posted March 13, 2003 07:23 AM              

have just been reading your article on natal merc in retrograde because i have it.

the exposition is rather on the mark.

i prefer the expression "challenged", though, rather than "repressed" although the latter is technically descriptive of the native. the former just gives a not-as- diseased connotation.

mercury rx...yep... makes my listeners or dialogue partners often wonder what the hell i'm talking about or where the heck i'm coming from. don't know how many times i get that 'huh..?!?' stare. am so used to it by now that it's become a source of humor for me. i break down in giggles whenever i receive that look because i know what has caused it.

yep...being "on a totally different wavelength intellectually" and having a "very unique frame of reference for experiencing" ..just have to be the expressions for it!

on top of this, i have merc in scorpio, that secretive, noncommittal sign of them all PLUS i lack air in my chart! oh, boy... um..i really should be saying OH BOY...!

posted March 14, 2003 02:38 PM              

The Merc Rx natally is often very challenging indeed, sometimes making it "more trouble that it's worth" to try to communicate what's on your mind.

I must say, however, that you communicated your thoughs quite succinctly in the post!

posted March 15, 2003 02:52 AM              

i do my best, Don.
i work on it, that is to say. (ok, perhaps the phrasing is a little off-beat here...)
otherwise it'd be something 'typical'.. like:

colleague: "a heart attack is just so grave. with all the advances in science and in the medical field, they still haven't found a cure for it."
taj: "the cure is found in the heart."
colleague: (wore an uncomprehending look for several seconds.)
taj: (didn't know how to explain though she knew what she meant)

anyways, still reading your articles...
now who'd have ever guessed that 'quindecile' is pronounced the way most people think it wouldnt be?

posted March 15, 2003 06:35 AM              

I also got a natal mercury Rx. Actually I don't have too much trouble expressing myself (maybe it's caused by my gemini rising?). However, other people don't get what I'm saying even though it made perfect sense to me. And I do tend to get into lots of friendly arguments due to tiny misunderstandings and such... lol

posted March 15, 2003 07:58 AM            

I was wondering how you find yourself re learning different languages?

posted March 16, 2003 01:37 AM              

yep, i'll always be able understand where another natal merc retro is coming from. .
i like to think that when the Higher Authorities decided to rain down earth folks with communication gifts, we were showered with a double dose of sense of humor in compensation.

sue,

i manage to do that as well.
but people learn a language differently. i have an analytical bent. my brain itches to get a look at the structure of the language after the initial pleasure of hearing it has run its course.

posted March 16, 2003 10:05 AM              

Thanks for bringing it up, very interesting food for thought.

posted March 16, 2003 11:27 AM              

I don't pick-up (consciously) the structure of another language (or my own, for that matter), but I get a "feel" for language - it's patterns, sounds, and nuances - pretty well.
Ex: I can't memorize and recall a list of vocab words or grammer tables for the life of me, but my head tilts and I give an RCA Dog look when I hear something that "just doesn't sound right" and I'm dead-on with accents after being around a language for a time.

posted March 16, 2003 08:13 PM              

We were on the topic of constructing combinational circuits and one of the questions was to implement a full binary subtractor. Er... to those not technologically inclined basically what it does is to take in 3 digits and produces two outputs: a difference and "borrow-out" digit: a minuend, a subtrahend and a "borrow-in" digit. (you know, when you borrow 10 from the next digit coz the subtrahend digit is too big for the minuend. Like 45 - 27. you borrow 10 from 40 coz 7 > 5. Therefore 1 is considered the "borrow-in" digit for 4 coz it's like 4 receives a "borrow request" from 5 while 10 is a "borrow-out" from 5. Blah, you get me, don't you?) Well, anyway, it so happened I was absent when the topic was discussed so I had to ask my prof to give me the quick lowdown. I caught on it right away, but I had my own understanding of the implementation.

Most people understood this way: x - y with z as a borrow-in digit and produces f(1)(diff) and f(2)(borrow-out) digits. In other words:

code:

---

          (z) <- borrow-in
           x
          -y
          ------
           f(1), f(2) <-- borrow out (borrow in for next digit)

---

However, what I had in mind was:

code:

---

          (x) <- borrow-in
           y
          -z
          ------
           f(2), f(1) <-- borrow out (borrow in for next digit)

---

posted March 17, 2003 01:13 AM              

Basically the format for subtraction is like this: minued - subtrahend - borrow-in -> difference and borrow-out. Take the 45 - 27 example:

5 - 7 - 0 = 8, borrow-out 1 (because 15 - 7 = 8, so you "borrow-out" 10, bit since we're dealing with digits, treat 10 as 1)

then,
4 - 2 - 1 (borrow-in from 5-7) = 1, borrow-out 0 (since you don't need to borrow)

Then, for the answer, just combine all difference digits (not add) -> 18.

Get me now?

And weird thing is, one of the "ideal" careers suggested to me was to be a teacher.

posted March 18, 2003 12:34 AM              

That's why I stick with more liberal-artsy, social science stuff -
well, that, and the fact that one can spout out pure BS and be believed.
No, really - I'll pull something completely out of my rear in class, and everyone nods knowingly, "Wow, how profound...really? I never would've thought...wow...you always have something good to say..."
"Oh, yeah...," >shakes head *no*, astounded at own off-the-cuff capacity<

But, uh, yep - my head used to explode _all_the_time_...and then I finished my math requirement (ba-dum-dum).

posted March 18, 2003 02:38 AM              

Math is really fun... Check this out. I even got mathematical proof that girls are evil (actually just found it in a local newspaper).

A girl requires time and money. In boolean algebra, AND is equivalent to multiplication. Therefor:

girl = (time)(money)

But since "time is money" we can substitute money for time:

girl = (money)(money)
girl = (money)^2

And since "money is the root of all evil", we can write it in mathematical terms and substitute it in the equation:

money = sqrt(evil)
girl = (sqrt(evil))^2

Simplifying:

girl = evil

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! See? girls ARE evil... *hides from all the girls in the forum*

posted March 18, 2003 03:44 AM              

While we're on the topic of math, check this out. I even got mathematical proof that girls are evil (actually got it from a local newspaper, but who cares about little details like that? ). Here goes:

Girls require time and money. In boolean algebra, the AND operator is represented by multiplication. Therefore:

girl = (time)(money)

And since, "time is money", we can substitute "money" for "time". That is:

girl = (money)(money)
girl = (money)^2

But "money is the root of all evil", in mathematical terms:

money = sqrt(evil)

Substituting,

girl = (sqrt(evil))^2

Simplifying,

girl = evil

There you go. Proof that girls are evil. *hides from all girls in the forum*

posted March 18, 2003 08:05 AM              

Again, don't get me wrong -
I usually understand the theories fine.
There was this one time back in HS when my math teacher invited her father in to speak (I don't remember the actual term for what he was, but long story short he's a nuclear physicist). He dove into his talk, beginning with the general principles behind what he did...the entire class's eyes glazed over...that is, all but mine. Everything he said made perfect sense to me...until after about a half hour when he began to "explain" what he was saying with a buncha numbers and signifiers. I was completely gone, but my friend Stephanie's eyes lit up. That's when she got what he was saying.
I have no idea how you people can do that.
I cannot for the life of me connect theory and formula - as soon as it seems like something might solidify, my brain turns off.

But, again - cheers to you

posted March 18, 2003 11:43 PM              

In my case, I can grasp abstract and philosophical concepts pretty well if they are explained to me (Sag moon?) but it makes it so much easier for me if I have something concrete to hold on to. Can't usually do it on my own, though. Reading philosophy books on my own gets me the same effect as reading a law book.

posted March 18, 2003 11:45 PM              

LOL Proxieme

posted March 19, 2003 06:09 AM              

a friend of mine will totally agree with you about math being the perfect language. he once explained cosmology to me in mathematical terms. i understood nada... until i took his concepts...and worked on them...the way i knew how i arrived at the same point he was at. he called it... 'in an intuitive sort of way.'

corri, am the one who usually goes wide-eyed '.....really?!?'