back in los angeles.
john drove me back from LAX last night and we talked about the static nature of the language structure, so forgive any awkwardness of phrasing to follow. it is
unintentional, but definitely a product of some kind of paranoia.

i'd like my post to self-inspect the way yours did; it helped with the heftiness.
My curiosity about the human ability to explore one's own motives has always been hampered by an uncertainty of whether or not I really want to discover my own motives, and more importantly, whether motives at their origin have any discoverable quality (within human capacity to discover. It has always seemed equally likely to me that rather than "discover" our true desires, passionate search is likely to redefine or change our desires. On the other hand, I am intensely, one might say unhealthily, prone to question my experiences themselves.
I think that first part, my own uncertainty about motives, is, at a much more complete level, the same sensation that pierces the common attitude of non-questioning.
"Who cares why this roller coaster is fun? Or where this themepark came from, or why they built it?" and here is the loop-back effect: "because I am here and I want to ride it! it is fun!" The assumption is that the current experience is worth more than the danger and effort required to ask if there might be something "bad" driving it or something "better" beyond it. In short, the assumption is that there is little chance the worth of investigating beats acceptance of experiential truth.
The elasticity of this assumption is a large determiner in my current struggles to think about intellectuals versus non-intellectuals. Growing up with an intensely intellectual blue-collar-worker mother, I disdain almost all simplistic class divisions, but that does not mean I can conscionably think there is no gradient of tendency towards thought (read: question) between different portions of the population.
I re-read your big post a couple times because it was so full of thoughts I struggle with and new ones i was fascinated by. Probably the main two sections that needed to be reread were your thoughts about logic and nihilism in people's Concepton of All This, and the short discussion of your complaints with Gramsci's division. I definitely agreed with your frustrations as they were posed in the blog, but i don't think I read Gramsci the way you did. I'll be back after work. word.