl, too far from interesting, and morbid and predictable, finely written prose, but perhaps that is a matter of taste.
Of Mice and Men I thought was brilliant, it had all the philosophical scope of an author, like perhaps the literary Philosophy of Dostoyevsky, but was down to Earth and more approachable. I suppose American writers are more down to Earth, Herman Melville to take but one, a dense but perspicacious tome, esoteric and full of symbol, but like the Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner weighted and meaningful. It's prose rose and fell like the sea for me, both literally like the sea in it's pacing, and figuratively in it's final crescendo. I was reminded of the style again in Crime and punishment, you might sit and read it, but you would get lost in the way it carries you on the storm and hours would pass like minutes as you fought in its rigging.
Of Mice and Men I thought was brilliant, it had all the philosophical scope of an author, like perhaps the literary Philosophy of Dostoyevsky, but was down to Earth and more approachable. I suppose American writers are more down to Earth, Herman Melville to take but one, a dense but perspicacious tome, esoteric and full of symbol, but like the Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner weighted and meaningful. It's prose rose and fell like the sea for me, both literally like the sea in it's pacing, and figuratively in it's final crescendo. I was reminded of the style again in Crime and punishment, you might sit and read it, but you would get lost in the way it carries you on the storm and hours would pass like minutes as you fought in its rigging.
Re: steinbeck
henry fonder play ed his part to perfection in the grapes of wrath giving the whole morbid drama energy.and so giving it the right balance.same as he did in 12 angry men.
Re: steinbeck
12 Angry men was a masterclass in fine acting and a superb film to boot.
Re: steinbeck
yeah henry fonders character takes up a nonlocaly objective view on a situation of justice on to which the 12 are in danger of putting there local concerns above justice.
Re: steinbeck
That's actually a very good way of putting it, finally your obsession with non locality pays off. 
Re: steinbeck
o thats good then blags.it means you your self are looking at things in that nonlocal or omni present way.
Re: steinbeck
Not really it means I like the analogy, I'm a true till I die atheist agnostic. I aint buying that religious bs, it's hypocritical, it's inconsistent, and it makes no sense. It made sense once when people were actually concerned with it: now, it's just a load of hypocritical idiots running around in ever decreasing circles. If a god or gods, or God exists, he/she/they are fucking clown shoes. No offence.
Religion is what you do when you can't understand something, when you get to the point you think you never will understand anything you declare war in your religions name, 'cause hell it helps to take your mind off the bs.
There is one thing that will make me believe in God, gods, god, Buddhism or Confuscionism or Tao, or The Big Elephant who rule the mountain: anything remotely that denotes he/she/they it exists anywhere ever. Hence the agnostic atheist thing.
Religion is what you do when you can't understand something, when you get to the point you think you never will understand anything you declare war in your religions name, 'cause hell it helps to take your mind off the bs.
There is one thing that will make me believe in God, gods, god, Buddhism or Confuscionism or Tao, or The Big Elephant who rule the mountain: anything remotely that denotes he/she/they it exists anywhere ever. Hence the agnostic atheist thing.
Re: steinbeck
ok blags lets imagine if we can the 12 angry men scenes taking place in a moving railway carriage.what i am saying with regard to the nonlocal consciousness is that it consciousness would not move as the brain moves along with the carriage but it consciousness would not be part of the event and as such dosnt move.just as if some one on the carriage was measuring the speed of light.its as if then that henry fonders character is taking up with the event as part of the cause so does not move and is then part and parcel with the mover not only of the train but the whole universe.so by being moraly right you assume a none moving status as you are with in that moment a part of god the mover.