Archive for June, 2013

I feel nostalgic today… So i decided to talk about my hometown… Kiev.
I hear that some people get used to new country new environment very fast, and some keep longing for their hometown… I always wondered why this happens… why people perceive change so differently… After living in US for 10 years, i still long for the culture, churches, for the stone paved streets, especially my favorite – Andriyivskyy Descent, for the long walks in Kiev parks, for the nature and all the trees, for summer rain (which i probably love the most 🙂 ) and even for the snow… I don’t really miss people in particular… Of course every city has its good sides and bad sides, beauties and vices. Every time i come to Kiev i see its metamorphosis, it changes, people change, culture started to become something different, i think that is the reason i do not miss people, but only the City. I guess for now i can say, i am deeply in love with Kiev:)


Posted: June 20, 2013 in Philosophy
Tags: ,

Recently i came across the word “sapiosexual” and i was curious to find out what does this word mean. I found a lot of different opinions on this topic online, so i picked the most logical explanation to this theory-word, which i think makes sense at least to me 🙂



Sapiosexual is a recently constructed word (neologism) that has come into common usage, particularly on social networking sites where people are self-identifying as sapiosexual. It is a concatenation of the latin root sapio-from sapiens meaning wise or intelligent (itself derived from sapere which means to taste, or rather, to discern) and the latin root -sexualis as it pertains to sexual preferences.

What does Sapiosexual mean?

Sapiosexual (n): a person who is sexually attracted to intelligence in others.

Sapiosexual (adj): of, or relating to, finding intellectual stimulation sexually arousing.

I am not sure if i would add myself to the term “sapiosexual”, but i would like to quote my favorite quote on love …(i am not sure about the author though:))

“It’s beautiful if you find someone that is in love with your mind. Someone that wants to undress your conscience and make love to your thought. Someone that wants to watch you slowly take down all the walls you’ve build up around your mind and let them inside.”




Sarcasm is “a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt.” While many authors assert that sarcasm involves irony, or employs ambivalence, one author in particular has distinguished sarcasm from irony.

The word comes from the Greek σαρκασμός (sarkasmos) which is taken from the word σαρκάζειν meaning “to tear flesh, bite the lip in rage, sneer”.

It is first recorded in English in 1579, in an annotation to The Shepheardes Calender by Edmund Spenser: 

Tom piper, an ironicall Sarcasmus, spoken in derision of these rude wits, whych …

However, the word sarcastic, meaning “Characterized by or involving sarcasm; given to the use of sarcasm; bitterly cutting or caustic,” doesn’t appear until 1695. describes the use of irony thus:

In sarcasm, ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes. It may be used in an indirect manner, and have the form of irony, as in “What a fine musician you turned out to be!,” “It’s like you’re a whole different person now…,” and “Oh… Well then thanks for all the first aid over the years!” or it may be used in the form of a direct statement, “You couldn’t play one piece correctly if you had two assistants.” The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal intonation …

Distinguishing sarcasm from, and referring to the use of irony in sarcasm, Bousfield writes that sarcasm is:

The use of strategies which, on the surface appear to be appropriate to the situation, but are meant to be taken as meaning the opposite in terms offace management. That is, the utterance which appears, on the surface, to maintain or enhance the face of the recipient actually attacks and damages the face of the recipient. … sarcasm is an insincere form of politeness which is used to offend one’s interlocuter.

Hostile, critical comments may be expressed in an ironic way, such as saying “don’t work too hard” to a lazy worker. The use of irony introduces an element of humor which may make the criticism seem more polite and less aggressive. Sarcasm can frequently be unnoticed in print form, oftentimes requiring the intonation or tone of voice to indicate the quip.


Understanding the subtlety of this usage requires second-order interpretation of the speaker’s or writer’s intentions; different parts of the brain must work together to understand sarcasm. This sophisticated understanding can be lacking in some people with certain forms of brain damage, dementia and autism (although not always), and this perception has been located by MRI in the right parahippocampal gyrus. Research has shown that people with damage in the prefrontal cortex have difficulty understanding non-verbal aspects of language like tone, Richard Delmonico, a neuropsychologist at the University of California, Davis, told an interviewer. Such research could help doctors distinguish between different types of neurodegenerative diseases, such as frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, according to David Salmon, a neuroscientist at the University of California, San Diego.

In William Brant’s Critique of Sarcastic Reason, sarcasm is hypothesized to develop as a cognitive and emotional tool that adolescents use in order to test the borders of politeness and truth in conversation. Sarcasm recognition and expression both require the development of understanding forms of language, especially if sarcasm occurs without a cue or signal (e.g., a sarcastic tone or rolling the eyes). Sarcasm is argued to be more sophisticated than lying because lying is expressed as early as the age of three, but sarcastic expressions take place much later during development (Brant, 2012). According to Brant (2012, 145-6), sarcasm is

(a) form of expression of language often including the assertion of a statement that is disbelieved by the expresser (e.g., where the sentential meaning is disbelieved by the expresser), although the intended meaning is different from the sentence meaning. The recognition of sarcasm without the accompaniment of a cue develops around the beginning of adolescence or later. Sarcasm involves the expression of an insulting remark that requires the interpreter to understand the negative emotional connotation of the expresser within the context of the situation at hand. Irony, contrarily, does not include derision, unless it is sarcastic irony. The problems with these definitions and the reason why this dissertation does not thoroughly investigate the distinction between irony and sarcasm involves the ideas that: (1) people can pretend to be insulted when they are not or pretend not to be insulted when they are seriously offended; (2) an individual may feel ridiculed directly after the comment and then find it humorous or neutral thereafter; and (3) the individual may not feel insulted until years after the comment was expressed and considered.

Cultural perspectives on sarcasm vary widely with more than a few cultures and linguistic groups finding it offensive to varying degrees. Thomas Carlyle despised it: “Sarcasm I now see to be, in general, the language of the devil; for which reason I have long since as good as renounced it”. Fyodor Dostoyevsky, on the other hand, recognized in it a cry of pain: Sarcasm, he said, was “usually the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded.” RFC 1855, a collection of guidelines for Internet communications, includes a warning to be especially careful with it as it “may not travel well.” A professional translator has advised that international business executives “should generally avoid sarcasm in intercultural business conversations and written communications” because of the difficulties in translating sarcasm.



I’ve advised to read this book by a friend that thought that i would really like it. After reading it in one evening, on one breath, i have to agree – this book is very interesting! Reading this book was very easy, writers style was easily understood and definitely not boring.

The heroine of the story is a fox whose name (A Hu-Li) unfortunately translates in her adopted homeland, Russia, as something approximating  ‘what the f**k’. A Hu-Li has the appearance of a luscious 14-year-old girl, the mind of a particularly sly Buddhist monk and an endearing habit of name-dropping all the famous people she’s met over past 2,000 years. Originally from China, she’s now playing her vulpine trade at Moscow’s National Hotel. But A Hu-Li’s version of turning tricks is not exactly conventional (she was a virgin), she hypnotizes her willing victims, feeding off his energies with the help of her secret weapon, “a fluffy, flexible, fire-red” tail.

Though she claims an aversion to the messy business of sex, A Hu-Li is also engaged  in a passionate affair with federal security agent who just happens to be well-endowed werewolf with lucrative ability to conjuring oil from earth. The problems came when lone conflicts with duty: moved to kiss her furry shapeshifter, the fox unwittingly triggers his transformation into a five-legged black dog, that may or may not be the super werewolf of the title.

What is the secret of A Hu-Li’s immortality? What is the difference between the transformation of perception and the perception of transformation, and what does either have to do with werewolf’s, werefoxes and modern marketing techniques? How does A Hu-Li ultimately achieves her freedom?


P.S. Here is my drawing of A Hu-Li

by LinaWay

by LinaWay