Requiem for a Great Cat
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
I think that's exactly what humans love about cats. They really have personalities. Unlike any other domesticated animal, cats aren't tasked with any job. One often thinks about mousing cats, but that turns out to have much less historical evidence than humans just... loving cats! Having pet cats and human civilization appear to be essentially the same thing. The book "The Lion in the Living Room" is excellent if you're interested in this topic, and talks about P-22 at length. Even if you're not a cat person, it's a must read for LA residents or anyone interested in anthropology.
My cat Cleo is dramatically different than Bea, and she is also magnificent!
I've only watched the movie version, but all these feel like they were words spoken by a character in CATS the musical.
We have a younger cat we adopted as a kitten that he really raised like his baby the first two years, before she rebelled and became a loner.
Lately it's been interesting watch her adopt some of his former, very specific traits months after his passing and sort of assert herself as the alpha of the house.
So just like people - you’re right - you’ll never find another cat like that - but you’ll find something especially different!
But I have to disagree on the chances. You know cats. So I think the chance of you being with another wonderful cat is very good!
A lot of it is how you raise them.
My delightful cat meanwhile had to be stopped from constantly trying to nuzzle you!
We started fostering early in the pandemic, a few months after losing a very special guy, and it’s been very fulfilling. You‘ll get a chance to help some cats or kittens get out of a cage for a few weeks and find new homes - and I’d be surprised if you don’t eventually find one whose home just happens to be yours.
> F*** cats. They are all the same. If you lose a cat, just get another one.
Obviously this person did not know cats.
T. S. Eliot, 1939
The Naming of Cats is a difficult matter,
It isn’t just one of your holiday games;
You may think at first I’m as mad as a hatter
When I tell you, a cat must have THREE DIFFERENT NAMES.
First of all, there’s the name that the family use daily,
Such as Peter, Augustus, Alonzo, or James,
Such as Victor or Jonathan, George or Bill Bailey—
All of them sensible everyday names.
There are fancier names if you think they sound sweeter,
Some for the gentlemen, some for the dames:
Such as Plato, Admetus, Electra, Demeter—
But all of them sensible everyday names,
But I tell you, a cat needs a name that’s particular,
A name that’s peculiar, and more dignified,
Else how can he keep up his tail perpendicular,
Or spread out his whiskers, or cherish his pride?
Of names of this kind, I can give you a quorum,
Such as Munkustrap, Quaxo, or Coricopat,
Such as Bombalurina, or else Jellylorum—
Names that never belong to more than one cat.
But above and beyond there’s still one name left over,
And that is the name that you never will guess;
The name that no human research can discover—
But THE CAT HIMSELF KNOWS, and will never confess.
When you notice a cat in profound meditation,
The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
His mind is engaged in a rapt contemplation
Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of his name:
His ineffable effable
Effanineffable
Deep and inscrutable singular name. The Naming of Hosts is a difficult matter,
It isn't just one of your holiday games;
You may think at first I'm as mad as a hatter
When I tell you, a host must have THREE DIFFERENT NAMES.
First of all, there's the name that the users use daily,
Such as venus, athena, and cisco, and ames,
Such as titan or sirius, hobbes or europa--
All of them sensible everyday names.
There are fancier names if you think they sound sweeter,
Some for the web pages, some for the flames:
Such as mercury, phoenix, orion, and charon--
But all of them sensible everyday names.
But I tell you, a host needs a name that's particular,
A name that's peculiar, and more dignified,
Else how can it keep its home page perpendicular,
And spread out its data, send pages world wide?
Of names of this kind, I can give you a quorum,
Like lothlorien, pothole, or kobyashi-maru,
Such as pearly-gates.vatican, or else diplomatic-
Names that never belong to more than one host.
But above and beyond there's still one name left over,
And that is the name that you never will guess;
The name that no human research can discover--
But THE NAMESERVER KNOWS, and will us'ually confess.
When you notice a client in rapt meditation,
The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
The code is engaged in a deep consultation
On the address, the address, the address of its name:
It's ineffable,
effable,
Effanineffable,
Deep and inscrutable,
singular
Name.Because we recognize, as creatures of language, that names have real, true power. There is something so magical and cool about the act of assigning a name to anything, it shapes the way we think about that thing.
In some of my favorite stories, finding somethings "True Name" gives you some form of power over it. That combination of sounds and syllables that lets you grasp something's essence, understand it, hold a whole abstraction in your mind at once - of course that would be something of great power!
I also love the correspondence to mathematics. Think of Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism for an example, or the long quest for a "Unified Theory of Physics". Maybe names need not be words, exactly. Maybe names can be equations, or snippets of music, or any other lossless compression of some deep concept - where, by knowing the name, you gain an understanding of the whole of something without losing anything in the reduction.
Anyway, spiritual mystical hokey pokey mumbo jumbo, I know - but certainly fun to think about!
Edit: but you seem like you did.
Unsong is a very idiosyncratic web serial novel by Scott Alexander (the Slate Star Codex/ Astral Codex Ten guy). It's a weird mixture of religion, sci fi, fantasy, comedy, and probably some other genres too. It's among my favorite things I've read, but due to the weirdness might not be for everyone. Still I think most of the HN crowd would appreciate it, it's truly special in my opinion
On my short trips, I sometimes stop by an odd store which is a combination of tourist trap (literally hundreds of varieties of bizarre sodas, Route 66 memorabilia, antiquated candies, homemade fudge, and so on) and a basic farm store, with feed and grain and other farm supplies. Apparently, a young cat had made himself known to the store by wandering in and boldly catching a few mice to display to the humans inside as a portfolio. Spec work for hunters. He had since become the shop cat, relentlessly patrolling. This was unknown to me until I saw this cat wandering about as I turned an aisle. A little surprised, I bent down and said "Hello," then to be rewarded with a leap and an armful of purring cat. The proprietors then told me the story of how he came to be there.
He is still there and is still happy to see me, but ignores other people, in the way cats do.
You may enjoy Three Little Kittens:
I miss her so much. I even managed to shave my beard with her on my shoulders. I still wonder how we managed that
In the Netherlands, there are 66+
https://unusualplaces.org/natuurbrug-zanderij-crailoo/
Other places in Europe: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/23/how-wild...
My brain collapsed while trying to digest this. Still I love cats.
Whenever I come across the word, it’s a pretty strong signal that a writer/speaker is simply trying too hard. Similar to the abuse of the word “unctuous” by food writers, it’s a deceptively narrow word that tempts people into seeing where they can fit it in.
It's similar to how we have a lot of ways to describe things smelling bad, but relatively few words to describe things smelling good beyond "fragrant" or maybe "aromatic."
I would go so far as to say that the median commentator on that site is the kind of person I'd want at a dinner party. That's high praise.
> 1: having, revealing, or marked by a smug, ingratiating, and false earnestness or spirituality
> 2
> a: FATTY, OILY
> b: smooth and greasy in texture or appearance
> 3: PLASTIC
I’m aware of the definition. My experience with the word has primarily been under the 1st definition, so the positive connotation that food writers have been using it with seems absolutely ridiculous to me. Especially when I would use the first definition to describe the work of many food critics (maybe it’s an attempt at reappropriation :P).
I don’t mean this in a harsh way, but using unctuous to describe “oily but good” properties just seems ignorant. I hear “unctuous” to describe a fried pizza the OP enjoyed, and think “slimy sales person” or “The Blob”.
I also get that language is fluid as groups repurpose words. I’m just not a fan of this one. Current usage screams that some food writer pulled the word out of a thesaurus instead of their vocabulary and somehow it started to stick.
> late 14c., "oily, having a greasy or soapy feeling when touched," from Old French unctueus, from Medieval Latin unctuosus "greasy," from Latin unctus "act of anointing," from past participle stem of unguere "to anoint" (see unguent).
> Figurative sense of "blandly ingratiating" is first recorded 1742, perhaps in part with a literal sense, but in part a sarcastic usage from unction in the meaning "deep spiritual feeling" (1690s), such as comes from having been anointed in the rite of unction. Related: Unctuously; unctuousness.
(Which is to say: there are probably Bible translations from before the sarcastic personality sense developed in the 1700s, that use the word "unctuous" as an adjective for the same effect that we'd today use the word "anointed.")
It's kind of fascinating that the word "unctuous" has acquired positive connotations with respect to food, from starting off as a relatively neutral descriptor. I think it's maybe a rare reversed example of the common connotative shift that happens over time, where if there's a "high [language]" word (usually a foreign import that sounds fancy and technical at the time of its introduction) and a "low [language]" word (usually a native or much older borrowed word) for something, then the "low [language]" word will acquire negative or rude connotations to speakers of that language. E.g. the difference in propriety in English between writing "I'm eating pork" vs "I'm eating pig"; or between writing "feces" vs "dung."
Not from Winterpeg or anything, just long-ago research resulting from my personal insistence that the guy from Propagandhi wouldn't be making spelling mistakes
How this photo turned a reclusive mountain lion into a Hollywood icon (2022) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/p22-holly...
He probably could have kicked P-22's butt.
Makes things so much easier :-)
by loudly vomiting up a furball onto the carpet.